In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Donald Trump In association football, Barcelona win the women's Champions League and Real Madrid win the men's Champions League. Former U.S. president Donald Trump (pictured) is found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. In Indy car racing, Josef Newgarden wins the Indianapolis 500. In cricket, the Kolkata Knight Riders defeat Sunrisers Hyderabad to win the Indian Premier League. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Rob Burrow Drew Gordon Lionel Dyck Marian Robinson Robert Pickton Margot Benacerraf Nominate an article

Suggestions

RD: Chang Chun-Yen

Nominator's comments: Pioneer of Taiwan's semiconductor industry, President of National Chiao Tung University. Zanhe (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bumped up) Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• support blurb - article updated and ready. BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• I will support RD as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full of speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Oppose as per the above comments, this is just speculation at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Support With special thanks to Huldra, who made my morning with the Daffy Duck link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment - The blurbs need a serious rewrite. All of them reek of editorial hyperbole.--WaltCip (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Wait – Murky - developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support major news with geopolitical implications. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Weak support would prefer to wait till confirmed, but it is continuing to generate news. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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))[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment This needs to be published now. Support is overwhelming. Where are the admins? --bender235 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

 • 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)[reply]

• Support altblurb3 which I have just added. ghost 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

→ Yeah, "reported missing" doesn't cut the mustard. Sca (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • That blurb does not reflect what is reliably reported. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose. This might have big consequences if it is confirmed [3]. However, WP:NOTSCANDAL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate

Nominator's comments: Added template for Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC) LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • https://www.rferl.org/a/constantinople-patriarchate-agrees-to-recognize-independence-of-ukrainian-orthodox-church/29538590.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting unusual news on ITN. Ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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))[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leif Axmyr

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

• 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)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Doug Ellis

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support I think that's pretty much all sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And it's a huge Darren Huckerby support from me, Amakuru. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - decent. good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

(Posted) Soyuz MS-10

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

•  Comment: I *think* this possibly qualifies under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  ITNR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Wait article isn't quite ready yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Marking as ready, good work everyone. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Blurb needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest a better blurb and I'll post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Muboshgu - second sentence could be dropped if desired. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Note that the launch was from Baikonur. --Tone 20:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

RD: Fernando Albán Salazar

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

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose sub-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there's the rub. Sca (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Comment Scanlan has expanded and improved the article a lot, among other editors. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the page now is good enough to be posted. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• Support - article has been expanded and sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tex Winter

Nominator's comments: Former collegiate and professional basketball coach. Andise1 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Article is sparsely referenced. His head coaching record in particular has no references at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) (Posted) Hurricane Michael

(Posted) RD: Raye Montague

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

• 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)[reply]
• Support. Looks OK to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ready to be postedBabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018

Hesham Ashmawy

(Posted) RD: Hiroshi Wajima

Nominator's comments: Former yokozuna in sumo wrestling. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Joseph Tydings

Nominator's comments: Former US senator. A Good Article - Dumelow (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: George Taliaferro

Nominator's comments: Had a short but historic career at the NFL. Article updated and well sourced --> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The relation to Lorenzo is not supported in the ref given. ghost 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreatCaesarsGhost:: Fixed. That info was in the article before his death a slight mistake.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: John Gagliardi

Nominator's comments: Winningest coach in college football history. Refs have significantly improved since yesterday, but may need another look. Spengouli (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Referenced and ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good quality article, well written and referenced --DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose head coaching record unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when the table is sourced or removed The article itself is overall in good shape and I'm confident that it would not take long to get it ready, but TRM is right. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I added refs to the official college athletics sites for both universities. That should clear up the referencing issue. --Jayron32 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-done fixing this quickly. Since this was the basis of TRM's oppose !vote as well, there seems to be no remaining objections. I've struck out the caveat in my comment. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Now that it is fully referenced. --Jayron32 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks okay now. ghost 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) IPCC climate report

Nominator's comments: Staggeringly important report. This should be everybody's business. Article not yet updated at this time as the report was just released. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there isn't even an article to link too... Openlydialectic (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report just came out. It seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make an article, and even if an individual article isn't made, it can easily be piped to the IPCC article.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - When article is ready. Someone has written a little Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#1.5 Degree Report in the main article. That should in bold. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the newly made article - Looks good enough to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle – Per previous. Favor updating existing, exhaustive IPCC article. Sca (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I feel like we maybe crystal-balling this nomination, it is too far in the future to know exactly what and when it will happen (or even if it will happen). Kirliator (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

It's going to happen. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus. The point of the report is to indicate that substantive and immediate policy changes are needed (but not likely) in order to prevent this outcome.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're using sound scientific forecasting, but that is what it remains, its a long-term forecast assuming all trends remain unchecked and no other global factors come into play. Completely scientifically sound, but still what we'd call a crystal ball if we tried to state in WP's voice. --Masem (t) 15:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that "climate change" is a liberal hoax pushed by Hillary Clinton and George Soros to force world government and put free thinking people in FEMA concentration camps, right? These fake news "scientists" are just globalist atheists who are trying to destroy sovereign nations. This must be more "fake news" from the fanatical left. No way a large diverse international body of experts could be reporting this calamity, and that report be covered in WP:RS right? We're better off second guessing them. SMH. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about this being fake news or bad sciences. Its just that it is a long-term forecast rather than any objective concrete result. I fully expect the rest of the civilized world outside of the US (at least, presently) to look to some global action on this report (eg carbon credits/fines) which when signed into treaty or some equivalent manner would certainly be ITN like the Paris agreement. But with this as a forecast, its similar to the adjustments of the Doomsday Clock - all well-informed conclusions from experts, but all speculative even with the best data and forecasting possible. --Masem (t) 16:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing like the Doomsday Clock. The clock is pure guesswork based on nothing more than personal opinion; the IPCC report is a systematic review of published scientific research papers. It's astounding that anyone would equate the two. This is prediction, but detailed scientific prediction based on well-understood physical phenomena and economic science. It should be posted as the best-available scientific analysis of global warming, not because it might lead to policy changes (which might themselves also be postable, if they happen, but that is crystal balling). Modest Genius ^talk 18:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the report and I'm not saying its bad science, nor something to dismiss, but it still remains predictions rather than tangibles. The range of error out in 2040 is rather high with their "worse case" (no change in policy) potentially still potentially leading to less than a 1.5 degC increase. (of course, that's the case also more likely to hit 2 degC too). The purpose of the report is to establish the trends, what will likely happen at the 1.5 and 2 degC marks, and what they suggest as immediate policy actions to take to advert that. Without any firm action at governmental levels, it remains only a report to try to drive policy change. --Masem (t) 05:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I favor the alt blurb as well. It is more precise than the blurb I provided, which I fully admit was weak.--WaltCip (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

→ Somewhat streamlined Alt2 offered above. Sca (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Masem, it is scientifically-based crystal-balling. Störm (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyants use crystal balls, not scientists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb provided by Modest Genius On principle I support the story, but in general we want to avoid crystal-balling, even when it's clearly rooted in science. This !vote is independent of quality concerns which may or may not be too large to fix in a short time. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an article on the report has been created --Danski454 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stub at the moment, but it's probably quicker to bring that up to postable length than tidy up the IPCC article. I've updated alt1 and alt2 accordingly. Modest Genius ^talk 18:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb 1 generally I believe something of this consequence should be posted, but only once the article is no longer a stub (or posted now with a link to the main IPCC section about the report, which would be changed once the article is no longer a stub) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support altblurb. Major story, articles are pretty good. (The IPCC article has a few missing citations, but not for the relevant section.) Davey2116 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant scientific story of existential global importance. There is no place for climate change denial on an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Who in this thread do you see denying climate change? Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you think climate change denial is hosted? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, October 9, 2018 (UTC)

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

If we went looking we could probably find dozens of other such ironies about this story and every other story on Wikipedia (they all involve humans directly or indirectly, and there are always loads of ironies connected with humans, such as our claim to be intelligent despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary ). So if the presence of irony is a valid reason for not posting we should just shut down ITN right away Tlhslobus (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on significance. This is news with a global impact. Article could use some expansion, but it isn't terrible. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is too crystal-bally. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose David Suzuki and the Ninja Turtles warned us about this thirty years ago, and have increasingly been joined by a chorus of arguably more notable champions. The idea of killing billions of people through our collective negligence was shocking and newsworthy once upon a time, but we've all settled on our individual coping mechanisms and simply repeating the warning isn't going to trigger anything it didn't before. When "the other side" start pleading for the planet in practice, then we'll all know it's finally the end of the world (I'd support that blurb). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
• Support Alt Blurb 2 (and only that alt blurb). A report was released, it was considered in the media to be a groundbreaking report, and a quick google search shows that it made widespread international news. Altblurb 2 sticks to the basics and avoids some of the "crystal-balling" (not sure I agree with applying that term here, but that is unimportant) that other editors expressed concern about. If it's widely reported in international news, unique, and consequential, then post it. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Groundbreaking report on the biggest global issue of our time. This is what happened to Krypton. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big issue yesterday. Today it's all about the dire lack of female superheroes. Same problem Themyscira faced. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, October 10, 2018 (UTC)

Fake News - it obviously can't possibly be the same problem, as unlike Themyscira, Planet Earth isn't yet a Lesbian utopia, and Krypton wasn't either. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foiled again You win this round, Brainiac! But lush moist fantasy jungle is itself a thing of the scientific past; it's all enormous pointy frozen moon wangs today. I'd bet Europa would kill for a little of our precious gas about now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

This just in Science discovers key to saving planet is devouring fewer inhabitants. Oddly, this tip seems absent from American daily news. Maybe not odd at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, InedibleHulk. Of course, (Shhh! Don't tell anybody, but) there are presumably bad and mad conspiracy theorists out there who might claim that this looks rather like yet more of the same allegedly-highly-profitable-for-some advice that allegedly may have created our obesity pandemic. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shock! Horror! Yet more Fake News at ITN - the only mention of "greenhouse gases" in the Krypton article is in relation to what is encountered by inhabitants of Daxam, a completely different planet. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It isn't newsworthy every time an agency releases a new report about how bad global warming is going to get, but it is newsworthy when the organization that received a Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change releases such a report. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Support in principle but the report article still needs expanding a bit. That "under construction" tag has been there a while now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. The article has been expanded. I've removed the tag since there has been no activity in the last couple of hours. --Tone 07:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and pull - I don't see a consensus for posting this. There isn't really anything new about what's in the report, it just reaffirms much of what we already knew about climate change. Plus, there are elements of WP:CRYSTALBALL, per the above comments.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - This is clearly newsworthy and I agree that Alt2 (the posted version) was the most reasonable way to approach this. The article could be improved but is not so problematic to prevent posting, in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

 Angga (formerly Angga1061) 10:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but the blurb is too vague. Describing that economists are awarded a prize for their work on macroeconomics is like saying that mathematicians are awarded a prize for their work on geometry. I have therefore proposed another blurb that more precisely describes their contribution to the field for which they received the prize. Both articles are in good shape, indeed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but the blurb is highly misleading Correct me if I am wrong, but the comitee didn't even mention the word "climate" (or "change) in their announcement. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually, they did. See the press release from the Royal Swedish Academy. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 12:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: what the Royal Swedish Academy refers to as "long-run macroeconomic analysis" is more commonly known as economic growth or "growth theory". Maybe the link in the blurb should be piped appropriately. --bender235 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Provided Alt2. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, only for altblurb2. Otherwise, oppose from me. Störm (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have modified the first alternative blurb to refer to economic growth. Climate change and technological innovation are too important to be omitted from the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Both winners' articles look good enough to me. I prefer alt1, but all three blurbs seem to be correct. Modest Genius ^talk 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to quote the reasoning, because it's copied (almost) exactly from the press release. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull??? Even at first glance, posting seems to have been premature on quality grounds, at least to me, tho I leave it to others to decide whether it requires pulling, as in general I'm not a good judge of such matters, and I intend to now just try to at least partly remedy the quality issue that most concerns me - specifically there's no text in Romer's Career section (as distinct from one sentence in the lead) about his role as the World Bank's chief economist, and no mention at all of the controversy surrounding his departure. But there also seem to be other gaps in our reporting of his career which I intend to leave to others to fill. And since these rather glaring gaps seemingly went unspotted I have to wonder how much else may have gone unspotted too (in this article, and perhaps also in the Nordhaus article, tho I have no current plans to look at that myself).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed (at least to the best of my ability) what I said I'd try to fix. I leave the rest to others.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Nyombi

Nominator's comments: Ugandan lawyer and politician. Article pretty basic, I will look to improve it later today Dumelow (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It looks ready to me, the article content is sourced and it's not a stub. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it's just me, but I cannot reach the 3 of the 5 sources, which would make too much of a rather short article unverifiable. ghost 18:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a chance to take a look at it. I have removed some refs to dead links, expanded a little and added new refs - Dumelow (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) RD: Victoria Marinova

(Posted) RD: Natwar Thakkar

Nominator's comments: Indian social worker. I have expanded the article a little and added some missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks good to me. Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is well-sourced and provides sufficient details. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks fine. ghost 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked ready based on the above support - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 12:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Meng Hongwei

Nominator's comments: The chief of the International Criminal Police Organization arrested for illegal conduct charges. He has recently gone missing, and that was proposed below. wumbolo ^^^ 17:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what's there is fine, but the career section could stand to be more detailed. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if there is nothing else to say about his career? Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any blurb or altblurb should mention he has now resigned (at least according to BBC World News this morning) - otherwise the blurb seems in error in describing him as the President of Interpol. And as regards article quality, the article lead needs to connect his arrest and resignation. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his precise status may be unclear. Interpol described his Korean replacement as acting President until a permament replacement is elected in November, but some sources such as NYT (which shows the full Interpol statement but does not otherwise mention this election for permament replacement in its own text) seem reluctant to say that a permanent replacement is to be elected in November, perhaps implying that some countries may be thinking about something like refusing to accept the resignation on grounds that it may have been written under duress (the duress question has been mentioned by the Washington Post), which might soon further complicate how we should describe him in our blurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle on notability, as an important and non-routine story that is clearly in the news, but I leave quality issues to be judged by others.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle per Laserlegs; I agree the career section could use a splash more detail before posting. The detainment has vast repercussions on international relations and world politics, and is being widely covered in international media. Flip^andFlopped ツ 07:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer alt blurb Reads better. Flip^andFlopped ツ 17:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb 2 per all of the above. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Added alt blurb --Danski454 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended alt blurb --Danski454 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose alt blurb. Bad grammar. wumbolo ^^^ 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as a highly unusual detention of the head of an important international body. The article is a bit bare bones, but good enough to post. I've added alt2 in an attempt to address the grammar concerns and explain who is detaining him. Modest Genius ^talk 18:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although the blurb needs to be updated: he's detained on charge of taking bribes, see SCMP. -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very unusual development. The blurb should state that he resigned as Interpol president. Davey2116 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb 2 this one fits better into the recent developments, in my opinion. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Alex Shih (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) New York (state) car crash

Haiti earthquake

Nominator's comments: Article is developing and figures may rise –Ammarpad (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the article is ready.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose the article is light on details about the event itself. It's this sort of potpourri of specific impacts, each cited to an RS, but it doesn't help with the "big picture". Emergency response? Foreign aid? Will any of the damage have any long term impact at all? Not clear. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve first - notable event, but the article is lacking per the reasons described in the above !vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - has generated and continues to generate coverage in international outlets, to say nothing of local news. Banedon (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant fatal quake. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What's keeping this from being posted? Tagged as updated; article isn't tagged as a stub. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I've updated the death-count in the blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless death toll (currently 17) significantly increases. Currently it is seemingly at most just the joint 7th deadliest earthquake so far this year (and that assumes all the deadlier ones have in fact been reported by us at List of earthquakes in 2018), and nowhere near the top 10 this year on either of the two intensity scales (Richter and MMI). For context, at present we are almost certainly not going to even think about posting the 50 deaths reported in a Kenyan bus crash (here), and we are probably not going to post the 20 deaths in the New York limo crash (even tho it may well be the deadliest single-car crash ever, and almost certainly one of the deadliest single-car crashes ever), so why should we post this seemingly thoroughly unexceptional earthquake? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the death total rises or further evidence is provided to show that this earthquake has caused an unusual amount of damage. Lepricavark (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: So you support, without providing a rationale, the posting of a single-vehicle accident in New York but oppose the posting of a magnitude 5.9 earthquake in Haiti which killed 17 and injured nearly 500? AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I supported posting the car crash in agreement with the rationale of another editor. Nothing wrong with that. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Frankly, I'm not a huge believer in the theories that ITN is overtly and extremely American-biased to the extent which some people claim it is, but in this case it's a little silly that this hasn't been posted if Michael was posted (two fatalities in the USA vs 17 in Haiti). Both this and the limo crash should have made it on. Flip^andFlopped ツ 13:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]