In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Image protection (WP:CMP) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Current events noticeboard (WP:CEN) Archives

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.

Alyssa Healy Global stock markets suffer their largest single-day decline since the 1987 crash. The World Health Organization declares the coronavirus outbreak to be a pandemic, while the Italian government implements a national quarantine. In cricket, the Women's T20 World Cup concludes with Australia defeating India in the final (player of the match Alyssa Healy pictured). Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara win the Pritzker Architecture Prize. Recent deaths: Michel Roux Burkhard Hirsch Richard Guy Charles Urstadt John Bathersby Max von Sydow Other recent events Nominate an article

Archives[edit]

Discussions of items older than seven days are automatically archived

February–March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007 • December 2007 • January 2008 • February 2008 • March 2008 • April 2008 • May 2008 • June 2008 • July 2008 • August 2008 • September 2008 • October 2008 • November 2008 • December 2008 • January 2009 • February 2009 • March 2009 • April 2009 • May 2009 • June 2009 • July 2009 • August 2009 • September 2009 • October 2009 • November 2009 • December 2009 • January 2010 • February 2010 • March 2010 • April 2010 • May 2010 • June 2010 • July 2010 • August 2010 • September 2010 • October 2010 • November 2010 • December 2010 • January 2011 • February 2011 • March 2011 • April 2011 • May 2011 • June 2011 • July 2011 • August 2011 • September 2011 • October 2011 • November 2011 • December 2011 • January 2012 • February 2012 • March 2012 • April 2012 • May 2012 • June 2012 • July 2012 • August 2012 • September 2012 • October 2012 • November 2012 • December 2012 • January 2013 • February 2013 • March 2013 • April 2013 • May 2013 • June 2013 • July 2013 • August 2013 • September 2013 • October 2013 • November 2013 • December 2013 • January 2014 • February 2014 • March 2014 • April 2014 • May 2014 • June 2014 • July 2014 • August 2014 • September 2014 • October 2014 • November 2014 • December 2014 • January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 • January 2016 • February 2016 • March 2016 • April 2016 • May 2016 • June 2016 • July 2016 • August 2016 • September 2016 • October 2016 • November 2016 • December 2016 • January 2017 • February 2017 • March 2017 • April 2017 • May 2017 • June 2017 • July 2017 • August 2017 • September 2017 • October 2017 • November 2017 • December 2017 • January 2018 • February 2018 • March 2018 • April 2018 • May 2018 • June 2018 • July 2018 • August 2018 • September 2018 • October 2018 • November 2018 • December 2018 • January 2019 • February 2019 • March 2019 • April 2019 • May 2019 • June 2019 • July 2019 • August 2019 • September 2019 • October 2019 • November 2019 • December 2019 • January 2020 • February 2020 • March 2020

March 14[edit]

---

Gustavo Bebianno[edit]

Nominator's comments: Ex-Secretary-General of the Presidency. Important person for the Bolsonaro government and one of the first Bolsonaro administration cabinet members. ArionEstar (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

---

14th Government of Slovenia[edit]

Nominator's comments: New head of government. I suppose Janša's article has too many problems with citations so I bolded the cabinet article instead. Tone 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment there are a lot of bare references (in the 14th Government article) that need attention - neither WP:Refill or WP:Reflinks could fix (for me) I would support when that is addressed Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

---

(Reposted - Attention needed) Black Thursday[edit]

Nominator's comments: Day is not over and the article is under construction (not trying to violate WP:CRYSTAL, just garnering discussion), however the current blurb about Black Monday must be updated or it will stay up as an inaccurate news piece. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wait until the day is over. NOT#NEWS, we shouldn't have an article even on this yet. --Masem (t) 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  It has affected other countries such as the Philippines where a newspaper has called it "Black Thursday" already, so let us not be US-centric. I posted this for if stocks close at a lower decline than Monday. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  One paper. I looked and saw maybe a couple others. This makes the name fall under WP:NEO. Maybe at the end of the day there's something, but as when the Monday's situation, markets are volitile. I suggested the week's overall effect was the news story, and I will still stand by that since that's clearly the trend. --Masem (t) 17:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment todays drop is due to the COVID-19 US travel ban, and COVID-19 is in the box plenty. Monday was the OPEC civil war. Merge all these articles into 2020 Global stock market crash or similar and propose it for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a new, separate blurb. This is apparently what ITN is destined to be this month.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Worth noting for notability purposes that the US stock market has become a bear market after an 11-year streak (the longest in history). Today's crash is expected to surpass that of October 2008 be the worst since 1987. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Economic experts have been warning for years that the bull market is not sustainable and would turn around at some point. So this is not at all a surprise or its a news element. It's also far far too close to the event to try to be judging how much of an important this week has on the long-term. --Masem (t) 19:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Today is an important economic event regardless of what certain economists may have predicted. The article even states that the bear market had sustained 11-years despite challenges such as the American-Chinese trade war and Brexit. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - NY Times says this is the worst day for the U.S. stock market since the 1987 crash. I suggest we continue to post a separate blurb, possibly noting that investors were reacting to President Trump's Europe travel ban, which in and of itself is a significant moment in the COVID-19 crisis.--WaltCip (talk)
  • If this is added as a blurb, it will replace the Black Monday or or bring the Black Monday one. There is zero need to have two blurbs on the same effect news, negative market trends. Remember, the key facet right now is that thousands of people have died from a rather contagious virus that probably could have been prevented but instead due to a number of mistakes across the globe at all levels. That people have lost money in the short term and there may be long term consequences is not unimportant but the priority is far outweighed by the cost of human life going on here. --Masem (t) 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree they should be combined somehow. The cost of human life? Global stock markets are down 30%. Three years of gains are gone. People who depend on that for retirement savings are in a real crisis. This is just as impactful as 4700 deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The Dow dropped nearly 10%, the second-largest percentage drop since the Great Depression. Considering that the top three daily point drops in the Dow's history occurred in the past four days, I wonder if there's a clean way to combine Black Monday and Black Thursday into one blurb. But I'm fine with a separate blurb, too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The DAX 30 fell 12% today as well. As large as the NYSE is, we shouldn't focus strictly on it given this is a global phenomenon. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose the Dow's point-change stats aren't too informative for historical comparisons, either; most of the top 20 point losses occurred in the past two years, and the top three point gains also occurred earlier this month. Davey2116 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yawn - It will go up again, and we won't post that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The rightists have been saying that for three weeks. Sad! --LaserLegs (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as combined blurb - we don't want two headlines saying practically the same thing, one of which is not even factually true anymore. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wall Street Crash of 2020 would be a great candidate if the Monday and Thursday articles were merged into it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support – A relevant / noteworthy topic that would be a useful modification to the current blurb. Master of Time (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support having already posted Black Monday, we should also post Black Thursday. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support this is a no brainer tbh. A decrease this large... the largest in over 30 years needs to be posted. Noah^Talk 01:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Can we just switch out the target article right now and worry about the blurb later? Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. If Black Monday was significant enough to warrant a spot, Black Thursday certainly is. I note that I oppose attributing causation to COVID-19 or the Schengen Area-US travel ban, as the market crash also has to do with the Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war—leave causation to the article. userdude 03:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment. Someone has tagged this as lacking a worldwide view of the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Some truth to it, but I don't think it's so unbalanced to warrant pulling the blurb. There was already mention of foreign markets, and I just added the UK's FTSE 100. I also reordered some of the text, making the US details a subsection of the crash, instead of having it appear like the main point.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Pulled, for the time being. The article is orange tagged at the moment, so is ineligible for ITN on quality grounds. Please either resolve the issues or, if there's consensus that the tag is invalid, then remove it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we at least put Black Monday (2020) back up if we're pulling Black Thursday?--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Not as it was, since it's no longer true. —Cryptic 12:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, now I go back to my original point about how it's impossible and silly to post news stories about stock market gyrations, for this very reason. But we live in novel times now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Neutrality issues resolved. Should be good to be reposted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The tagging makes no sense. All three articles discuss events and impacts on, at least, 3 different continents. Wth?130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Re-Posted Tagged issues appear to have been resolved. No tags currently on the article. Thanks to Amakuru for pulling the page when it was tagged. Good job everybody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Nice one, thanks for the good work team.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And guess what? — "Stocks surge day after biggest percentage decline since 1987." – Sca (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was going to post a similar article like that. The weekly downturn itself is news and a blurb based on that would have been reasonable, but reacting on the daily downturns is really not what we should be doing, COVID or not, since there's nearly always been a major rebound the next day. --14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Damnit, Sca, you don't get how this works -- good news is no news.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with previous unsigned post (by Masem). A classic case of yesterday's news. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If you believe there's "nearly always been a major rebound the next day", make sure to buy as many stocks as you can at market close of a market rout. Banedon (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That comment of yours, which I assume was sarcasm, sure takes on a whole new meaning as of this evening!--WaltCip (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• So, uh... This is happening. ... Stock markets post their biggest daily gain since 2008. Where would you even put this?--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Update the blurb and say global markets are highly volatile. Banedon (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am completely open to updating the blurb to reflect the volatility in the financial markets. Just give me a blurb backed by some kind of consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Financial markets are inherently variable – on a daily basis. Ergo, market news is problematic for ITN. – Sca (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: "Stocks post monster monster gains; Dow surges 9% adding nearly 2,000 points as Trump declares coronavirus emergency." – Sca (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can work it into the blurb, go for it. The crashes happened. They happened and things recovered just like floods recover and tornadoes recover and all the other disaster porn we post recovers. I'm not buying this "Financial markets are inherently variable" argument either. We've seen record swings down and up in a broad range of markets across the globe. It's ok if you don't care, but you don't get to pretend it's normal. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could take a broader approach that would have a longer shelf life – something like, "World financial markets (do such-and-such) in their (worst?) week since (sometime past)." [1]
Again, stock blurbs based on daily results get stale FAST. And I'm still not convinced this topic needs a separate blurb. There are many websites that catalogue market fluctuations, and they're well-known to investors. The Big Story is the virus itself. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Attention needed hi all, the target article has been merged, and the new article, 2020 stock market crash has orange tags on it again. The WORLDWIDE one, and a section that needs expansion. I won't pull immediately, but as before, can we resolve those issues or decide by consensus that they're invalid?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Roux[edit]

Nominator's comments: Article in good shape, GA class. Noted chef and entrepreneur. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: the article is a GA and the death is being reported in multiple RSes. However, his death is not mentioned in the article, only the date given in the first sentence. Needs a one or two sentence update in the body of the article, then I will support. Modest Genius ^talk 13:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough. Modest Genius ^talk 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it's mostly fine, per Modest Genius, I made a few tweaks. At least one reference needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I fixed the obvious cn tag. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) NBA suspends season[edit]

March 11[edit]

---

RD: Whitney MacMillan[edit]

Nominator's comments: Heir and former leader of Cargill. Article looks concise but decently referenced. - Indefensible (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

RD: War Emblem[edit]

Nominator's comments: 2002 Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes winner. - Indefensible (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Burkhard Hirsch[edit]

Nominator's comments: German FDP member of parliament, minister in NRW state, lawyer for protection of privacy. I added references and some more details. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment is he an honorary member of the university, an honorary citizen of the city, or both? I assume Google Translate is just being dumb, but if you could verify that and add the citation we can post it after. Kees08 (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ref, Kees08, which led to the next. He was Honorary citizen of the Hochschule (not quite a university, - applied science), a rare thing I never heard of, sorry. Always learning. - Anybody to write a better lead than I could? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Posted - I think the lead scales with the length of the prose fine, but further improvements can be made while on the main page. Kees08 (Talk) 19:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) COVID-19 global pandemic[edit]

Nominator's comments: Well, gee whiz, this seems self-explanatory. WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support , presuming this overrides both the ongoing and the Italy blurb. I've said this was a milestone to be posted, and there it is. --Masem (t) 16:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I assumed this would be a third blurb, actually. This story is necessarily separate from the other ones we have up on the template.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense having the same story as a blurb and ongoing, but the two blurb option is one I would support as technically different news. PotentPotables (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This and the Italy could always be combined with a simple "while". They are the same story for all purposes. --Masem (t) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Although related, I still contend they are two separate stories. Global pandemics are not necessarily unprecedented. Italy going into total quarantine is, at least in the western world.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - fairly straightforward, it's everywhere. Pie3141527182 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per the WHO. Noah^Talk 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. Obviously. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This one's a no-brainer. --bender235 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Instead of a microscopic image, perhaps a map of the outbreak's spread would be fitting for the topic? 88.200.214.103 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I second that. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, we should link to the outbreak page, not the disease page (alt blurb added). --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a bit hard to do that because of the short descriptions for ITN. It needs to be short and simple. The map currently requires a key to understand. That would be difficult to include for ITN. Noah^Talk 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Posted. I have combined it with the Italy hook, as suggested by Masem. Also removed from Ongoing, but I assume it can go back there uncontroversially once it rolls off again.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: it would have been nice if we'd had even an hour to assess the update to the article. There isn't one. All that's changed is switching 'outbreak' to 'pandemic' throughout and one sentence of the lead; the section on the WHO response still says they are refusing to declare a pandemic. This should have had a prose update before posting. Modest Genius ^talk 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and the one sentence update doesn't have a ref. We're not a news service, there is no reason to rush things to the MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Oddly, given my recent history of pushing to get C-19 blurbed in some form, I'm nonplussed by this long-expected announcement. After all the froth, it seems anticlimactic. Everyone knew it was coming. I think the WHO didn't want to elicit panic and put it off for a while. In itself, I don't see how it changes things. But ... still dithering. – Sca (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment – Given the overkill-coverage, combing pandemic & Italy seems a reasonable compromise, I guess. – Sca (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment. I like the combined blurb. I've tidied the update to pandemic. I assume that the main article has now been fixed, but I'll check (if I can get an edit in there edgewise). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure "while" quite works in the current blurb, since the WHO announcement came after Italy imposed the national lockdown. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting comment. My apologies if this is not the place to address the image in ITN, but Talk:Main_Page certainly didn't seem like the right place. With regard to the image, as mentioned by User:88.200.214.103, User:bender235, and User:Hurricane Noah, I would like to place my strongest possible support in favor of replacing the current ITN image of Alyssa Healy with a COVID-19 related informational video such as File:COVID-19- What Older Adults Need to Know.webm. As much as we'd like to believe everyone reads every word of our articles, some readers will certainly benefit from an authoritative video. Our first priority should be ensuring readers can quickly and easily access accurate and vital information. userdude 03:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I can tell you that the last time we had an animated image/video on the main page of that type (that is in terms of length, not content), that was an issue for some readers. An animation or video a few seconds long is what we'd want, not a lengthy video. Separately, it is also not WP's place to try to offer medical advice even that posted by the CDC per our Disclaimers (we do not offer professional advice). It should obviously be linked from the COVID pages, but we should not be foisting that at the main page. --Masem (t) 03:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

March 10[edit]

---

March 9[edit]

---

RD: Mohammad-Reza Rahchamani[edit]

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death was announced on this date. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; little information at present about what the subject did in his roles as a politician. Spencer^T•C 03:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Spencer. Stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles J. Urstadt[edit]

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death was announced on this date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good, subject notable enough. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Guy[edit]

Nominator's comments: Highly influential mathematician. Discovered the glider, for example. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Scratch that. Article has been "updated" to remove claim. Is this a hoax? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Was not able to find death reported anywhere reliable, just Twitter and Wikipedia. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Article says he's alive. I see no sources to say he's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• (Note: these were after I had closed it pending a better source --Masem (t) 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC) )
• Question Is this reliable? ---> [2] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I was pointed to that earlier, and I don't know, the about page for that site doesn't give me great confidence. I do see an edit on the page has one diff with a summary about the news from a "close personal friend" [3] but I'd want to see better collaboration, and right now, I'm seeing a lot of citogenesis in social media. --Masem (t) 17:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Masem: - see [4], from the institution he worked at. Connormah (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Now were golden. Reopened for discussion. --Masem (t) 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Davey2116 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support robertsky (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There are a couple of unreferenced sentences, but none are controversial or worth holding the nomination up. Looks ready to go. Modest Genius ^talk 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Taking TRM's prior withdrawn support over the lack of a proper death source as an implicit okay otherwise, now that this is confirmed. --Masem (t) 15:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Reposted) Italian lockdown[edit]

Nominator's comments: Top news item in nearly every news website in the western world (not in China, but that's probably because they have their own). A quarter of the Italian population and a third of the Italian economy is quarantined. I understand that coronavirus outbreak is ongoing but this is a huge event. Juxlos (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support WTF is a "lockdown"? The article doesn't really make that clear, and it feels like a hyperbolic term to begin with. Additionally Conte later clarified in a press conference that the decree was not an "absolute ban", and that people would still be able to use trains and planes to and from the region for "proven work needs, emergencies, or health reasons". Still, it's a significant reaction and a good chance to put the virus back up as a blurb, and the article is decent. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Feel free to rename it - I used "lockdown" because of the 2020 Hubei lockdowns and a large number of news outlets used "lockdown" over, say "quarantine". Juxlos (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Are we still waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic? Because we've been waiting for a month and they might not do it. Support then in lieu of that not yet happening but I'm betting cricket will be posted first. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support for now. I disagree with User:Howard the Duck. The article looks good, and is consistent with the other crises that go in line with the coronavirus crisis. DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨
• Oppose. This looked significant when I first saw it this morning, but as noted above it turns out its less significant than thought,as flights are still running and many things continue as usual. Also, reject the ridiculous idea of a "good chance to put the virus back up as a blurb". We don't need to keep reposting this in a fresh guise every week just because it's scary and people are running around like headless chickens. It's already in ongoing, where it belongs. Repost once the pandemic is declared.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the decree was signed today - it could escalate implementation in the coming days (or hours), but I thought the appropriate time to post was when the decree is signed. Juxlos (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as a blurb, but I would not see an issue adding, to the existing ongoing for the outbreak, something like "Italian lockdown" (eg Coronavirus outbreak (Italian lockdown). China's locked down before, as well as Japan, and Saudi is also now getting in on that ([5]), so to blurb out the Italian one does not make sense, just to get a coronavirus blurb in ITNC. --Masem (t) 14:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Didn't China's lockdown get a blurb? Juxlos (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• China's lockdown was the blurb that fell off into becoming the coronavirus ongoing. It obviously made sense when it was the point of origin. --Masem (t) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would argue that neither Japan nor South Korea has done something this extreme - akin to quarantining Seoul or Tokyo from the outside world. Even if the implementation is porous, clearly this is still a huge thing? Juxlos (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• There was also the fact that on 26 Jan, Kobe Bryant's death generated a blizzard of activity on WP:ITN/C that diverted attention away from modifying the initial novel coronavirus blurb, the discussion of which was started on 19 Jan and therefore archived later on 26 Jan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Ever since my futile "elephant in the room" attempt to get the topic blurb-posted a couple weeks ago, I've been in two minds about this. I suspect the WHO is deferring on labeling it a pandemic in order not to elicit widespread panic.
  However, the situation in Italy indeed looks grim – 233 deaths, 5,883 cases – and threatening to the rest of Europe. I'm leaning toward support. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• As a note - this nomination isn't about the 233 deaths and 6k cases - it's about the fact that Italy basically just shut down their economy. Juxlos (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is happening because of the grim, threatening situation there. – Sca (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The deferring to call it a "pandemic" involves a half billion USD in WHO bonds which get auto-called in the event of such a declaration. Those bonds otherwise mature in mid-Summer, so that's when "pandemic" goes official. In the mean time, Italy (10% EZ GDP) just shut down their most productive regions (30% IT GDP), which is 100% guaranteeing a EZ recession, at best.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Coronavirus is in ongoing, and that's where it should be. Putting it in ongoing doesn't make it any less significant, nor does it indicate we are undervaluing this crisis. WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

To some readers I know, it does look that way. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Then they are misinterpreting the purpose of ITN. WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're speaking from a Wiki-insider point of view, not a general-reader one. – Sca (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that this is an exception - when since the start of Wikipedia has something like this happened? (Aside from Hubei, but that was a blurb). Juxlos (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support coronavirus outbreak is still ongoing but Lockdowns are coveraged by many Italian and international media. I disagree with many editors that oppose this to be posted just because it less significant such as Sca than events in China, world most populous country. The coverage of Italian Lockdowns need to get more attention from Wikipedia readers around the world as it was undercoveraged by many media's outside Europe and America. 110.137.162.190 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposing. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: Alt1 offered above. – Sca (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per the other IP. This is the second largest mass quarantine in history (the largest being the Hubei lockdown), it's a pretty big deal. Either blurb is okay with me. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose A regional quarantine is not a common occurrence but this whole thing is causing a lot of uncommon events. For now ongoing is sufficient. However, I do anticipate that this will be blurbed again when, as now seems all but inevitable, it is formally declared to be a pandemic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - while notable, this entry would be redundant with the ongoing 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak entry. If other countries (e.g. South Korea, Japan, etc.) similarly go into partial quarantine, are they each going to be posted? Perhaps this might trigger a broader discussion on the layout of the ITN section and frontpage more generally. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would argue that Japanese and Korean quarantines weren't as major - though yes, if they do quarantine Tokyo and/or Seoul, we may have to make a special format change to ITN for highly unusual events like this. Juxlos (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• It does not seem unreasonable to think that another country could expand a quarantine to similar scale of Italy's lockdown in the near future. We should plan what to do in that case, because posting this entry would create a precedent which could prove problematic. - Indefensible (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please see here - I've posted a discussion in the talk page. Juxlos (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Prefer Alt1. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support because this lockdown needs more coverage by international media around the world. You are just not only count about significancy of their country such as Italy less than China, but how notable about information of this article. Alt1 prefered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.31.81 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  Likely duplicate vote This IP is a single-purpose account. Likely same person as 110.137.162.190 !vote (16:16, 8 March) above: both geolocated from Indonesia and !voted "Strong support" while citing similar global need for more attention/coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as fearmongering. If 16 million people actually were locked down, that'd be remarkable. But the article describes more a widespread safety advisory and several cancellations, like Eastern Canada gets during "extreme" heat or cold. And like weather news, this is dominating headlines because it's timely and relatable. Everyone and their dog knows what it feels like to sniffle, cough and stay home for a few days (it's "the bloody pits"). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  From the linked article: "forbidding their entry or exit without emergency circumstances under the penalty of fines and imprisonment of up to three months". How is this comparable to a safety advisory? What you're talking about are voluntary advisory warnings, but this is a legally enforced quarantine. It's in a completely different category. Btw, this isn't fear mongering at all either. It's a legitimate news event that is affecting millions of people, not a prediction about bad stuff that could possibly happen in the future. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose why would Italy doing this be notable, but the rest of the world not? Banedon (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody said that a mass lockdown in Italy is more notable than one another country. If Korea or Japan had taken such a drastic measure, I would have supported those making it to ITN. But the fact is that they haven't come close to taking action on the scale of this quarantine or the Hubei lockdown. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Given the scale of the lockdown as I've seen in the news, I'm willing to switch to supporting this, with the caveat that we'll have some issues if other countries start their own lockdowns. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need to post the development of a story that already appears in ongoing. One possibility to make sure that the sticky reflects this is to expand its title from "Coronavirus outbreak" to "Coronavirus outbreak and responses".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – According to the BBC and the AP, on March 8 Italy reported 7,375 confirmed cases and 366 deaths. The existing article only says over 5,800 cases snd 233 deaths "at the time of the decree."
  In order to be timely, and not leave readers wondering how many people the virus has affected in Italy, the current figures should be included in the article – in the lead – and updated as appropriate. The statistics cited for "at the time of the decree" could remain where they are relevant, a third of the way down in the (2,000+ -word) article, in the section titled "Expansion." – Sca (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: – Note second paragraph in market report (which includes 6.5% drop in Dow this a.m.). – Sca (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not at all fear-mongering when the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, among others are citing the strong possibility that the paralysis of Milan and other industrial centers in the north could induce the European economy at large into recession. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support and suggested AltBlurb2 whole country has now been placed into lockdown per BBC. PotentPotables (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Update Mentioning Oppose votes: Amakuru Masem WaltCip Indefensible Ad Orientem Banedon MSN12102001 Kiril Simeonovski The lockdown has been expanded to cover the entire country. This is unprecedented even after Hubei. Juxlos (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Still seems redundant and unnecessary, but not a big deal. Good work on the article. Like Masem, if there are further quarantines of similar or larger scale, this precedent will likely have to be addressed again. - Indefensible (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would've flipped, but I wasn't invited, so still not scary. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Moving to Support given the extension to the entire country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would only support this on the basis that this is the first such country-wide travel restriction in this outbreak. Even if, say, the US decides to lock down two weeks from now, we're not going to be blurbing that. The reason this is news is this historic first. -Masem (t) 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Point taken, but if nobody could travel in the US (or UK, for that matter) I'm fairly sure all the editors flooding into ITN would be a SNOW Support anyway. Juxlos (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Which is why I'm concerned about posting this outside Ongoing without establishing the precedent for posting this is not because <country/> shut down, but that this is the first country-wide travel shutdown due to COVID as a major milestone of the progress of the outbreak. Any further country shutdowns - barring for extremely unusual circumstances - are the type of thing that ongoing would be suited for. --Masem (t) 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There will be many more. We cannot post them all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted - Given the unprecedented country-wide scale of the lockdown, an influx of support here and some out-of-scope WP:SPECULATION, there is consensus to post. Article is referenced and in good shape. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. Just go ahead and supervote. No one really cares, I suppose. WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

!vote count is support +1 several opposes said OG was "good enough" pull from OG until this blurb expires off then repost NP --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 with a large number of votes is pretty contentious and not much of a consensus in my opinion, but looks like it has just been removed. We should still plan on what to do if there are further quarantines of similar or larger scale, regardless of whether this is posted or not and whether it stays up in Ongoing or not. - Indefensible (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Pulled No consensus yet. Sizable support that "ongoing" is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Fair pull. I certainly saw absolutely no clear consensus for this to be posted, despite my personal thoughts. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 01:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Notifying Fuzheado here also. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement. The article is developing nicely and the expanded lockdown is at the top of the headlines. SounderBruce 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Top of all news, article good. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:SPECULATION noted, but also WP:NOTNEWS. If this event is supported, what is the recommendation if other similar or greater quarantines follow? For example if France and Germany each start their own lockdowns, there should be a plan. Added altblurb2; more succinct and less redundant with the Ongoing entry. - Indefensible (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'd say Italy is especially notable as the first developed nation to go on lockdown. If France and Germany start lockdowns, it wouldn't necessarily be newsworthy because they're not breaking new ground like Italy is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  This is not really convincing to me, a quick search shows that China had lockdowned 35, 50, and then even 780 million people a couple weeks ago, which would dwarf the event in Italy. The "first developed nation" is somewhat arbitrary. If Australia goes on lockdown, there will be the first continental lockdown with 25 million people affected, which would be noteworthy by a similar principle. But if France and Germany each lockdown, they are both adding more people affected than Australia would or are currently quarantined in Italy. That would be more significant in my opinion than simply being the first country. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as a significant development. Meets ITN criteria of updated, significant, and quality. Kees08 (Talk) 05:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support replacement. While China was starting its lockdowns we were featuring coronavirus as a blurb. The situation in Italy has been top of the BBC news for days. If France, Germany or Australia follow then that can be added. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I hold to my technical oppose because the development of the story is already documented in the article linked from ongoing. It doesn't mean that this particular development is not notable but it appears in the ITN section with a sticky, which is usually reserved for globally important lasting events in order to prevent navel-gazing from frequent posting of multiple blurbs. As per my previous comment, expanding the title to reflect the responses would be more than sufficient.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Still Oppose blurb, per Kiril. Italy is hardly the first country to face major restrictions because of this. Iran, Japan have done imposed such,even if not technically a lockdown. Saudi Arabia has sealed off a region today. More will follow. This will be an ongoing worldwide story for for foreseeable, with seemingly major developments all the time, and let's not reinforce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by only focusing on western and European countries.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb, using alt1 or similar wording. We can leave the main coronavirus entry in ongoing if that assuages any concerns. It's been difficult to know when to put coronavirus back as a blurb, and ongoing has been a good place for it, but the quarantine of an entire country (a G7 member with a population of 60 million) is a major escalation. We posted the Hubei quarantine as well, so this would be consistent with previous coverage. Modest Genius ^talk 11:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If we must post one blurb about the coronavirus - this one, or the silly stock market "crash" blurb - I would opt to post this one instead. I guess in that sense, it's a mild support from me, reversing my previous oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support It seems a coronavirus blurb is inevitable despite it being in Ongoing, and this is better than the stock market one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I don't support a stock market posting either. (Market appeared to be recovering in early trading Tues.) I do think the Italian 'lockdown' becoming nationwide is notable, and reported deaths in Italy have reached 464. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - How has this not been reposted yet? However, I think its worth commenting that I believe posting this story shouldn't affect posting about Black Monday. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Re-posted, with a courtesy ping to Bagumba who pulled it early this morning, in case they strongly object to my re-post. Although I still have my own reservations about it, it is clear from the posts that have come in today that there is now a fairly strong consensus to post. Per Masem's comments I have included a note that Italy is the first to do a national quarantine, which may help offset accusations that this sets a precedent for future countries being posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  The Italian government becomes the first to implement a national quarantine ... @Amakuru: Is Italy really the first and not China? For example, CNN wrote that it was only one of the toughest responses implemented outside of mainland China ...—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, China's quarantine was centered on, and maybe limited to (?), Wuhan and its province, Hubei. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the "first" in the headline. Checked the actual article, and the "first" claim there is not backed up by the cited source. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: actually it is in the source: "italy is the world's first country to place its entire territory under extraordinary restrictions". It's also sourced elsewhere: [6]. Perhaps the source itself it inaccurate though, I'm not sure whether every part of China was on a full lockdown or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Some cities surrounding Wuhan are also in quarantine, but the lockdown is hardly nation wide. Other cities are operating as per normal after an extended holiday break (with masks and all). robertsky (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Post-reposting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sudan PM survives assassination attempt[edit]

(Posted) Black Monday (2020)[edit]

Nominator's comments: The stock market crash today was the most ever in history for DOW. The oil price war is international news and the stock market crash is international also. The article is new, but should be enough to suggest for a nomination. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wait until the bell at the end of the trading day. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support once the bell closes then discussion should begin.Elijahandskip (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. It's a record fall in points, but the Dow's average points value increases year on year, so that's not a valid metric (to give an example, the Dow stood at 27,000 this month whilst 10 years ago it was 9,000). The valid metric is percentage fall; the Dow is 7.1% down at the moment. On Black Monday 1987 it fell over 22%. At the moment, this is the 17th highest percentage loss in a day. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• No larger percentage drops have happened since 2008 or so, I think a stocks-related post once a decade is fair game. Juxlos (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Black Kite; even the S&P 500 ETF opening drop is only the 3rd-highest on record, behind 17 Sep 2001 and 23 Oct 2008. Whether it even reaches the bear market threshold of 20% decline from the all-time peak earlier in the calendar year remains to be seen, and even then not sure if it is ITN-worthy. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this is major business news, 20% is three weeks puts us into a bear market. The problem is, oil prices had been slumping for a while and today's sell off is in response to the price war, not COVID 19. Article needs to reflect the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support target article reflects the Saudi/Soviet price war, looks like this is going to claim the #20 spot in the worst percentage decreases in history. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • And there we have it: The #10 worst percentage drop in history, and worst since the great recession. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no "the stock market" so that's a bad start to the blurb. It's not great news, but it's not as significant as the ongoing Covid-19 issues which this community deem unworthy of re-blurbing. This isn't the coat hanger for a pandemic update. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have the coronavirus ongoing for anything related to that, which this is what it is. I recognize there's a oil price thing also going on too, which itself is also coupled with the coronavirus (saudi shutting off travel), but again, all related to fears from over the weekend, and was expected from the Italy lockdown. --Masem (t) 20:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Add'l Comment Calling this drop "Black Monday" seems premature based on sourcing. There is definitely a few sources today calling it that but its not universal, and this would fall into being a failure of WP:NEO. Only time will tell if this should be called a Black Monday, but it won't be today or tomorrow. --Masem (t) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you don't like the article title of "Black Monday" but you agree on notability, it's probably not an issue. "Black Monday" could be an inline reference such as "The stock market crashes| due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars." and then we can have the article naming debate on the article page. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Even with that, a one day slump noways most often is corrected the next day. Its a wait-and-see we need to watch for. If over a week we see global markets tank their worst, then that's a trend to hang a hat one, but one day, nope. --Masem (t) 22:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Oil had been slumping since last year on weakened demand due to the Trump trade war. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support but Revise instead of "The stock market crashes due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars," say "Global financial markets crash the most since 2008 financial crash due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars" ... because there is more than one stock market. The key here is that, regardless of cause it was notable because it was GLOBAL and the crash was superlatively bad (worst since 2008). Peace, MPS (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the article looks to be in good enough shape. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Percentage is what matters. The real news is crude oil crashing: ~25% decline in a day, second-biggest ever. And following on from that, Treasury yields plummeted to unprecedented lows. Stocks are just reacting to that plus COVID worries. (For people who don't speak finance: Treasuries are considered the safest thing there is, so when people freak out they stash all their money there. Yield = interest.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support market just closed. This is potentially one of the most chaotic days in the financial world since the financial crisis. I expect this to be very headline news tomorrow, but I agree title may need to be more generic for the time being. Juxlos (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support for the alternative blurb. I nominated something very similar a few weeks ago, and still believe it is noteworty. Per discussion from last time, I agree with the point that we do not necessarily need to limit our focus on the DJIA; we could also mention the record drop in the S&P 500. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support on principle. Largest drop in oil in nearly thirty years, largest percentage drop since 2008, largest net point drop ever, breaking a record from two weeks ago. If this is not newsworthy, then nothing from the world of business is newsworthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• + alt blurb 2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment blurb 2 is doubly wrong: the crash is attributed not just to the coronavirus but to the oil price drop, and now the whole of italy is under travel restrictions. --Masem (t) 21:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw they extended the quarantine. I will have to amend the alt blurb 2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. The oil crash is part of the cause though COVID-19 is a huge weight on the markets. We probably will have to blurb Italy going into national self quarantine. I don't think that's happened in modern times. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Oppose alt 2. This isn't a covid-19 hanger, nonsense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Alt 2 has now been removed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if people want a story here, keep it to the facts, don't try to assert some kind of causality when it's clearly more complex than just "one thing". "Dow Jones down by record X%" is fine. Anything else feels like a crap way of restoring covid-19 to the blurbs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Black Kite, TRM and Masem. (and if it is run, please try and remember there is more than one stock exchange in the world. One of them may have dropped, but it's lazy to say The Stock Market.) - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is why the alt blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are we fixating on the Dow Jones? Is it because it's Amurican? Plenty of other "stock markets" out there. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support in principle, as not a declines as large as 2008 global financial crisis. But the article needs to revised as stock market crash. 36.77.94.26 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose What happens on one day in one of the world's many stock markets is never the full story. Do we post this, then remove it if the market goes up 5% the next day? Do we care what happens outside New York? While this might be part of a huge, longer term event, we can't know that yet. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, per the original blurb "The stock market crashes..." say no more. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a note "The stock market crashes" is accurate for every stock market on the planet. Juxlos (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I do go along with the sentiment to avoid regional focus. In this case, every major economy's stock indices declined by similar percentages. But like I said above, the movement in oil and Treasuries is actually the bigger deal, and stocks are just reacting to that. (The Treasury market is the biggest securities market in the world, period.) A lot of the public tends to focus on stock indices because they're more intuitive and volatile (big numbers = impressive), but for gauging economic sentiment experts tend to pay attention to sovereign debt and commodities. I would suggest a blurb something like, "Crude oil sees its biggest single-day drop since 1991, while Treasury yields and global stock indices decline sharply, in response to COVID spread and an oil price war". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: stock index futures are bouncing back a bit at the moment, so it's unlikely that the markets will continue dropping like a rock. Tokyo just opened for trading if you want to watch that for an idea of trends. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"The ASX 200 index was up 1.3 per cent or 74 points to 5,834 at about 1.30pm." (that's forty minutes ago) from Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Note that says "UP"! HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note The huge sell-off in stocks was a global event and not limited to the US. The Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund ETF fell by 7.98%.[8] The S&P 500 fell by 7.72%.[9] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks to me that Fuzheado has already used his magical admin powers to post a coronavirus blurb to ITN. So one is enough. WaltCip (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read the discussion above, this is a mix of COVID 19 and an OPEC civil war -- both on top of a three year long global trade war. Asian markets are down again today. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Asian markets would all still be open. Please see my comment just a little bit above about the Australia market have now risen. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment/Oppose (at least for now) - While business and stock market-related subjects are consequential and underrepresented in my opinion, further market action of which this is a component may be more relevant and make this trivial. As noted elsewhere, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a news source, so subject matter coverage should be comprehensive more than timely. - Indefensible (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb above: "The stock market crashes due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars," say "Global financial markets crash the most since 2008 financial crash due to coronavirus fears and oil price wars". This is a significant event and its surprising that it is not listed. Ljgua124 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue is if the DJIA drops 8% tomorrow, is that going to be posted too? If it then drops 9% next Monday, will that again be posted? These noteworthy events leave open the possibility of rapid succession of the same or similar kind, which must be planned for comprehensively. Wikipedia is not a news site currently, it is an encyclopedia. If the record bull market ends and/or a recession begins, that would be the more appropriate event to post in my opinion because of its larger scope/impact and uniqueness. - Indefensible (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

    We could post the crude oil and Treasury drops, since those are huge events and won't be repeated anytime soon. Crude fell the most in nearly 30 years; Treasury yield curve is totally below 1% for the first time ever I think. Although I don't know if we have good enough targets to link. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - this is a very notable event in its own right & isn't merely a small detail of the coronavirus outbreak. The 2 causes - coronavirus & the massive fall in oil prices need to be included in the blurb. The FTSE, AEX, Cac, DAX, IBEX & DJ all closed at 8% down yesterday. The MIB closed at 11% down. Jim Michael (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support And the notion that there's no such thing as "the stock market" makes no sense here; EVERY market dropped by historic amounts yesterday. Indeed, THE stock market is well into correction (-10% from recent peak) or even bear market (-20%) NO MATTER WHAT particular market you are referring to. The "Black Monday" phrasing is well represented in the financial press. There's no enough space in the ITN box to highlight all the superlatives that happened yesterday, so just getting something up and directing readers to the article is the best that we could do for this item. If this can't get posted, we might as well decide to never post business items on ITN, ever.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - if this doesn't qualify for inclusion, no financial story does. This is a bigger story than the large daily falls during the 2008 crash, because they were part of a severe bear market that was caused by the Great Recession. Yesterday's was due to a combination of viral outbreak & an argument about oil. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support and don't forget to buy stocks because this may be the last time opportunity to buy stocks at such low prices! Count Iblis (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is important issue and the article is in good situation.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Alt2 added, linking to some background material and presenting the event in it's own right (sans commentary about viruses and oil, which can be found in the article).130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM and other comments above. Also, if we must post this, please don't mention the Dow Jones Industrial Average. With only 30 stocks, which are weighted by the antiquated measure of absolute share price (essentially an arbitrary number) rather than market cap, it is a poor bellweather for the US stockmarket as a whole, and still less the global.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment and now, the next day, things are returning to normal. Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As it did the last time we had a drop of this sort. This demonstrates how pointless it is to hitch one's wagon to the stock market, something that is prone to volatility. I think The Who were right -- let's not get fooled again. --WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin comment I see a rough consensus to post. However, "blurb" is too generic and "alt blurb" does not have a world view that many discussed. "Alt II" part about bear market is not mentioned in current article, and can be easily removed, but the bigger issue is the "dramatic fall" is not referring to a discrete event (e.g. "the X% drop", "largest drop since", etc) and now many markets are up today.[10] Without consensus for a more concise blurb on a specific event, generic "falls" risk being quickly dated in a volatile market.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The "fall" happened on the date in question (9 Mar). Whether the market goes up later doesn't change history. Like I mentioned above, far too many superlatives achieved yesterday for a concise yet encompassing blurb.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment CNBC: Dow futures point to opening bounce of 1,000 points after Trump floats payroll tax cut. Not a "crash". We're in a volatile market environment. Wikipedia, face it; you're not investors. Look to the fundamentals. Look to long-term. Don't publish the moments of panic. --WaltCip (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Come now, every time there's 4 plus one deaths, the next day "things return to normal". That doesn't prevent us from posting our disaster blurbs. If more people were killed yesterday than on any day since 2008, we would certainly blurb it, whether or not there remained yet 6+ billion people still alive.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is precedence for this. When the U.S. government went into shutdown a year or so ago, a blurb was posted to that effect. Once the shutdown ended, there was a consensus to pull the blurb from ITN. News ceases to be news when the overall impact of it is reversed in short order. The government can be turned back on. Money can be put back into the stock market. In that sense, we handle these sorts of stories differently from disasters involving loss of human life, because of course you can't resurrect the dead.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Once again this is the wrong item to hang the coronavirus story on. It wasn't the largest fall in terms of percentages, and unsurprisingly stocks have risen again today.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support ALT1 ALT3 - Crash not seen since 2008. Shows affects related to the coronavirus outbreak and the oil market. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposing ALT3 based on what MPS wrote above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Markets are inherently volatile variable. Wall St. appeared to be recovering in early trading Tues. Anyway, it's the virus spread and attendant deaths that's significant. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The financial effects are also very significant; markets are rarely this volatile. The virus has cost the world economy many billions. The stock market crash has greatly adversely affected millions of people. Travel has been greatly reduced, especially in regard to China & Italy. A lot of businesses have shut down. It's not just the deaths that matter, and in any case the financial effects of it will certainly have led to suicides. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this significant crash was also caused not just by the coronavirus, but also a trade dispute between Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's the epidemic itself that matters most. (Note that the Italian lockdown blurb has been re-posted.) – Sca (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I think ALT3 is the worst blurb of the lot. As opposed to some of the other blurbs which focused speciously on the Dow Jones, ALT3 is unhelpful and vague and may as well just say "Coronavirus bad". I think if you're going to zone in on a particular part of how financial markets have been rattled, the oil price indices would be the most suitable choice. "Global financial markets" is just a series of buzzwords.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edited for your sake. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

More acceptable now.--WaltCip (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Alt III sourcing comment I dont see prose and citation for largest fall since the Great Recession—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see any notation problems for the ALT0 and ALT2... However, I've cited it in the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Largest daily drop since 2008 and triggered futures to suspend operations and a trading halt just after opening. That alone is quite serious enough for ITN coverage. Noah^Talk 19:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Davey2116 Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 22:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted modified alt III without listing the causes. Some disagreement about whether there is causality and which ones to mention. At least we have a starting point for further talks, if necessary. At the very least, the backdrop is in the article. Without getting too technical on the order of blurbs on the same date, I applied the order of its current placement at ITNC.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - is the Great Recession really a widespread enough term that it can be included in ITN without comment? I don't think I've ever heard it (perhaps because Australia did not go into recession); perhaps it is a North American term? Suggest changing to since the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or simply since 2008. Adpete (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a common term. Obviously it's not going to have been anywhere near as much of a topic of conversation & media coverage in countries in which it did not happen. Jim Michael (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting comment – "Suffer their largest single-day decline" is quite likely to be outdated – or stale – in a few days. IMO, we only needed one Coronavirus-related blurb in ITN, and Italy's national 'lockdown' was it. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is a good thing that this was caused by the OPEC civil war. Whatever happens in a few days, global stocks plunged by record amounts on Monday. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Today is Wednesday. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sca, I had forgotten what with all the fuss about Coronavirus. It's got me in a tizzy.--WaltCip (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2020

Me too, Walt. I dumped my two little mutual funds Monday.... Oh well. – Sca (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

(Closed) MH17 trial[edit]

(Posted) RD: John Bathersby[edit]

Nominator's comments: Roman Catholic archbishop from Australia. - Indefensible (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment ref 8 (permanent dead link) needs replacing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ref 8 fixed, article looks good Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 8[edit]

---

(Posted) RD: Max von Sydow[edit]

Nominator's comments: Needs a fair bit of work to get it up to scratch first SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Pending all the extra work. I'll have a bit more time this evening to help. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The power of Christ compels you! {to post this when ready} --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:2488:56FD:2A33:C0CF (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment For what its worth, supporting RDs when the article is not ready is a bit counterproductive. I opened up all the tabs (including to review the article) in preparation to post until I realized it was not ready. Since article quality is the only criterion for supporting/opposing RDs, it would be nice for ITN template editors (at least for me) if we limited supports to when the article was ready. Thanks for nominating and working on the article, look forward to it getting posted later :). Kees08 (Talk) 16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree that nominators should improve the article so that it is ready or very close before posting it here as a candidate. - Indefensible (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a bit of work to do, but things like using IMDB for all his awards is verboten. IMDB is not reliable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That particular issue has been fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support As referencing has been improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article well sourced enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Looks complete and good to go. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support: With the filmography section now having been split off into its own article, this page is ready. —Matthew - (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to voice disapproval at sweeping the unsourced filmography to a separate page just to post an RD but unfortunately this has become too much standard practice. I'm not going to stand in the way of this RD being posted, but this type of poor sourcing activity needs to stop. The filmography is just as much a BLP issue right now as the main bio page. --Masem (t) 16:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The filmography is not unsourced. The sources are above the table. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I have seen you have tried appropriate to move those per line (thank you) but that also shows my point is that often those bulk references often miss a work or three that we have included. --Masem (t) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Calling it unsourced was a bit of an exaggeration, however. Anyway, I finalized the sourcing for the filmography. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Article ready to post, please do so asap, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup[edit]

Nominator's comments: Article still needs work. I will finish off in the morning. – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not ITNR. Women's Cricket World Cup (ODI) is ITNR, not the ICC Women's T20 World Cup (T20 variant). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I have done some checking on this. So the ICC World Twenty20 event (since renamed to the ICC T20 World Cup) was included as part of the original list of ITN/R items in February 2008 after the inaugural men's event was posted in 2007. The inaugural women's tournament was played alongside the men's tournament in 2009. We posted the men's result but there was an attempt to include the women's result. 2010 was the same result; men made the cut but there was discussion to include the women's. In 2012 neither were posted but probably should have. 2014 and 2016 saw both results posted. The ICC cancelled the men's 2018 event leaving the women's event to be contested for the first time as a standalone event. We didn't post it due to quality concerns. Which bring us to this year. Cricket Australia won awarded the hosting rights for both the 2020 men's and women's tournaments. They recommended to the ICC that the tournaments should be separated and they agreed. The men's tournament will be begin in October. As a side note, the original items that were listed in 2008 were done so without a discussion. This was partially cleared up in a May 2013 discussion where the Men's Cricket World Cup was listed but not the Ashes nor this tournament. I will await the result of this discussion to see whether gets posted, but it would be great to confirm all the cricket items on the ITN/R list. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the notability here is in the entire tournament and not the final. If the tourney page were up to scratch it be worth considering. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Following on the last cricket item posted, the 2019 Cricket World Cup, the target article was the final (see discussion) – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Target article (the final) has been updated, expanded and fully ref'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article is in a good shape, decent amount of prose, sourced.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC))
• Support. Article looks good to go, and since the men's tournament is ITN/R it seems reasonable to post this one too. Particularly as it took place on International Women's Day...  — Amakuru (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 7[edit]

---

(Closed) Faulty Windows 10 update may brick your computer[edit]

(Posted) RD: K. Anbazhagan[edit]

Nominator's comments: Former Indian MP died. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - In-line referencing needs improvement, although probably should be able to post without too much extra work. - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose marked as a stub but clearly not, and several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you Please take a look now ? Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks improved, but still needs more referencing I think. - Indefensible (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Have time to re-review this? Want to make sure your concerns were addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks done.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: We usually require sections like literary works to be cited (unless the citation just before it is supposed to cover it?) Kees08 (Talk) 17:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

there are 2 citations.Please take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Could still use improvement, but meets minimum requirements and OK to post now I think. - Indefensible (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Posted - unsure why the page name is what it is instead of his full name, but I suppose that's an RM discussion Kees08 (Talk) 15:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adamou Ndam Njoya[edit]

Nominator's comments: Politician, author, and legal educator from Cameroon. Indefensible (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to be sufficiently referenced, and I think it may be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Limited coverage on the RD candidate. No major new sources covered this person's death, with the exception of his respective national media. Article still needs work i.e. loose hyperlinks and most sections are choppy. DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨

  Respectfully, this Oppose makes no sense. As long as the death is attested somewhere, and cited as such in the article, then it's fine. And the quality requirements at WP:ITN only require it to be not a stub and adequately cited, without maintenance tags. It doesn't have to be B class or –anything like that, so "choppy sections" and "loose hyperlinks" don't enter into the debate.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Respectfully, this response seems bias judging from the topics the user has contributed the most in. DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨

• Posted Stephen 01:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fatemeh Rahbar[edit]

References[edit]

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 [http://example.com] 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: