This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Soyuz MS-10 launch
Soyuz MS-10 launch

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... 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.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


October 17

Portal:Current events/2018 October 17
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

[Posted] 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack

Article: 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Russia kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​An attack on a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb III: ​A school shooting in a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
News source(s): TASS, UNIAN, AP , BBC, dpa
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Many deaths. The region has been recently on the news and multiple scholars suggest a hot war there can start any day now, some might even suggest this here is a provocation to get a casus belli for a full-scale war Openlydialectic (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the nomination, but if it does get posted the blurb should say 'Kirch, Crimea' without specifying that it is in either Russia or Ukraine. The Russian annexation has not been internationally recognised and Crimea is still claimed by Ukraine. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Also Crimea is much more informative for the reader. I've added 2 altblurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, using altblurb 2 until it becomes clearer whether this is political terrorism, or just a US-style non-political mass shooting by a suicidal person, of the kind that we frequently hear from elsewhere, especially from the USA (I leave others to judge target article quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Please consider striking "US-style" in the interest of CIV. ghost 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, failing that, consider making it "U.S.-style" in conformance with U.S.-English usage. Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL, Sca, you wicked U.S. cultural imperialist.Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it should be fairly obvious to most editors that I was not intending to be uncivil in any way, but the fact remains that at least most non-Americans (and I suspect most Americans too, incidentally) tend to hear such stories coming mainly from America, so it seemed (and still seems) a short and relevant way to make more understandable what I was trying to say in a somewhat delicate area (what is and is not described as terrorism is often a political and civility minefield, quite possibly also in this case). I have now struck the allegedly-offending phrase as requested, and have instead said roughly the same thing at much greater length (along with this even longer explanation), and consequently with slightly more accuracy (and thus perhaps also slightly more 'sensitivity'/'civility'). But I hope I am not unwisely setting an unfortunate precedent in which fear of getting accused of possible incivility by those concerned for the sensitivities of the possibly hyper-sensitive (but not unduly concerned about the effect of such accusations on editors at the receiving end, and the consequent damage to things like ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain productive editors) ends up greatly increasing the difficulty of saying perfectly reasonable things here, as well as further damaging ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain editors, contrary to the aims of WP:WER. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – "Terrorist" may be mistaken. AP and BBC quote Russian officials as saying the attack was perpetrated by an 18-year-old student, one Vladislav Roslyakov, acting alone. Sca (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: "A polytechnic" won't be understood by many Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest "a technical school" or "a vocational school." Sca (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-2 - certainly in the news, but it's better to err on the side of caution and simply label it as an attack, as the motivation is not fully clear at this time. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Since we have two mainstream RSs quoting officials, perhaps we could make it "An attack by a student...." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notable evet, this is not an often thing in Russia. (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Now dpa quotes investigators saying "an attack at a college in Crimea is no longer being treated as a terrorist incident" but rather as a lone-shooter rampage. Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I omitted "terrorist" from the blurb, and made a few other tweaks for clarity. --Jayron32 16:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada marijuana legalization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Legality of cannabis (talk, history)
Blurb: Canada becomes the second nation to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana.
News source(s): BBC News, CBC News
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

 NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posted back in June when the legislation was passed. -Masem (t) 07:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw My bad. Personally posting it now would've made more sense in my opinion, but what's done is done. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 16

Portal:Current events/2018 October 16
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Berthold Leibinger

Article: Berthold Leibinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: An inventive engineer who made a small company big, wrote a dissertation at age 84, was a patron of many things, received many awards, including the tolerance prize from the Jewish Museum in Berlin. - I found the article with one ref, that for his death, and 3 maintenance tags. I did what I could. Many details and awards could be added, some from the German WP, some from the many obituaries (I picked one in English), if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ismail Amat

Article: Ismail Amat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Daily, CGTN
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the highest ranking Muslim and Uyghur politicians in China. Article is full sourced. Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ian Kiernan

Article: Ian Kiernan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Walter Dee Huddleston

Article: Walter Dee Huddleston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

India guru Rampal sentenced

Article: Rampal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for murdering five women and an 18-month-old baby in 2014.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of five women and an 18-month infant in 2014.
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Elton-Rodrigues (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: May have referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I have added blurb 2. The article is fully referenced with in-line references from RS. This is a big news. --DBigXray 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All I'm seeing is a local murder case with no major impacts. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. We post convictions, not sentencing. That said, would this be like a Catholic Bishop being convicted of murder? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think the gurus were that organized, this may be more like David Karesh. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Conviction was 10/11, FWIW, but we can post whenever we damn well please. The right time may vary by the nature of the case and the local judicial system, and there's no need to let precedent prevent us from improving WP. For my part, I think the initial arrest (and rioting) might have been blurbable. I'm sorta meh here, but I won't oppose. ghost 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We posted the Larry Nassar sentencing; I'm sure there are other examples.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally ITN has required at least a conviction. That doesn't preclude posting at later stages if that's when it's in the news. Modest Genius talk 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We posted nearly every update in the Oscar Pistorius saga. The time to post is when the item is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Reply/Comment): Not really like a Catholic Bishop, as he's his own boss. And not exactly like David Koresh, due far fewer killings but far more followers. BBC says India has tens of thousands of gurus, and this one has tens of thousands of followers, which suggests he's slightly more popular than the average guru, but not particularly special. The BBC adds he'd be unknown to most Indians were it not for the murder charge. To me at least, it looks a bit like an Indian version of the OJ Simpson celeb murder trial, except that OJ was an A-lister before the murders, whereas this guy was a Z-lister, but one with some followers prepared to do a bit of fighting in his defence. I'm not sure whether any of this gives it encyclopedic value or not, so when in doubt stay neutral, which is what I'm currently planning to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Feedback withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article needs refs and a copyedit. It's interesting, he was convicted of murder for deaths that occurred during clashes between followers and his police -- but the article has no details on that incident. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    A little context. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    The worlds leading search engine returns relevant content about a specified search term? TRM I'm shocked, I had no idea that was a thing. Thank you so much! --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No need to be a smart arse - you said "not seeing this in the news", turns out it is. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I look to the aggregators bing and google news to see if it pops up in the feed (I browse in-private so there is no bias to my previous activity). I didn't see this conviction. Then I read the article, it says he was convicted of murder and provides no details of the murder. An oppose double-whammy for me. --LaserLegs (talk)
Over-trumped your pointy bollocks. Shame, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Again, obviously you didn't look very far as numerous articles, such as this one from the BBC, give details of the conviction. AusLondonder (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The answer, LaserLegs, is that you listen when people tell you it is in the news, and especially you LOOK at their sources. Merely because you aren't looking in the news sources covering this, like the two noted in the template, doesn't mean it is. The world is a big place. Sometimes people who aren't you know different things. Your own lack of knowledge is not justification for making decisions. Your own refusal to accept knowledge people are directing you to is also not hopeful for your ability to contribute. If you want people to take your opinion into consideration, you need to make it clear you are basing it on knowledge and not deliberate, willful ignorance. So long as you continue to make it clear that you intend to vote based on your own refusal to look at sources people are showing you, that vote will be given zero weight in the final assessment. I am only telling you this because you appear to want your opinion to count. It will not if you keep down this path. --Jayron32 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tlhslobus is correct. He came in the news only because his followers started firing at the police who had come to his ashram to arrest him (it took police a few days to enter his ashram). Before this event, most Indians didn't know about him. --ASF23 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15

Portal:Current events/2018 October 15
Armed attacks and conflicts

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] European floods & Hurricane Leslie

Proposed image
Articles: 2018 European floods (talk, history) and Hurricane Leslie (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, amid a series of floods responsible for more than 30 deaths in Western Europe.
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, causing 15 deaths and injuring almost 30 more.
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Leslie makes rare landfall in Portugal, it also brings flash flooding to southern France causing at least 13 deaths.
News source(s): (AFP)(AFP)(The Standard)(BBC)
Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This event is significant for a number of reasons. First, Leslie is the first hurricane to make landfall in Portugal as an extratropical storm so close to hurricane strength. Second, the floods which have killed 13 in France and 12 in Mallorca (Spain) are significant in their own right. More details on the flash floods in France and Hurricane Leslie are available from Dr. Jeff Masters' meteorological blog. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:681D:8AA9:61D6:7201 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Tentative Support on importance; the article could use some cleanup/expansion before posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Updated article, but concerned that there are three weather patterns causing floods that just happened to occur at similar times, rather than a coherent period of flooding. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Hurricane Leslie, but Oppose European floods. I agree with nom that the Hurricane Leslie article is significant. It is also well referenced, detailed, and even contains relevant images. The European floods article, on the other hand, has a few problems: potential original research, a third (3/9) of the references aren't in English, and is merely a list of floods that may not even be related (see the talk page). Accordingly, I would support the current blurb IF the link to the European floods page was not bolded (and thus not a main article) but just linked to. (I didn't make an alt-blurb given how minor this change is). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There are not any European floods! There are some unrelated local events, but nothing on continental scale. (We pray for rain in Central Europe!) That beeing said. Article about Hurricane Leslie is in good shape and describe very unusual (once per 100 years) and sadly also deadly metorogical event. So I support only its nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jenda H.: I have created altblurb one that reflect my comment above, and I believe that it also reflects your comment here. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This is better. But majority of casualties in France was due to record flooding. So it is not just about wind as blurb suggest. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb per Jenda H. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Hurricane only. --Jayron32 18:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sears files for bankruptcy

With significant opposition based on both quality and importance, this is not going to be posted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sears Holdings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for insolvency
Alternative blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
News source(s): Dallas News, CNN, NYT
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Specter Koen (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: It's an iconic company, been around more than 100 years. Banedon (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Its used to be a huge company and force in american retail, so its collapse is significant --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is dreadful. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not yet the end of Sears, only a mechanism to allow debt restructuring from which it will emerge. Not the first or last brick and mortar store that failed to adapt digitally. Stephen 04:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements -- 2607:FEA8:A2DF:F1B2:AD67:243C:4AAB:7508 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principal, oppose due quality. As to timing, It's hard to see another more significant moment emerging later. There's might be some zombification for a year or so, but the company is dead now. Not the first or the last to go this way, but the most significant. Sears was the most important retailer in America for generations. ghost 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in a dreadful state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the merits. Sears (and Kmart, which has the same owner, too) has been in a slow death for several years now. This is just the latest step. If they go out of business totally, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is too poor for the main page (and rather embarrassing given the likely influx of pageviews now). Also, particularly in the U.S., bankruptcy appears to be a way to restructure you business and escape debt liabilities. It does not mean the business will close. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Bankruptcy does not mean closure.--WaltCip (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being. If/when the company goes Chapter 7, then it would be the right time. I also agree with everyone above in stating that the article needs major improvements. Since I started editing the article (which was fairly recently), I've spent my time mostly just keeping it up-to-date. Hopefully while the proceedings are tied up in court I'll have the chance to actually start restructuring it. Specter Koen (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability, per Stephen above. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Paul Allen

Article: Paul Allen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KING5 Seattle, CNBC
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Looks good at a quick glance; heavy editing right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Power beat me to it by a few minutes. Article is well-sourced and has no issues aside of the died template. pbp 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose a few CN tags (added by me) but none of the statements are outrageous. Allen touched so many lives who'll never know his name. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't handle the volume of edit conflicts; if they're still there in an hour I can fix them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
weak support blurb Pretty darn big as the co-founder of the once largest company in the worldLihaas (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. He co-founded Microsoft and gave away his money wisely. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Reasons? ITNC is not a vote.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No reasons needed for an RD listing. Stephen 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Influential businessman and philanthropist, technology pioneer, article looks good (only problems I see, that may get fixed soon given the huge flood of edits, are: citations needed, and 2 small sections that may need to be rewritten) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Has citations needed tag with two citations needed (by my quick reckoning) and an apparently problematic Honors and Awards section ( it is referenced though) Other than that, referencing is good. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have addressed the cn tags. The awards and recognition section could do with some work but it does not seem to be a showstopper. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Tags about his cancer need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just casually checked the article and added some more (citation tags). Sorry. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no need to apologize. I have addressed those tags also. Problems are much easier to fix when they are tagged. Looking further through the article there may be other hidden citation problems, but nothing immediately stands out. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

[Ready- Needs Attention] ROC–Constantinople Patriarchate

Article: Russian Orthodox Church (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople over the latter's endorsement of Ukrainian Church's request for autocephaly.
Alternative blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.
News source(s): RFERL
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Although the related nomination was problematic, this stage of the conflict looks definitive enough. The ROC article has been updated. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment We need a standalone article on this, IMHO. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess the blurb means to say "severs"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if there were a stand-alone article, I might support ongoing; if this is going to continue until the two sides are fully separated there will be multiple further events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • With no other ideas on how to name this, perhaps Schism of 2018 is a sufficiently descriptive interim name for a stand-alone article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe the articles will be of sufficient quality by the time the Tomos of Autocephaly officially is issued in November (or, if the planned announcement is scrapped). I think it's unlikely to happen before this announcement goes stale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage on this, including leading up to the actual event, to support. Banedon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
support was gonna nominate it too. This'd be like WP existing during the west-east schism,but just east-east schism. Eastern Christianity schism? Would be wary of uppercase S in schism just yet.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There have certainly been other Eastern schisms, though; the Bulgarian schism would likely count. I've created this as Schism of 2018; please feel free to move (but don't move-war). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm done with that article for the night. Hopefully enough of an outline that others can contribute to it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I have added some links to sources on the talk page and, for the first time in all my years here, I have put out an off wiki appeal for help with this. We just don't have enough editors who are familiar with Orthodox Christianity and the complexities of this particular situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Should it not be Muscovite schism since that's where the breakage came from? Never mind the background.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this Russian wikipedia article can give some guidance on how to form this new article: Предоставление автокефалии православной церкви на Украине — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Support on the merits. (I have added an alt blurb.) I am saddened to admit this, but none of the relevant Orthodox Church related articles are even remotely close to acceptable condition for promotion on the main page. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb does not explain the impact or implications to non-Catholics. A 150m person organisations sheds ~5m members. So what? Stephen 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The blurb cannot be expected to explain the details to the non-Orthodox (incidentally this is NOT about Catholics as usually understood in the West, where the term tends to be understood as meaning Roman Catholics). The article (or at least the section related to the split if we don't go for a stand-alone article) should try to make that understandable. Also it's not about "150 million loses 5 million", but more like "300 million seems to be splitting into two or more sides (pro and anti-Moscow/Putin sides, and perhaps some neutrals too), tho the precise numbers on each side are still unclear, but pro and anti sides each have far more than just 5 million".Tlhslobus (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And Vladimir Putin doesn't seem to think it's trivial (for details, see my reply/comment to Laserlegs below). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. It should also be useful for our readers to get an article that corrects some misinformation out there, such as that the EP has already recognised an independent Ukrainian Church (when the EP has merely decided to do so in future, presumably when the two independent Ukrainian churches have been merged). But I'll leave it to others to decide when adequate article quality has been reached.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article, altho written from an anti-Russian perspective, and probably suffering from a lot of wishful thinking as regards the future, seems to offer a reasonably clear explanation of what has actually happened so far, and may be a useful citation in relevant articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (if can get an article thats good) Currently, there is no tomos of autocephaly. There are three major churches in Ukraine. One is under Moscow, and is in communion with the rest of the churches, and they do not want autocephaly. There is also two schismatic churches, which is not in communion with any other church. They desire autocephaly, and desire to be recognized as a canonical church after creating a schism. The EP has decided to open communion with one of these schismatic churches, while the rest of the other Orthodox Churches still consider them schismatic and are not in communion with them. Further, the EP has stated they desire to grant this newly formed "church" a tomos of autocephaly "later". According to the Church in Russia and Church in Ukraine (non schismatic) what the EP has done is uncanonical. Other churches, such as Serbia, has denounced it as well, but has not taken any official action as of yet. Some churches, such as Antioch has called that a council should be called to discuss the issue.2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, once the bolded article is in adequate shape. An interesting and unusual news story, probably with significant future ramifications. Either the original blurb or the alt blurb seem OK to me although the original blurb looks a bit better. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question could someone explain this in laymans terms? It's my (poor?) understanding that there are 14 "jurisdictions" in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), the one in Constantinople recognized Ukrainian (church) independence from Moscow, and as a result the ROC unfriended them. So the other 12 are still just doing their thing right? This isn't a fracturing of the EOC, or even the ROC unilaterally removing itself, it's just two partner churches bickering? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its two local churches bickering. But they are bickering over hugely consequential issues. And the two churches are the most important in the broader Orthodox Church. The Russian Church is by far the largest with a little over 1/3 of all the world's Orthodox Christian belonging to it. And the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds the canonical first place of honor within the Church. So yeah, this is a very serious situation within Eastern Christianity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Reply/Comment: It's also 'bickering' seemingly with potential geostrategic consequences for the war in Ukraine and the wider conflict between Russia and the West that involves the world's two nuclear superpowers. "Telling of the Orthodox Church’s role in Russian geopolitics, on 12 October Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an extraordinary meeting of the National Security and Defense Council, where the “situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine” was discussed." Who are we to decide that we are better judges than Putin as to what is and is not important in geopolitics? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to !vote yet, especially given there seem to be some factual disputes over what has/hasn't happened yet. This blurb is at least a lot more intelligible and significant-sounding than the previous nomination. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Stephen. Larger significance not readily apparent Sca (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Incomprehensible blurb, lacks significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a rare and unusual event, the Russian Orthodox Church is perhaps the most important force in Orthodox Christianity. Article on schism has been created which should form part of the blurb. AusLondonder (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable and interesting story, and I'm indeed seeing this in the news. However, the ROC article is not fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is sound and Schism of 2018 is passable as a target article. Teemu08 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a second alt blurb, identical to the first alt blurb but with schism of 2018 as the bolded link. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
My problem with the first blurb and by extension the newest alt blurb is that there are three churches in Ukraine each claiming to be the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And the one that is recognized by every canonical Orthodox Church except for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has made no such request for independence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: In the light of your point, I've added altblurb 3, which is altblurb2 with Church replaced by Churches (tho I'm not sure this is entirely necessary). (Incidentally, the Euromaidan Press article already mentioned above by me says that 10 of the 90 bishops of the (pro-Moscow) UOC MP had also signed the appeal to Constantinople for autocephaly, which suggests there will also be some kind of split in the UOC MP, tho I'm not sure how significant that is.) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am not really sure that source is particularly trustworthy. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right that it probably isn't trustworthy on some points (as incidentally is also true with all other so-called Reliable Sources, as the likes of Noam Chomsky and others have been documenting for decades, even if Chomsky and his kind aren't always particularly trustworthy either), but I'm pretty sure it's trustworthy on that particular point, since despite being anti-Moscow it admits that it's only 10 out of 90 UOC MP bishops who are pro-Ukrainian autocephaly (the conclusion that there's likely to be a split is mine, not its own). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment+Question re quality: Including Ad Orientem (who was opposed on quality but supporting on significance), I currently make it 10-3 support on significance (11-3 if we include the nom), which is normally a comfortable consensus, with at least one editor deeming the target passable on quality over 12 hours ago. I'd like to mark it Ready, but I don't normally trust myself as a judge on quality. Might some editor such as Ad Orientem now please have a look at quality, and let us know whether they now deem it ready to post, or indicate what more seems required.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Schism of 2018 looks of suitable a standard to me, with sufficient length (except the lead) and good referencing. However I can still barely understand a word of it, as it's full of unexplained jargon and seems to expect a knowledge of Orthodox churches that most of our readers don't have. Could we get a bit more context for general readers, before directing thousands of people there from the home page? Modest Genius talk 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added some definitions and clarifications that I think will help in the understanding of the topic. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Either Alt blurb II or III. The new target needs a little expansion, especially regards reaction from the rest of the Orthodox world, but I think it is adequate. Marking this as Ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The lead of the target article is inadequate as does not explain the subject to a general reader. I do not think this is ready to link to the main page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen and others. The concerns raised have not been addressed, so I'm not sure why this is marked as "Ready". The blurb is essentially meaningless for someone not familiar with the situation, and not a good fit for an ITN story.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

closed per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 11:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (talk, history)
Blurb: HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex is pregnant with her first child. The child, due in the spring, will become seventh in line to the throne, after his father.
News source(s): []
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It’s a royal baby announcement, that’s it. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't believe we do announcements of pregnancies, do we? The actual birth would certainly be much more newsworthy. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. But will probably not prevent the creation of an article on First child of Prince Harry within the next week or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even sure the birth of the 7th in line is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for delivery and suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
p.s. did I say "the next week or so"? Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Óscar Romero

Article: Óscar Romero (talk, history)
Blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is one of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb II: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, and Pope Paul VI, are two of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
News source(s): []
Nominator: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Big deal in Central America; article seems exhaustive and reasonably well referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose canonisation is a routing occurrence (~50 in the last 5 years), nothing extraordinary here. Stephen 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Canonization maybe routine, but this was a major part of the civil war. Notable by the fact that it was Romero.Not to mention indicative of the direction the Church is mioving.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
"Was", not "is". We don't deal in yesterday's news. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, by the "direction the Church IS moving". WE do post todays news.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is it referenced that this is canonisation is a movement in a new direction? Stephen 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A footnote to R.C. church history. Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihaas. This is not just a routine canonisation, it represents a paradigm shift. It's a story of notable worldwide general interest which ITN promotes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihass and Amakuru. In the news and the article looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Church canonises people regularly. I am not seeing a paradigm shift either, he was your average conservative cleric from a conservative country in South America who though more progressive priests and denounced liberation theology, but when the rightist repression brought his country to the brink of a civil war he - stressing that those exist on both sides - denounced people who kill thousands of innocents, he was killed by right-wing militias.
    Tell me please, how is this important? I am open to voting for an ITN nom when they canonise someone like Câmara, but in this case? It's not even funny. Also, the article itself is just amasingly POV, apparently it was cleansed of all critical assessments of Romero a while ago, now that it doesn't even mention his early fights in the late 60-s with the majority of the clergy that was more progressive, his participation in conservative organisations and his enduring support for the government that only ended by the mid 70-s when the civil war already began... God Dammit, what happened to Wikipedia? Why is literally everything so POV here... Openlydialectic (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the very useful info, Openlydialectic. A short answer to your question would be that I suspect that everything is POV because knowledge is power, and organization and determination beat disorganized amateurism, so once Wikipedia became important its rules and practices quickly became made mainly by ideologies and other vested interests for ideologies and other vested interests, much like almost everything else in this world. But unfortunately my suspicions are inherently unprovable, and in any case this is the wrong forum for discussing this topic.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are enough gaps in referencing to preclude posting until they are fixed. Also I have to agree with Openlydialectic's complaint that the article appears to be extremely lopsided in its presentation of the subject who was, and remains a highly controversial figure. If/when these are corrected I will Support on significance. Whether or not one agrees with his far left theology (I don't), Romero was one of the most significant figures of the post Vatican II Catholic Church and is a giant in the social and political history of Latin America. Also Pope Paul VI who oversaw most of the reforms of Vatican II, some of them controversial, was canonized at the same ceremony. I have not had a chance to look at his article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that you say that you disagree with 'his far-left theology', Ad Orientem, given that Openlydialectic seems to have been saying that he was actually anything but far left, but that his conservatism has been suppressed by POV-pushers. Could either or both of you clarify this, please? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canonization requires first the literal "intercession of the Blessed after his death." Needless to say, the intercession of the dead into the world of the living is not verifiable (at best). ghost 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So its supporters claim, but that seems irrelevant - the fact that he has been canonized is easily verifiable, even if the claimed reasons for this are not. Being Pope requires believing in a God whose existence is unverifiable, but that doesn't mean we should therefore refrain from posting the election of a new Pope (and much the same can probably be said for many other actually or allegedly unverifiable things claimed in connection with many subjects that have articles in Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support from the source this looks like a long-running historical issue that still leaves undercurrents and is still important in El Salvador (e.g. from the 60k audience listening to the pope). Banedon (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - canonisation is near routine at this stage, and not worthy of posting at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
True of canonisations in general, but not necessarily true of this particular one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another saint in a religion which has thousands of them. I'm struggling to think of any situation in which we should post canonisations. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A little imagination can easily come up with examples which would at least deserve serious consideration - if they were to canonize a non-Catholic (e.g Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Mandela), or some extremely controversial figure (for instance some quasi-genocidal crusade-preacher), and so on. And I'm still trying to decide whether Romero qualifies or not (tho my initial feeling was no, and it hasn't really changed yet, despite being underwhelmed by some of the NO arguments). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added 2 possible altblurbs. These are arguably more accurate, even if they arguably also weaken the case for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Posting seems appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14

Portal:Current events/2018 October 14
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
  • An argument at a toddler's birthday party in South Texas escalates into a shooting that leaves four men dead and a fifth man wounded, authorities said Sunday. (CBS News)
Politics and elections

October 13

Portal:Current events/2018 October 13
Armed attacks and conflicts
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Venezuela releases political activist Lorent Saleh due to his poor mental health, after a prolonged campaign by and talks with the Spanish Office for Latin America. Saleh had been detained for over four years by secret services in Venezuela without trial, and is being transferred to Spain. (BBC)
  • Acting on an anonymous tip, Michigan state inspectors discover the bodies of 11 badly-decomposed infants inside the ceiling of a former funeral home in Detroit. (UPI)

(Posted) RD: Jim Taylor

Article: Jim Taylor (American football) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NFL
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Good article, so no issues. Death is sourced from two articles. Significant topic. pbp 22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 11:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Just pointing at the wrong Jim Taylor... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed. At least it was just the disambiguation page we reported as dead, not actually a completely different Jim Taylor. That would be embarassing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: William Coors

Article: William Coors (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA today
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Masem (t) 17:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - when the few sentences that needs refs have been completed. should be easily done.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    So, oppose. Noted. ghost 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is poorly referenced, poorly phrased and poorly structured. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Half of the article is about accusations of racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 12

Portal:Current events/2018 October 12
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

(Ready) RD: Pik Botha

Article: Pik Botha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): []
Nominator: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major figure in the years leading up to the end of apartheid in South Africa, died 12 Oct. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Chang Chun-Yen

Article: Chang Chun-Yen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Times, TVBS
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pioneer of Taiwan's semiconductor industry, President of National Chiao Tung UniversityZanhe (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Bumped up; Posted to Ongoing) Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi

Article: Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A week after his initial disappearance, Turkish Intelligence services conclude that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist was kidnapped to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, tortured and killed.
Alternative blurb: ​Turkish Intelligence services conclude that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist was kidnapped, tortured and killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Alternative blurb II: Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi human rights activist, is kidnapped, brutally tortured and killed by officers of Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Alternative blurb III: ​Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the government of Saudi Arabia, is reported missing following a visit to Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
News source(s): BBC, South China Morning Post, Russia Today, Daily Sabah, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It's not certain that he is dead, but the government of Turkey has said he was murdered. I don't yet support a blurb here, but it may be an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment & support blurb I've updated it into a blurb. I think it's noteworthy, seeing the media attention everywhere. Even here in Russia it's top 2 news right now. Much more importantly, and I am emphasising this as someone who's not easily outraged: Saudi diplomats kidnapped an American resident inside their own consulate in the largest European city, then proceeded to "brutally" torture him for several days, kill him, dismember him - all inside that consulate - and dispose the remains in the city. I mean, Jesus f***ing Christ. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind that we need to assert that the beatings/murder are the claims of the Turkish intelligence, not proven out yet. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    True, but the guy did enter the consulate 10 days ago and never went back, so something did happen to him. For analogy, the initial conclusions of the British intelligence about the Skripals did make it into the ITN. And in my honest opinion, even that act wasn't as outrageous as this one. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not saying that the Turkish Intelligence are wildly throwing accusations, just that at this point, it is their word to base it on. Don't want that asserted in WP voice. --Masem (t) 18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, because it's Turkey of course that has a history of staging false-flags, and not the UK. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • support blurb - article updated and ready. BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose for now. Sorry, but we need someone with more credibility than the Turkish Government to corroborate this before we post it on the main page. I suspect it's true but Turkey's current regime does not have the same credibility the UK did when it accused the Russians of nerve agent attacks on their soil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI, unlike the UK-Russian situation, Turkey and Saudis actually have rather warm relations right now, as noted by multiple commentators, e.g. 1 Openlydialectic (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The Saudi Arabia–Turkey relations article is severely outdated; after the Qatar game change (where Turkey sided with Qatar). However, Turkey owes quite a lot of money to the Saudis, usually very informed sources say that this will cost the Saudis a lot, but in the end they will walk away scot free (as they did in the horrible Saad Hariri affair last year), Huldra (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Note Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not the only countries affected by this; multiple US senators stated that, if confirmed, this would quote "break" ties between the two countries [1] (though the Saudi-US relations article is in poor shape so it shouldn't be in the blurb anyways) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Using the BBC's article, this is a developing story, since the Saudis are denying this. No body has been found, and no formal accusation has been made yet. Should that happen, that might be appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible lurid blurbs. Developing speculations full of uncertainties. This is exact kind of thing that Wikipedia should not post. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I will support RD as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose full of speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - He's much better known as a journalist, and was pro-government through most of his career till he recently fell out with Mohamed bin Salman. That's probably the first time I've seen him described as "human rights activist", to be honest. Not even the nom's sources use such words (haven't checked Daily Sabah though). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Also oppose, per others (for now). This is purely speculative, unless confirmed by reliable sources and not Turkish government officials. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the above comments, this is just speculation at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the disappearance, if someone can come up with a blurb without all the hyperbole. This was big news last week. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, lets face it: if he was still alive, the Saudis would have made sure we all knew by now. But instead even Thomas Friedman is tweeting request for answers from the Saudis, (for those of you who haven't followed the issue: Friedman wrote earlier this year a panegyric article praising the Saudis, more specifically Mohammad bin Salman in the NYT.) Huldra (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not changing my vote but extra points for use of a polysyllabic word with more than six letters that I had to look up. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Eh, thanks... But seriously, that NYT article of Friedman is one of the worst I have ever seen him written (which says a lot..) He didn't find anyone critical of the rulers (funny that, in a country where even possessing literature by a opposition member, like Madawi al-Rasheed, can get you a 15 years jail sentence. No, I am not kidding.) Friedman earned the scorn of other observers link, link. Read that NYT article, and then read his latest tweets. "Pathetic" doesn't even cover it. Huldra (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Alternative blurb III: A week after his initial disappearance, Turkish Intelligence services conclude that prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was captured inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, and killed. Khashoggi is far better known as a journalist than as a human rights activist (nobody would have called him a "human rights activist" just a year or two ago.) And it is, AFAIK undisputed that this is the conclusions of the Turkish Intelligence services, (minus the hyperbole) (wether or not the Turkish Intelligence services are correct, is another matter, of course), Huldra (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With special thanks to Huldra, who made my morning with the Daffy Duck link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD (contrary to one support for RD above) until the preponderance of Reliable Sources tell us he is dead. Neutral on some blurb about his disappearance.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurbs need a serious rewrite. All of them reek of editorial hyperbole.--WaltCip (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - What we've got by now is a man with a disputed fate who is said to be tortured and cut into the pieces. We're at least sure that he has disappeared and his whereabouts is still unknown. Given the Turkey's narration of the event, the astute reader will make his own guess after reading the article. So, it's not that different to have the disappearance or the murder on. --Mhhossein talk 07:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but wait for further developments before posting (update: new reports that Turkish authorities are in fact accusing the Saudi government, disregard parts of this !vote) I couldn't bring myself to support without a caveat. It's a very quickly developing story, and the international consequences are significant, but we should wait until either 1) the representatives of either Turkey or the United States formally accuse Saudi Arabia or 2) a sufficient amount of credible sources describe it as likely rather than just speculation. The merits of this story are absolutely worth a blurb, and it has hitherto not been unheard of for ITN to post suspected murders of journalists by governments (notably when the Russian government is involved), sometimes even before they are inevitably proven to be true. We absolutely need a better blurb, but in all fairness we can't expect a blurb that doesn't sound at least somewhat shocking when the method of execution was literally dismemberment. Aside from how the methods used are exceptionally draconian (which alone isn't enough to warrant a blurb), the international impact of this story is just as significant as the assassination of Russian journalists, as three countries (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United States) are involved. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident, and per Turkish visa laws, if this murder is confirmed it violates Turkish laws as well. Turkey already briefed the US, and several members of the US legislature from both major parties have already noted that if this murder is confirmed that it would represent a "fundamental break in our relationship with Saudi Arabia" and that they "must respond strongly." If the US or Turkey accuse Saudi Arabia, or if investigative journalists eliminate the speculation surrounding the story on their own, I will remove the caveat that we should wait. If nothing happens, this nomination will go stale. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Murky - developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It's actually also a RD item, he seems to have left the consulate in a diplomatic coffin. Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in general, but we have to be careful with the blurb. The story in itself has enormous diplomatic ramifications, and thus is clearly ITN material. --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The story has attained lots of coverage. I think any of the blurbs under consideration would be fine as-is, but I have no objection if we want to wait for further developments. Davey2116 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major news with geopolitical implications. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait What we know at this point is that the guy is missing. Were the more salacious details true, Turkish police would have no knowledge of them. They seem to have been made up whole cloth. Story is blurb-worthy, but it should be something like "Turkey accuses..." or "Erdogon demands..." ghost 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Countries throwing accusations at one another isn't really ITN worthy. What we're probably about to see very soon, however, is two countries recalling their respective ambassadors or even severing relations. And I think we'd be good to go when that happens. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support would prefer to wait till confirmed, but it is continuing to generate news. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support with Banedon's reasoning. Perhaps the blurb can be adjusted to match what is known at the present, and if/when the situation changes, then we can change the blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Support - Major story with international implications. While much of the story is unclear, the known facts and widespread coverage make this a good ITN blurb, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This needs to be published now. Support is overwhelming. Where are the admins? --bender235 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wait...What? Which nom are you reading? We don't even have a blurb yet, let alone support for one, that doesn't say "SA tortured and killed a guy." Needless to say, that cannot be posted to the MP unless we're sure. We DO have consensus that this is a big enough story for the MP. ghost 11:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    I'll reiterate that we need an on the record accusation or demand or some such, and that will be our blurb. Also, that should be nom'ed on the day it happens. Everything we "know" so far is unattributed. ghost 11:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    The first alternative blurb is fine. It clearly refers to the Turkish authorities as the source of the allegations. --bender235 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This continues to develop; supposedly there's a tape now [2]. I'm still not sure what the blurb should be though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is time to post this. Still headline news. Plenty of reliable sources available.BabbaQ (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support lots of coverage and article is ready. This is a major incident having geopolitical implications. US and Turkish officials shared video recordings which proves Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Several news outlets and journalists drop out of Saudi conference. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I propose updating the blurb and bumping the nomination to today's date since this is a new development. --Tone 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. Still looking for the blurb though...we can't attribute to Turkish sources that which they have reported anonymously to the media. There is a way to phrase this, I just can't think of it. ghost 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Can we do something like "Amidst a growing diplomatic row, SA denies allegations they killed..."? This is on the record, and doesn't require we attribute the allegations. ghost 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Bumped up since it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. Alternatively, one may consider Ongoing. --Tone 14:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not major international news (hasn’t reached here), though that by itself could be overlooked because of a lot of countries not being friends with Turkey. Still, it means there isn’t much widespread dissemination of reliable information. It should also definitely be put on hold because it seems like the user who turned it into a blurb is very personally invested in it being posted, to the point where they created a blurb about a horrific death before it was even confirmed that someone had died. Too much uncertainty, and it is a non-notable death on a worldwide scale (this person is not known outside of a few countries, barely known outside of one, isn't a politician, etc.) – other recent attempts to transfer a RD to a blurb for people with a bigger worldwide impact or whose death created large scale debate/effects have been denied, this guy is not up to blurb standard. The suggestion of hold is to wait for reliable confirmation of death for an RD. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That is blatantly untrue. This is major news everywhere and has had continued coverage world wide since he disappeared. It is the top news on CNNtoday just to mention one source.BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @BabbaQ: Please tread gently here. News websites often display content based on geography, so not everyone sees the same news headlines. Just because you have seen it everywhere, doesn't mean everyone on the planet has. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am stating that major news sources brings this up as their top news. A Google search also provides solid facts about how this news has spread all over the world. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I just opened the News app on my phone, scrolled all the way down, and it is not there. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's his individual notability that would warrant a blurb. If proven, this goes way. way beyond what's normally posted at ordinary RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In comparison, the Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar is posted below as an RD, even though TIME reports that the Venezuelan parliament has said he was tortured and murdered whilst in police custody within his own area. Should both get blurbs, then? Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - article also claims he was dismembered in the consulate: "One anonymous police source claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 • Still way too iffy to post. Note that according to the BBC, the Turkish government "has agreed to a joint investigation with the Saudis, and a Saudi delegation arrived in Turkey on Friday to take part in talks expected over the weekend." Perhaps some solid info will come from that – but it may take a long time for any reliable confirmation of what happened appears. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb3 which I have just added. ghost 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That blurb is reliable and accurate, but does it sound like it’s worthy of an ITN to you? For me, even if all speculation turned out to be correct, it’s not groundbreaking that a repressive country tortured someone who vocally disagrees with them. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
→ Yeah, "reported missing" doesn't cut the mustard. Sca (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That blurb does not reflect what is reliably reported. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • really? I just looked at the links I can access and the only certainty is that he didn’t return from the embassy, everything else, including his death is speculation. Sometimes speculation is overwhelmingly reliable, and it wouldn’t be surprising if it were true, but the only blurbs we could use are “he’s missing” and “people say he was killed”. BLP would mean that the entire tone would have to be neutral, which means that unless you’re a significant person or in an interesting situation “sources say he was tortured and murdered” isn’t a fascinating story. Kingsif (talk)
  • To reiterate Tone's point, it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. If you agree that this should be posted, help write a blurb we can actually post. I would argue that the blurb itself does not have to "sound" ITN worthy if the underlying story is, but the blurb must be brief and accurate. ghost 17:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On further consideration, I think we have to be careful not to become the victim of sensationalism here. The fate of the subject in question is still a relative unknown, and BLP applies here just as it does everywhere else on the Wikipedia. We can't post a news story without reliable sources to back it up. Altblurb3 is not especially newsworthy-sounding either. Long story short, this doesn't fit the ethos of what would normally be posted to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This might have big consequences if it is confirmed [3]. However, WP:NOTSCANDAL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality only; the "disappearance" section suffers from major WP:proseline issues. If someone who cares about posting this could fix that up, I'd remove my opposal. Prefer altblurb3 when the prose problems are cleaned up. --Jayron32 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, altblurb 3 is relatively better than the ones before it in terms of NPOV. But, as I already mentioned earlier, Khashoggi had been close to the Saudi establishment for as long as I can remember, and supported most of its policies. So describing him as a "prominent critic" seems to fail WP:RECENTISM. Can't we just stick to "journalist"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, it's not ever day that a person gets killed and sawed up in a consulate with audiotape available. And this was done knowing full well that they'd get caught. The Saudis are sending a message. Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't need to, that's what reliable secondary sources are saying. It doesn't matter if it is provable, what matters for ITN posting is the level of worldwide interest by the media in the story. This is a huge story. Abductive (reasoning) 15:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above and the problem that the linked article has issues with prose. L293D ( • ) 01:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose .......anything but a statement that this man has disappeared. Wikipedia far too often gets involved in international propaganda games. Even writing what one organisation claims would be doing just that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Abductive. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Kashogi's disappearance received massive media coverage from all across the world and we can post a journalist's disappearance in ITN but adding Turkish authorities' claim'll make it a conjecture.Amir (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this should be posted now. My earlier opposition- and that of many- was for RD which is now justified, since till now nobody is certain he's dead. Besides that, this clearly received and still is receiving wide global coverage. Many major news outlets at least run more than two stories and analyses on this; particularly UK's Guardian, CNN and AlJazeera. This is the time to post this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope. No matter how much speculative coverage erupts, "reported missing" is not ITN-worthy. As they say on crime shows, "Where's the body?" Sca (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No longer in one piece, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This template is for adding things that are in the news not things that are true and this story is "in the news" by any measure. Whether it's speculative or not that doesn't matter to Wikipedia. It's also not mere ordinary person that's missing, as you're trying to suggest, it's an influential figure, so influential that it's capable of causing this besides leading to avalanche of narratives from all mainstream media that have true wide international audience. It is when we post RD that we go wrong, because it means we come to an independent original conclusion on his status, and that's what I opposed initially.–Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. This is a major international news story with very substantial coverage and likely political repercussions. The blurb can be updated as the story develops, but Alt3 is OK for the time being. This is a far more important and "in the news" story than "Two astronauts don't die". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The preceding arguments merit consideration, but if the info currently extant is all that ever comes out, it'll never be proven. (If the Saudis were to officially declare him dead, that would be enough for ITN.) Also, IMO, the Khashoggi article exudes a somewhat POV tone, though it's muted. Sca (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: Absent from versions of ITN on French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and Russian Wikipedia. Sca (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Nonplussed. When did posting on ITNs of French, German and whatnot wikipedias become a benchmark for posting on English Wikipedia?. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Ammarpad. Of course, as is well known, the French, Germans, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes and Russians all lack intelligence and are devoid of good judgment in all things. Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Too right. Here's one of those Dutch whatnots for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The ITN sections of those Wikipedias usually provide a very good barometer of what not to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, just cheap Eurotrash. Martinevangelista123 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
In this particular instance the Rambler is right: Those Wikis' unanimous guidance is not to post the lurid, unconfirmed Khashoggi tale on ITN – at least not now. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Two astronauts don't die" was posted per ITNR. This story, provided it met quality requirements, would also be posted if ITNR said something like "Missing persons alleged to have been murdered are ITNR if they wrote columns for the Washington Post", but it doesn't (just pointing this out as "2 astronauts don't die" got mentioned above, tho I actually currently couldn't care less whether this item gets posted or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Could some uninvolved admin perhaps have a look to see whether this needs closing due to lack of realistic prospects for consensus, please? I'm neutral on whether it deserves posting. But I make it about 19 for to 15 against, so it's well short of a 2:1 supermajority (our typical consensus criterion). 3 of its 4 suggested blurbs are unusable speculation. It will be entering its 8th day in a few hours from now, and will presumably be distracting editors from more productive work for about another week if it isn't closed (assuming its bumping-up is allowed to stand). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb III looks fine to me. But relieved it would only be for another week or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb as significant story. However, chances for concensus appear distant given 20:15 ratio and most if not all of likely participants have already added their two cents worth. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Did we somehow count it differently? I just did a recount, and I've counted 23 support votes and 13 oppose votes. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This thing should have expired off, not been "bumped up". Time to die. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Not today Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, Altblurb III. A significant story that is still very much in the news and is having a significant international impact. Just today there is an article in NYT[4] about the effect of the story on the upcoming “Davos in the Desert” meeting, and on how various countries and businesses/companies are changing their approach to Saudi Arabia. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the vote tally is 23-13 in favour of posting, and that's not counting the initial wait that can now arguably be interpreted as votes in support Openlydialectic (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Some curious counting discrepancies going on here! Someone just a few post above made it 19 v 15 against...!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this should be posted as ongoing instead of a blurb. The fact that he disappeared is now stale while the political story is developing on a daily basis. --Tone 08:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, it's still on the main page of the global BBC News site and the various items of fallout are now of direct interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agree too. That's what I meant in my above comment as frankly speaking this issue have more coverage than all the extant stale stories on the ITN template. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing - OK, given the rough consensus both of the vote tally and the comments immediately above this one, I've posted to Ongoing, with the caption Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. If anyone thinks this is a misreading of the consensus, or that this is controversial, please let me know and I'll leave it for someone else to determine. (I think I annoyed enough people with my premature posting of Kavanaugh so don't want to cause any more controversy!)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Yes, Ongoing makes sense given continued peripheral and reaction stories. (Three sources added above.) Sca (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: At the barbershop Saturday morning, the top conversation topic was Khashoggi. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment we're featuring an orange tagged article which cites "anonymous sources" claiming the victim was hacked to bits? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Tons of coverage in the news. Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's patently untrue. It cites reliable sources that cited "anonymous sources". I am not aware of any Wikipedia article that cites "anonymous sources", please if you know any please show it to me and the template used since {{cite anonymous}} doesn't exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
My point is, coverage continues – AP, Guardian, Reuters Ongoing. – Sca (talk)
I'm not questioning the coverage, I'm questioning featuring an orange tagged article (removing the tag w/o resolving the issues doesn't count) with reliable sources citing anonymous sources that the alleged victim was hacked to pieces. Compare to the collective loss of shit when 100s of witnesses and actual video existed of an exploding drone attack in Caracas. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I’d recommend especially looking at that - blurb 4 there is certainly ITN worthy (8 people are injured in explosions that occurred during a Presidential speech) but because there was a lot of people reasonably saying "but if we post the news then we’re endorsing the official Maduro story, and we don’t know if that’s true" it got closed for no consensus. It’s comparable to this level of speculation and propaganda warring. And, on the topic, one politician arrested for the explosions died last week, with several countries (USA, UK, France, Spain, all of South America) saying they have reason to believe he was tortured and murdered by the Venezuelan state, which has reliable sources. Out of the two, which seems better fitting of ITN criteria? Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This story is considerably more ITN than that one, which is an important criteria. As a rule, we *trust* reliable sources, so we can repeat what they say in WP's voice. RS's are not saying he was chopped up, but RS's are saying that US/Turkish intelligence is saying that. As long as we are clear on that distinct, it's fine. The story here is not that he was murdered, but that important people are SAYING he was...people who would not benefit from saying lying about it. ghost 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"More ITN" or less or whatever I don't care, I just want stories which are "In the news" to be posted - so long as the article is good enough. Reliable sources published claims of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh and Harvey Weinstein and the loss of shit was so spectacular that it transcended space and time. This article is not very high quality, and pushes the unverified claims that this guy was hacked to bits. Hell, we refused to post the disappearance of the head of INTERPOL until he turned up as a prisoner of the CPC. Rather silly I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it "pushes" that claim. It includes it as it has been so widely reported. The source was anonymous, the article says that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing. Continuing to remain in the news, and the article is still receiving adequate updates. SpencerT•C 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate

Closed as no consensus to post, and factually incorrect blurb, and related factually correct nom is now open above for October 15. --Tlhslobus (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate is the newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church.
Alternative blurb: Patriarch Bartholomew of the Eastern Orthodox Church grants autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and independence of the Russian Orthodox Church.
News source(s): Reuters, Atlantic
Nominator: (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Added template for Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC) LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Am I missing something? From what I can understand they were explicitly NOT granted an autocephaly just yet. The ecumential patriarch just rescinded the anathema from the head of this church. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting unusual news on ITN. Ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question For those of us who aren't versed in Orthodox theology, could you explain what the news is here? I tried reading the article but it's almost unintelligible to outsiders, as is the blurb. Certainly neither are in a postable state. The Reuters story suggests this is de jure approval for their existing de facto separate church; am I reading that correctly? Modest Genius talk 13:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this basically grants independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, from the Russian Orthodox Church. Prior to this, there had been two independent Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, but they were not recognized by the world Orthodox churches because Ukraine was viewed as the territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. So this move grants recognition to the two Ukrainian churches, thus repudiating the Russian Orthodox Church's claim over Ukrainian territory. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Weak oppose – Per Modest Genius. Not accessible to most non-Orthodox English-speaking readers. Could be rewritten to make it more readily intelligible. Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality - Added an article frm the Atlantic that explains this a bit more - this is all tied to the Urkaine's separation from Russia, and while maybe political boundaries were already that way, the Orthodox churches in the Ukraine were still tied to the Russia Orthodox - and any of Russia's political activities that filtered through it. The autocephaly further breaks Ukraine from Russia. Unfortunately, this stuff needs to be emphasized more in the UOC article to make it clear why this is significant news related to Russia-Ukraine relationships. --Masem (t) 14:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Both blurbs, and the article are factually inaccurate. Bart has NOT granted autocephaly to the UOCKP. What he has done is to establish sacramental communion with them (something no other canonical Orthodox church has done), assert a claim to jurisdiction over Ukraine which he claims always belonged to Constantinople and was simply on loan to Russia, and declare his intention to grant autocephaly at some point (presumably in the near future). This is all extremely complicated and very controversial. I am going to need to work on the article as there are some rather glaring factual errors. Once the tomos of autocephaly is granted, which is expected to precipitate a serious schism within the Orthodox Church, and presuming the article is up to scratch, I will support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Even after reading the article someone unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the politics of Orthodox churches will be left scratching their heads about (a) what on earth this is all about, and (b) why it is significant - and based on Ad Orientem's comments I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant ITN anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest this be closed for now as the nomination was premature. Once the tomos is actually issued, and assuming article quality is up to scratch, this will be an important story worth posting. I expect a major schism within the world's second largest Christian denomination. But for now, none of this has actually happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality; orange-level tag at top. There's a current dispute over the article text being worked out on the talk page; we need to make sure the article text is correct before posting. Once that dispute has amicably been resolved, would have no problem posting this. --Jayron32 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, schisms of this scale are one in a millennium, is spite of all the oppose notvoters here who are obviously wallowing in ignorance. Abductive (reasoning) 22:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The factual accuracy of the article is in dispute. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly on quality of article and lack of clarity as to the precise circumstances surrounding the separation. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions (especially for Ad Orientem, who seems to be an expert on such matters). Regardless of the misleading current blurbs about autocephaly (which in any case are not about a new decision but merely a 'renewed' one, and are also merely about an intention that cannot be implemented in practice just yet), and regardless of fixable article quality issues, is the rescinding of the 1686 letter that conceded the right of the Moscow Patriarch to anoint the Metropolitan of Kiev (subject to various terms and conditions) not a once-in-over-300-years notable event, and if so should that not of itself be grounds to support posting in principle, and if not, then why not? Also does the current lack of overt support from other (slightly less exalted) Patriarchs make this non-notable or merely less notable? And does the current de facto independence of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches make Bart's recognition helpful in theory but a little bit academic and non-notable in practice (except perhaps for his rescinding of their excommunication)? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, an argument could be made to that effect, especially if this were a stand alone event. But it is actually part of an ongoing slow motion train wreck within the Orthodox Church that is likely to reach the breaking point when the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) issues a document called a tomos of autocephaly to one or more hitherto non-canonical Orthodox churches in Ukraine. When that happens the Russian Orthodox Church, currently claiming about 1/3 of the world's Orthodox faithful, is all but certain to break communion with the EP. That has the potential to become the most serious schism in church history since the split between the Christian East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). In other words we are in the middle of an unfolding ecclesial disaster that is probably going to get much worse. If there was a consensus to post this development, I think it would have to be qualified by noting that the EP's claim of jurisdiction over Ukraine is not currently recognized by any other canonical church. My gut says to wait for the big event, which is coming (though it breaks my heart). I would say that the lack of support from the other canonical churches would tend to make this less important, but again, only because everyone is holding their breath waiting for the big smash up. Ultimately whether or not Bart actually has the canonical authority to do any of this is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the Orthosphere right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful clarification. I will now oppose below. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem's above clarification.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AO above, and encourage renomination for future major events. SpencerT•C 19:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 11

Portal:Current events/2018 October 11
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Leif Axmyr

Article: Leif Axmyr (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Nominator and updater: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Davidgoodheart (talk • give credit) and GoingBatty (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Doug Ellis

Article: Doug Ellis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Birmingham Mail
Nominator: Amakuru (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former chairman of Aston Villa F.C.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose a handful of unreferenced claims in there. Plus, some odd stuff going on with some of those references... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've fixed up a few of them here and there. Not sure how much is required for it to be signed off. Also not sure why I'm spending time on this one as a Coventry City supporter who's not too keen on Villa, but there we go.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Because you're a good Wikipedian. I often spend time on budgie-related articles and Dweller is usually keen to help me improve any Tractor Boy material. It's one of the good things here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    He he, budgies and tractor boys. At least you guys always have each other to hate though... Coventry tend not to have fixed rivals because nobody cares enough to hate us back. We switched our main rivalry from Villa to Leicester for a while after relegation, but then we rather went our separate ways as we went to League 2 while they won the premier league. As you say though, we're all on the same team when it comes to being Wikipedians.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Coventry fans can hate Discworld, the premise of which mocks your club's crest. The world is, of course, balanced on the backs of four elephants which in turn stand on the back of a giant FOOTBALL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Fix the issues brought up bt TRM and I'd support happily. Deadly Doug's dead. Quite a tongue-twister. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

* "Run, Hucks, Run!" (byline approaches at high speed) "Cross it now!" (ball goes out of play) "Sigh...". Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Erm, ahem. If Messi or Ronaldo did that, people wouldn't stop talking about how brilliant it was. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Them were the days... True legend. Unlike Craig Bellamy, you can keep him, I think he actually did a decent job for you guys.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Problem is I'm a Leeds fan. He only did things like that against us, not for us. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - decent. good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I did support this, but it's been marked ready for 10 hours now with no opposition - so posting. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Soyuz MS-10

Proposed image
Article: Soyuz MS-10 (talk, history)
Blurb: Soyuz MS-10 (Mission patch pictured) suffers a booster rocket failure shortly after launch from Jezkazgan, Kazakhstan. Both crew survive an emergency landing.
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: GooseOfDeath101x2!wp (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Rare launch failure, with both crew surviving Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment: I *think* this possibly qualifies under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It definitely looks ITNR to me - it seems to satisfy every part of: "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the article is barely above stub, contains some unreferenced material, but the incident is highly notable. Blurb needs rework into a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. I support this in principle, but very few details are available yet and the article has little more information than the blurb. Once multiple paragraphs of referenced prose can be written about the event it will be worth posting (though the blurb could do with some work). Modest Genius talk 12:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Interesting and dramatic but lacks general significance. Also, at this juncture few details seem to be available. Sca (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    ITNR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I failed to notice that. Well, arguably this rescue seems close to unique and thus in a slightly different category than those listed there. Sca (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. interesting, dramatic, has broader implications. So I think it should [eventually] be run, but it needs to ripen. Short article with few sources. Let it develop. 7&6=thirteen () 13:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait article isn't quite ready yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support between now and an investigation, it says everything that can be said. Not often a space craft aborts and returns to earth like that. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support while further improvements are sure to come, the article seems to be ready, also, one of a few space craft disasters that happen above the ground and yet result in zero fatalities or even injuries Openlydialectic (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. First instance of a manned booster accident at high altitude in 43 years. May have implications for the future of the ISS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready, good work everyone. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Blurb needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest a better blurb and I'll post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu - second sentence could be dropped if desired. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Note that the launch was from Baikonur. --Tone 20:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PP comment – "... with both crew members surviving emergency landing" should be "with both crew members surviving an emergency landing." Sca (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not necessarily. Arbitrary WP:ENGVAR distinction, does not need to be changed between to equivalent phrasings neither of which is more "correct" than the other. --Jayron32 20:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Death of Fernando Albán Salazar

Article: Fernando Albán Salazar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar dies while in secret service custody in Caracas, Venezuela; multiple nations, including his own, publicly announce the belief that he was tortured and murdered by intelligence officers under instruction from Venezuelan President Maduro.
Alternative blurb: ​France and Spain summon Venezuelan diplomats to their capitals to explain and testify in relation to the suspicious death of Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar, who died in secret service custody within his own jurisdiction.
News source(s): Washington Post ABC News
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Venezuelan politician, died while in prison custody. Jamez42 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait We don't need a deluge of opposes; article is clearly in no shape to post. Let's assume nominator is just looking for contributors. ghost 11:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sub-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Aye, there's the rub. Sca (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Page is clearly in no shape, and I moved to Death of Fernando Albán as an article that could be posted to ITN if it is cleaned up quickly Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Scanlan has expanded and improved the article a lot, among other editors. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the page now is good enough to be posted. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Possible blurb? There is a journalist not even confirmed dead supposedly tortured and killed in an embassy, and Albán’s situation is definitely more notable than that. A blurb would be something like "Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar dies while in secret service custody in Venezuela; multiple nations, including his own, publicly announce the belief that he was tortured and murdered by intelligence officers under instruction from Venezuelan President Maduro" Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I didn't nominate this under a blurb because I don't know if it has received enough coverage. In any case I think it is noteworthy enough to be posted at least as a RD. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I’ve bumped it to blurb, this has been a headline in, just from the reference list, every reliable well-known British and American paper and at least twice on the BBC, which is definitely an ITN blurb level. And as said, it’s more of an interesting (and awful) story than the journalist speculation above, which seems to be leaning towards getting a blurb, so precedent would give this one, too. Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD - article has been expanded and sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I applaud the contributors who improved the article, but the blurb should probably bold it. The nature of this story is similar to the Saudi journalist story above, so I am likely to support on merits as soon as I get a chance to read more about it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Venezuelan authorities say it was a suicide, so of course he was murdered and fed to Chavez's dog right? RD is fine, article looks good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support at least RD It's certainly good enough for an RD. I'm neutral on the blurb only because I haven't had time to read up on it. ghost 11:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @331dot: if it's not stale, there seems to be consensus to post this to RD at least. Article looks ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD it's just fine for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
There are four RDs currently listed, the oldest also being from the 11th(as this one is). Who do I bump off? 331dot (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The one which has been posted the longest. Unless two were posted simultaneously. In which case just bump the last one listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm posting this to RD, discussion of a blurb can continue. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Would it be more relevant to say that Albán is Colombian, because of the fighting between the countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 10

Portal:Current events/2018 October 10
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Closed) RD: Tex Winter

Stale. SpencerT•C 03:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tex Winter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former collegiate and professional basketball coach. Andise1 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article is sparsely referenced. His head coaching record in particular has no references at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has issues with both its citations and its lead section. It is simply unworthy of being on the Main Page. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) (Posted) Hurricane Michael

I'm closing this. It's posted, it won't be pulled, errors can go to ERRORS, and this has degenerated now into three walls of text. Revert and refer me to AN/I if I overstepped my "authority". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hurricane Michael (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Michael makes landfall near Mexico Beach, Florida as a Category 4 storm, with sustained winds of 155 miles per hour (249 km/h).
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Michael makes landfall near Mexico Beach, Florida as a Category 4 storm, after causing at least 13 deaths in Central America.
News source(s): New York Times, The Weather Channel, BBC
Nominator: Jayron32 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Storm has made landfall. This is a strong Cat 4 storm, at the point of landfall the sustained winds were only 1 mph lower than the minimum Cat 5 threshold, and is universally expected to be one of the most destructive storms to hit the Florida panhandle. Article quality is sufficient and news sources are covering this in sufficient detail. Jayron32 18:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is up to date and impact is clearly enough to justify ITN posting; blurb will need updating once damage is clearer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This ain't your typical nor'easter (to use the vernacular). Even if we don't get crystal-balley about the extent of the damage, it's still one of the largest to hit the Southeastern U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Only the hurricanes of 1992, 1969 and 1935 have exceeded 150 mph in the 50 states (or territories that later became states). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The third-most intense Atlantic hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States is a big deal. Plus there are already at least 13 deaths attributed to the system. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Major storm and article looks good.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintenance tagged right now, and no indication in the blurb as to its impact thus far. Y'all may think it "goes without saying" but it really doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It really does.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We don't have WP:ITNR rules for natural disasters, for reasons that I hope don't need to be said. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
All maintenance tags appear to have been resolved. --Jayron32 19:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the point is that none of the factoids are in the blurb. Get the blurb right please. Oh, and I don't understand what ITNR has to do with this at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow. "Third-strongest hurricane to hit Florida" is trivia that shouldn't be in the blurb. Location and strength are in the blurb and article; it's too soon to have initial death/damage estimates in the US. I'm not opposed to "after causing 12 deaths in Central America" in the blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well that's convenient because I don't follow you either, ITNR?? The blurb just says there's a storm that's made landfall. That is certainly not the news story here. The destructiveness of the storm, or the casualties, or the $bn damage, etc etc, that's the story. See below, we need some indication of effect here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned ITNR because it seemed you were opposing based on the theory that this wasn't significant enough, rather than because the blurb is incomplete. I continue to feel that your "goes without saying" assessment is accurate regarding significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I still don't follow what relevance ITNR has, even if I was opposing it on significance, that's not making any sense. It doesn't go without saying, my assessment was the opposite to what you just said, anything else to confuse things??? However, if we adjust the blurb and now the maintenance tag has been addressed (or at least just removed), then we might be getting somewhere. Wow, talk about mountains from molehills... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Just ignore this. DoctorSpeedWant to talk? 20:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major hurricane very much in the news right now. -Zanhe (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major hurricane, third most powerful to hit Florida, many deaths. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but I would suggest changing or adding to the blurb to indicate the destruction it has already caused, which is itself newsworthy, as opposed to the damage it might cause. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
I agree. Jusdafax (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The opposer fails to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Who said "the opposer" was trying to "convince"? At least "the opposer" offered some quantitative opinion and looked at the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the real outstanding question is whether something needs to be added to the lead now before posting; it's clear that this will be posted in the next 24 hours. I don't support using numbers based on speculation like [6] (US$13-19 billion) and [7] (up to US$30 billion). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
What about referring to fatalities? Something like Hurricane Michael causes 13 fatalities in Central America? Someone who is strong at English composition could find a way to attach that to the current blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
The altblurb now presented fits the bill, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – As with most storm stories, the landfall is just the beginning. Developing. Sca (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: Note that the third and fourth words in the article are "is currently." Premature for ITN (and unencyclopedic). Sca (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait because it's just made landfall. Think we can find something to blurb other than death toll? Wind speed record or something? It's gotten grim reading "X disaster happens killing at least Y people" --LaserLegs (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Like 3rd lowest pressure and 4th fastest wind in US history? Most intense US hurricane since 1992? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support post now and update the blurb as the situation develops. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt-blurb – clear consensus to post, Central America included for more inclusive/complete coverage. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment on blurb - Until the news is clearer, I suggest the current front page blurb should stand (ie. without the specific city, which is meaningless to most non-U.S. readers). However, I would also suggest adding the following words to the current front page blurb:
    • "a historic" in front of "landfall" (first ever of that strength within recorded history in that part of the U.S. South)
    • "the Florida Panhandle" replacing "Florida" (this is the historic part of the landfall, other parts of Florida previously saw Hurricane Andrew)
    • "strong" in front of "Category 4 storm" (2 mph short of Category 5).

- Tenebris (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

    • No, just stick to NPOV facts, so per the BBC, it's the third-strongest storm to hit the US mainland. Only two fatalities there so far, far fewer than the limo accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • (laugh) -- you really consider the above facts to NOT be NPOV? ... which btw are all already referenced in the article. Since you always carefully check article citations -- some of which have said all of the above verbatim -- I really did assume this part did not need to be said (e.g. ref 31: "Why Hurricane Michael's Landfall Is Historic"). But since UK references are still missing, I provide you the following:
I do notice that "The Daily Mirror" and "The Express" have both skimped on their non-picture coverage of a non-Brexit hurricane and seem not to have gotten around to mentioning those facts yet. Perhaps (POV) they follow the "major news = # of deaths" criterion which has repeatedly been opposed here at ITN?
Disclaimer:The above post has been made by someone who vividly remembers Hurricane Andrew - which, yes, was stronger at landfall (with results you can imagine), but whose subsequent path followed a much more hurricane-hardened zone. This is why the "historic" is relevant to this blurb.
- Tenebris (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
All very interesting, but we'll stick with the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Every one of the words I suggested ("historic", "Florida Panhandle", and "strong") is fact, both NPOV and referenced in the article. I am sure you know this much better than you just indicated, since you always check page citations for ITN articles. However, if you prefer, we could substitute the BBC's "record-breaking" for "strong". - Tenebris (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I just indicated that there is no necessity to bolster the blurb, it's perfectly apt. Once the predicted billions of dollars of damage and masses of deaths occur, then we can update accordingly. Of course, this is not the location to start attempting to modify items that are already on the main page, you know that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
How ironic coming from you, considering how many times you have told others on the front (talk) page that any proposed changes should be taken to ITN. As to "apt", my proposals are no less "apt" than the status quo. However, those small additions also clarify the uniqueness of this hurricane, which the current blurb does not. - Tenebris (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even me. No need to start personalising things now is there? Very coarse. The blurb doesn't need clarification in the manner you have suggested, that's for tabloids and sensationalism. We'll stick with facts, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Curious that the BBC uses the exact same language as I propose. Do you consider the BBC a tabloid? And, again, again, again - what I propose IS fact, both (repeatedly) cited and NPOV. Please stop implying that it is otherwise. - Tenebris (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The blurb already says exactly what it needs to say. There is no need to inject terms designed to generate hysteria, point of view, peacock terms etc. This is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia, where we stick to the facts, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
To keep insisting that the recommended changes are not facts but hyperbole, ignoring all NPOV evidence to the contrary, is starting to verge on personal attack on me. You have a right to your opinion; but at this particular moment, in your determination to ignore every bit of NPOV evidence I have provided, your opinion is no longer fact-based. - Tenebris (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the only individual personalising this is you. My opinion is solid. Besides, the blurb is only a synopsis to enable people to find the article they're looking for. And that's already been very satisfactorily achieved. Oh, and it can't be a "personal" attack on an IP which can be used by anyone and everyone! Feel free to log-in and start some drama at ANI though, it won't take long to resolve I'm certain! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
(laugh) Oy, the logic holes in that last post! But truth be known, I have very little interest in attempted external alteration of fixed opinion. For one thing, it never works. The only reason I have posted in this thread at all is because this is one time I could improve something beyond the merely adequate, and because I happen to think that the additions are relevant. Here and elsewhere you have already stated your opinion, which is otherwise. Be it so. - Tenebris (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you done yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
By all means have the last word. - Tenebris (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redux: I suggest that the front page blurb be changed to "Hurricane Michael makes landfall in the Florida Panhandle, United States, as a record-breaking Category 4 storm, after causing at least 13 deaths in Central America." (For the purpose of clarity here, proposed changes only are shown in bold. I substituted record-breaking for strong, per TRM's preferred reference. I also dropped historic since that is already implied by record-breaking.) - Tenebris (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, because you'll need to explain what "record" it's "breaking". No need at all for this. Plus, as explained before, this is not the location to discuss issues which need to be addressed on the main page. Stick to the bare facts, don't use journalese, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Change blurb as per Tenebris. It is indeed record-breaking.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    I would wonder if "Florida panhandle" would be understood by non-US readers better than a specific location. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    There is that concern, since "Florida Panhandle" is somewhat of a geographical colloquialism rather than an actual denoted location on the map. I'd suggest "Southeastern U.S." personally.--WaltCip (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    International sources use "Florida Panhandle". But in what way is it "indeed record-breaking"? Biggest storm with fewest casualties? Biggest storm ever? Biggest storm to make landfall in Florida? Biggest storm to nearly be a cat 5 storm? Most commented on storm at ITNC? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Caribbean Sea Gulf of Mexico shaded relief bathymetry land map.png
Highest mph's and lowest pressures in the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, a very hurricane-prone coast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere near that last. Katrina had far more comments! As to the rest, you have the links, both in-article and those I provided above. The blurb has never been meant to give all the information, just key information. (Otherwise it would be an article.) Thankfully it is highly unlikely that death toll will be among those records, although it is sure to rise as news slowly gets out of the worst-hit areas. (Electricity and many roads there are out and will stay out for some time to come, which means that communication with the region will be slow in coming.) Personally, I consider the storm's most relevant record to be that it is the strongest Atlantic basin storm to make landfall in October anywhere in the Atlantic basin (including Central America and the Caribbean). - Tenebris (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Rephrasing for clarity - strongest at an October landfall. Of course, while the record is NPOV, the relevance of said record is entirely POV. - Tenebris (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You simply can't say "record-breaking" without defining to the majority of our readers who don't appear to be in the same privileged position as you and other US contributors what that record is. As I said before, y'all may think it goes without saying, but it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"you and other US contributors" -- not a U.S. resident nor a U.S. citizen, thank you. I have mentioned that to you once or twice before. - Tenebris (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "record breaking" would need to be defined, and I think doing so would make the blurb too unwieldy. If "panhandle" is used in international sources, I guess that would be okay, but Southeast US would be better, I think. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The article explicitly mentions several cited records this hurricane has broken, and even has a separate section entitled "Records". If consensus wants more, it can be easily shifted into the blurb without becoming too unwieldy. (I will wait to do so until consensus forms.) - Tenebris (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
These are not needed in the blurb, and to try to crowbar them in would make an already lengthy blurb even more unwieldy. Completely unnecessary. And honestly, no-one outside this microcosm cares about "strongest October landfall"...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The global warming / climate change debaters would differ. Based on the relevant WP talk pages and dispute pages, there do seem to be an awful of those. - Tenebris (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing. But it's certainly too clunky for our general readership who either (a) don't care about such records or (b) can't make this "global warming" leap of faith from an October record to the heat death of the world or (c) both. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Did I at any point say that the hurricane's record or the article either proved or disproved global warming? - Tenebris (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Did I??! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"our general readership who ... can't make this "global warming" leap of faith from an October record to the heat death of the world". This sentence explicitly associates "global warming" with "leap of faith" and with "October record". (Only one October record has been mentioned throughout this discussion -- if not referencing that one, then the statement has no relevance whatsoever to this conversational thread.) - Tenebris (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, you missed the point again, the leap of faith was that our general readership would read about this contrived intersection of events and then conclude that it was global warming. Honestly, I can't keep explaining everything to you time and again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologise for being so ignorant before your brilliance. - Tenebris (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem, apology accepted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This posting is just to show how short such a blurb could be -

"Category 4 Hurricane Michael strikes the Florida Panhandle as the strongest ever October hurricane at landfall in the Atlantic basin."

Personally, I prefer the previous (redux) version. Let the readers click through to discover what the records are. - Tenebris (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict)

"Record-breaking" would be pure hype. And BTW, as a post-posting comment, this Category 4 storm has reportedly caused a total of two deaths in the U.S., whence much of the pre-landfall hullabaloo emanated. It's very inconvenient for people in its path, but seems not to pose a major humanitarian disaster. Sca (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The original adjective was strong. I only substituted record-breaking on the basis of TRM's BBC recommendation, since that is what they used in their article. - Tenebris (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are, or why you insist on using IP addresses when you sign "your" name. Neither "strong" nor "record-breaking" (without explanation) is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have explained the IP part in the past, repeatedly. For now, to be brief, I say merely that WP's third and fourth pillar do not differentiate between registered users and IPs. I choose to be an IP in part to bring to light those places where those pillars are flaunted. I sign a name to talk page comments to accept my personal responsibility for what I write. The name I sign to these posts is every bit as valid as any username, and the open presence of my IP makes me somewhat less openly anonymous than most members. (/end sidetrack)
As to the part specifically relevant to this debate, what is and is not required in a blurb is a matter of opinion. No single term in the existing blurb completely "goes without saying". (For example, more than half of the English-speaking world does not think of cyclones in terms of "category 4" etc.) Yet at the same time, a blurb cannot and should not explain each and every part of itself. (That is what the article is for, and subsequent links from that article.) Each of us draws a line as to how much internal explanation we think is warranted. You have made your opinion clear as to where that line should be drawn. So have I. Given that neither of us will be making an autonomous final decision, what more need be said? - Tenebris (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The blurb is already sufficient, it picked up 120,000+ hits yesterday, it's not even on the BBC homepage right now, this is a dead duck. I'm glad that I've been doing other things to improve Wikipedia while this has been going on. And on. And on. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Raye Montague

Article: Raye Montague (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: US naval engineer. Article is short but in reasonable shape Dumelow (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: