* '''Oppose''' – On lack of general significance. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – On lack of general significance. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article has quality prose, and is well updated, and subject is a recent event being covered sufficiently by major news sources. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article has quality prose, and is well updated, and subject is a recent event being covered sufficiently by major news sources. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The college football national championship is a major news story in the US, and the article looks well updated and well sourced. The objections to posting seem to be based either on the fact that it isn't a major news story outside the US, or that the current playoff system doesn't do a good job of choosing the champion. The former objection is clearly invalid based on the instructions on this page, while the latter objection seems to have nothing to do with the criteria for posting. [[User:Calathan|Calathan]] ([[User talk:Calathan|talk]]) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
====(Ready) RD: Tom Rukavina ====
====(Ready) RD: Tom Rukavina ====
Revision as of 21:09, 8 January 2019
Page for discussions regarding potential items for "In the news"
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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A Polish woman, Elżbieta Piotrowska, is attacked with an axe and dies from her injuries in Ardee, County Louth, Ireland. A man known to her was later arrested. (RTÉ)
An attack on a primary school in Beijing leaves 20 children injured, with three children receiving serious but non-life-threatening injuries. All injured children are receiving hospital treatment. The suspect was apprehended at the scene and an investigation has been launched. (AP News)
German politician Frank Magnitz, a member of the AfD party, was beaten unconscious by three masked assailants in the city of Bremen on Monday. AfD party leader Alice Weidel calls the attack an "assassination attempt" and politicians from other German parties condemn the attack. (BBC News)
Jaskirat Sidhu, the driver involved in a fatal crash involving the Humboldt Broncos, pleads guilty to 29 charges against him, including 16 counts of dangerous operation of motorized vehicle causing death and 13 counts of dangerous operation of motor vehicle causing bodily injury. (Sporting News)(CBC)
Retired USMC General Anthony Zinni resigns as U.S. envoy for the Qatar diplomatic dispute because regional leaders couldn't agree on a "viable mediation effort" to resolve the stalemate. (CNN)(CBS News)
The asteroid 6478 Gault, 5 kilometres (3.1 miles) in diameter, is found to have been impacted by another large (>500 metres (>0.31 miles)) asteroid in late October 2018, the largest asteroid-to-asteroid collision in recorded history. (Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams)
The government of Gabon quashes a coup d'état by soldiers. The attempt took place while the country's president, Ali Bongo, was undergoing medical treatment in Morocco. (CBC)
Former youth football coach Michael "Kit" Carson is killed in a car crash on the day he was due to stand trial for multiple counts of sexually abusing minors. The trial subsequently ended without a verdict. (BBC News)
Sudanese Interior Minister Ahmed Bilal Osman announces that 816 protesters have been arrested amidst anti-government protests held across the country since December of last year. (Al Jazeera)
Nominator's comments: This is one of the major sporting events in the U.S. for 2019. It has not been posted by ITN yet, but I still believe it should be. My nomination from last year and User:Thryduulf 's well stated closing statement is at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2018#[Closed] 2018 College Football Playoff National Championshipat "[Closed] 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship" (p.s. what am I doing wrong that I can't link directly to that archived section?) The annual college basketball championship is on WP:ITN/R, so there's room for amateur competitions. And remember not to oppose it because it has no international impact. It's purely a debate about whether or not it's sufficiently newsworthy. I can point to all the live update sites run, like NY Times, Sporting News, CBS Sports, Washington Post, and The Guardian, which suggests it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as updater – perfectly summed up by Muboshgu, there are countless sites providing live updates and stats; additionally, this Clemson team is the first since Penn in 1897 to finish a season 15–0, making the game that much more historic. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this hardly makes the news outside of the US. I supported it last year, but only because the blurbs were old; this is not the case right now. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I support having an article on the outcome of the game providing the article is well-referenced and up to scratch. At the moment it needs referencing in several sections most notably related to match stats. If referencing is fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whereas the NCAA Basketball is a true tourney approach based on season records and a bracket elimination tourney, the BCS for football is nowhere close to a true championship series, as it involves the subjective placement of teams by coaches and reporters, rather than any outright measurement of skill. --Masem (t) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Masem: for what it's worth: (1) FBS college football retired use of the BCS system following the 2013 season; this season is the fifth in which the champion has been decided from the four-team College Football Playoff system; (2) the teams that participate in the College Football Playoff are the top four teams in the final College Football Playoff rankings, which are decided upon by the CFP committee, not "coaches and reporters"; (3) said College Football Playoff committee is made up of thirteen members, which is more than can be said about the NCAA basketball tournament's nine-member selection committee; (4) the size of a tournament does not make it notable - take, for example, The Basketball Tournament 2018 - the mere fact that it has more teams than the CFP (72 vs. 4) does not make it more notable (TBT does not make any appearances on the main page); (5) Most of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament's 68 participants are far less notable than the CFP's 4 participants (for example, 2017–18 Radford Highlanders men's basketball team vs. 2018 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team is really a no contest); and (6) you provide no evidence that the CFP is not, as you say, "a true tourney approach based on season records," as wins and losses are some of the main criteria that the CFP committee consider. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support While it may not be news outside the US, it is still news and is being covered by every major US newspaper. Another reason I support is that while it may not be a true championship, it's still widely covered and it is watched by many people. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose posting any amateur university sporting contest (yes that includes the Boat Race). These are not the top level of competition in any sport, of interest mostly to alumni, of extremely limited eligibility, and fall far short of the standards we should apply to sporting blurbs on ITN. Even worse in this case, the (semi-)finalists are chosen subjectively, not even from a proper tournament. Every year someone nominates this, and every year it gets shot down. Just no. Modest Geniustalk11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. I can guarantee you the 10% of Americans that watched aren't mostly alumni. There are thousands of colleges in the US and 39% of Americans left school between their 16th birthday and end of grade 12 and don't have a college alma mater at all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Serial Number 54129: as was pointed out by 331dot above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."
Oppose - I don't buy the argument of the playoff system giving the NCAA Football tournament more legitimacy. If you can be undefeated UCF with a perfect W/L record and still be shut out of the playoffs by one-loss Oklahoma, your system is a sham. But more to the point, sports stories have a higher bar to cross in order to be posted on ITN. As a sport, it's not notable internationally, despite being a national sensation. It functions as a gateway into pro football for amateur players, and that's really the crux of the matter and why this never gets posted; we already post pro football. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In response to WaltCip's point, yes we already post pro football but only one event per year - I think there is room for one college football event too, and it's definitely newsworthy. (By the way, is there a reason why the blurb links to Gridiron football and not the more familiar American football)?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every rationale for opposition can be countered by a sporting event that is ITNR. 1. No global impact 2. Amateur event 3. Not the top tier etc. We post dozens of sporting events each year, but for some reason this one spurs immense fervor in opposition. What is the great harm in posting this? ghost14:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has quality prose, and is well updated, and subject is a recent event being covered sufficiently by major news sources. --Jayron3215:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The college football national championship is a major news story in the US, and the article looks well updated and well sourced. The objections to posting seem to be based either on the fact that it isn't a major news story outside the US, or that the current playoff system doesn't do a good job of choosing the champion. The former objection is clearly invalid based on the instructions on this page, while the latter objection seems to have nothing to do with the criteria for posting. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Soldiers ousted ailing Ali Bingo "to restore democracy." The article is just a stub, bringing it here for attention, so we can have post-able prose in a few hours. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is still developing. According to BBC, the government says they have things under control, in which case the article should be renamed as "coup attempt". We'll see as the story develops. --Tone10:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability - it's not ready to post yet, as it's a stub and doens't really cover the event in detail. But if the article is expanded then certainly. This was international news, and if it happened in a more "famous" country there is not a shadow of a doubt it would be posted. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Well the article is not ready for submission right now but, being about coup attempt, it is guaranteed to expand so on the basis of article's quality I may soon be supporting it and as far as notability is concerned, it is receiving enough coverage (although not as much as coup attempts usually get, as in case of Turkey in 2016).Amir (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – According to the BBC, the five leaders of the coup have been arrested. AP corroborates and reports two coup participants were killed. Looks like the coup has fizzled. Something not happening usually is not considered ITN material. Sca (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though Turkey is a much larger country, the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt very much failed. Despite how it didn't succeed at any of its goals, and those involved were purged, it was unquestionably regarded as a notable event. The only way we can say that the attempt in Turkey was important but the attempt in Gabon was unimportant is if we invent new arbitrary standards like "the Turkish coup forces had access to more weapons than the Gabon forces" or "the one in Gabon shut down the internet, but the one in Turkey shut down newspapers and TV stations" etc, which would really boil down to one happening in a major country and another in a very small country. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨
There's a vast difference between a coup attempted that involved thousands of people (like Turkey) and one that involved exactly 5 (this one). This seemed far less like a serious threat than anything else. --Masem (t) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It appears that five guys got on TV, announced they were taking over, and were arrested afterwards. AFAIK there was no large scale violence and the capital Libreville is described as calm by sources. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose assuming nothing more happens. Article isn't good enough and the events (just 5 participants?) weren't significant enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support requiring large scale violence to post this kind of thing makes no sense. This will be heavily in the news (at least in the country) for a while, and that's good enough. Banedon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I burst into a TV studio broadcasting live and announced I was taking over the US government, I would get hauled off to a mental hospital and get barely a mention in the news. This isn't that much different. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you'd make the news. You'd trigger wide investigations into whether you were acting alone or if there's any credible threat. You'd make people wonder if the FBI should have detected what you were going to do before you actually did it. If the would-be coup were significant enough to attract coverage from major news sources, it should be suitable for ITN as well. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wait, wut?! People were trying to overthrow someone the Atlantic Council wanted to give a Global Citizen Award? And you want that on ITN/Wikipedia :D ? Will read page before !voting, per power. SashiRolls t · c21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be more so a case of drunken insubordination or a few soldiers' gross overestimation of revolutionary potential than a consequential attempt at overthrowing the government. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is in fact comparable to the Soviet coup attempt, I don't think that helps the case that it's unimportant considering that the Soviet coup attempt was one of the contributing factors in the country shattering. As for what the long-term consequences of the rare African coup attempt will be, we can't know, but it unquestionably destabilized the country and isn't off of the minds of the people who live there. Brendon the Wizard✉️✨15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of its size and lack of success, this is clearly an important incident for Gabon and the rest of Central Africa. Coups are getting significantly rarer in Africa in general, and this is the first in Gabon since 1964 I believe. Is it really less notable than the World Darts Championship it would displace?—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per User:Brigade Piron. [2] This source talks of the context: lower petroleum output and prices, the aftermath of the 2016 "election", an ailing kleptocratic son-of-a-dictatorpresident, unwavering support of the international community with France leading the troops... It was more than five soldiers, since two were killed and seven arrested, according to Reuters. Also, a witness saw around 300 people on the street in Libreville, supporting the coup attempt. That's as many daring citizens as France has soldiers in Gabon. Wakari07 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a second-day AP story in one newspaper – one I wouldn't call a major news site these days. One that is a major site, NYT, has a second-day story about Gabon officials "inspecting the state radio station where security officers thwarted a coup attempt by army soldiers on Monday." Not significant.
It's not on the AP's main site or the BBC's, nor on Reuters. ("This source" – Reuters story linked by Wakari07 above – is two days old.) Oddly, the Guardian still offers yesterday's video of the plotters' ill-fated TV appearance, but obviously that's old news. It's over. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taliban officials say that they will not attend peace talks scheduled for next week in Saudi Arabia because they "cannot afford" to meet the Afghan government delegation at present. (Reuters)
The Zwicky Transient Facility in California discovers a large Atira asteroid, 2019 AQ3, an asteroid with a diameter of 1.4 kilometres (0.87 miles) that stays closer to the Sun during its orbit than any other known asteroid, passing from inside the orbit of Mercury to just outside the orbit of Venus. (Minor Planet Center)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Abdication of a reigning monarch is a big deal, so this is an automatic support on notability. The article, however, needs a separate section on his abdication that will be highlighted in the blurb instead of his name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you make it sound as if its a big deal, the term king is malaysia is not like european kings that the throne goes to thier children after decades holding the throne, here every 3-5 years the newly elected king leave his job and a new king from another state is elected. lots of sultans who keep selecting as kings and so on and so on. the deputy king will take the job until he also resign which by than his deputy will be crowned. – HonorTheKing (talk)21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The sudden unexplained abdication seems pretty unusual. Apparently nothing remotely like this has happened before. He also seems to have married a Russian woman about six weeks ago (and hasn't released any public statement confirming or denying or explaining that). It seems likely that the two events are related. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR, so there's no need to support or oppose. This should go up once the article is ready. However, right now it is very bare bones; I'm amazed we have such a short and uninformative article for someone who was head of state of Malaysia for several years, and won the position through an election. The article currently has just one sentence on the abdication - that should be at least a fully-referenced paragraph. Modest Geniustalk20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we post this, we ought to be describing him as "Sultan Muhammad V of Malaysia", which seems to be the most common descriptor, and would be consistent with the way we describe European nobility and royalty. I'm unsure why the article is not at that title, but it should either be moved or piped. Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They may not have their titles in front of their names, but many still have their titles in the article title; see Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for instance. Besides which, when we have posted British royal weddings, we have definitely included the titles of the individuals involved in the blurbs: see [3], for instance. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not ITNR ITNR seems to be for the election or succession of a new head of state, not the removal/resignation of the old. Typically this would be simultaneous, but not here. ghost14:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is simultaneous. It's a first-ever event, and just yesterday, six of the nine ruling families agreed to elect a new king (on 24 January, taking office the 31st) – instead of letting the Acting King remain in office until the end of the term. [4]Wakari07 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "simultaneous" means. This guy is gone already. The new guy is elected more than two weeks from now. This is not quantum physics. Consider the pope: there is always an interregnum, but the death/abdication of the old one is not ITNR. ghost16:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't care whether an item is included on bare significance or on ITN/R criteria. Don't you think the death of the Pope would be mentioned? Wakari07 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we missing an update on the article? Based on the Guardian, there is definitely at least a paragraph of information we should have that there was speculation that he was going to step down, and definitely the body is missing the statement that he stepped down. --Masem (t) 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the Malay Wikipedia article, there's barely one sentence, approximately translated as "On 6 January 2019, he had resigned the federal throne as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and became the first Yang di-Pertuan Agong to step down from the federal throne in the history of Malaysia". I suppose the Malaysian people have other things to do than to speculate about the past or the future. The royal palace gave no reason for the move. This article suggests that the real reason may be in pressure from the Council of Rulers, with the rumours about the marriage only the tipping point. The same source says that a New Straits Times editorial insists that he "stepped down" and didn't abdicate. Wakari07 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we state that the speculation is speculation, and the speculation is coming from expert sources, and doesn't dip into BLP, then I think there should be some inclusion of ideas why. But still, lack of anything in the body (when I last looked) means this is not properly updated. --Masem (t) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – That such an abdication is "unprecedented," per our article on Muhammad V, doesn't seem broadly significant. Note that the article contains no separate section on his abdication, merely saying in the lead that he abdicated on Jan. 6. There's apparently no separate article on the abdication either. Not even remotely enough information for ITN. Sca (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Congolese election commission delays announcing the results of the recent election, claiming that only half the ballots have been counted. (BBC News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American murderer and death row inmate. Looks OK, I have been through and cut out uncited statements - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the last paragraph before "death" is out of date ("The next court hearing regarding the case is scheduled for September 10, 2018", "A response to this motion request is due August 16, 2018."). Probably needs fixing (or removing) before posting. Black Kite (talk)13:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvements to the blurb. It should reflect the controversy surrounding the move, the fact that neither of the existing churches accepted the move on Constantinopole's part, and that the Russian church and it's child church in the Ukraine (the largest religious denomination in the country) explicitly denounced the move Openlydialectic (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No expert on Orthodox Christianity here, but I'd be nervous about "precipitating a major schism." Isn't it about freeing the Ukrainian church from Russian Orthodox hegemony? Historically, "schism" seems to refer more to doctrinal differences, which don't seem to be at play here. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Schism in the Christian sense generally refers to a breaking of sacramental communion, or among non-sacramental Protestants, withdrawal from fellowship. At the moment approximately half of the worlds 300 million Orthodox Christians are no longer in communion with the See of Constantinople. And not one of the world's canonical autocephalous churches (with the obvious exception of the EP) have recognized this act. Most have criticized it and all continue to recognize the self governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the canonical church in Ukraine. Yes, this is a schism. And if it is not settled quickly it could become the worst since 1054 which split the Christian world between East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). I realize that for those who do not follow religious news, this sort of thing with debates over ancient church canons, ecclesiology and so on is likely to put one into a coma of boredom. But it really is a massively significant event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, from what I understand, many outside of Russia criticized the Constantinopole's decision because A) it is pretty obviously political and has little to do with religious rules B) creates a bad precedent of direct meddling into affairs of an autocephalous church by the ecumential patriarch, Pope-style. The latter is especially important since no one can guarantee the Ecum. Patriarch won't then move to give independence to churches of Macedonia/Montenegro/Abkhazia/South Osetia/Donest's People's Republic/Kosovo/Bosnia/Moldova/Belarus/etc. Tl;dr this is huge Openlydialectic (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I claim no expertise, but if people are unsure whether 'schism' is tecnically correct, other words like 'rift' or 'split' might do instead. That said, I suspect the question of whether the EP is entitled to do what he has done is probably already a doctrinal difference (and will presumably soon become one if it isn't already), so I suspect it's probably misleading to argue that it's not a schism due to the supposed absence of doctrinal differences. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Support on notability for reasons already given by others above and in earlier noms (important religious story with geo-political implications, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Schism, rift or whatever, note that according to today's AP article, the issue is "a decree of independence ... of the nascent Orthodox Church of Ukraine, formally severing it from the Russian Orthodox Church." It adds, "Many Ukrainians had resented the status of the Moscow-affiliated church." Sca (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Given that context, suggest the blurb avoid the obscure (to most Eng.-lang. readers) term autocephaly – a Greek word (αὐτοκεφαλία) which according to our own article simply means "independence." Yes I know about links, but why not make the blurb readily intelligible to our audience? – Sca (talk) Sca (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know we tend to simplify for accessiblity, but on the other hand, as an encyclopedia, we can teach readers words specifically used in a given area. Brandmeistertalk14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they're that interested, they can get those words from the article. Anyway, autocephaly is certainly not a word most Eng.-lang. readers are ever going to use themselves. Sca (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added another altblurb with more accurate links, please check. I think more or less good to go, all articles appear comprehensive and sourced. --Tone14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically, both altblurbs should say "The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, grants...." In English, nouns usually take articles. (But still oppose.) Sca (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - Can someone rewrite the blur (yes I left out the second "b") to lose the seven-dollar words? There's gotta be a more direct way to state what's going on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.23.67 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Lima Group announces that from January 10, 2019, the government of Nicolás Maduro will no longer be recognized by the governments which compose the multilateral body. (Al Jazeera)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American nuclear physicist and former U.S. Secretary of Defense (served under President Carter) dies at age 91. Virtually un-referenced. Davey2116 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Ongoing nom since the government has been partially shut down for two weeks, with no end in sight. Regular updates are expected with the new Congress beginning yesterday. This is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996, after the 2013 shutdown. We posted blurbs for both the beginning and the end of the 2013 shutdown. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose yet again. First, this is a partial rather than a full shutdown, so it doesn't have the impact of the 2013 one (only ~800k vs 2+M workers affected). Second, whereas there are partisan politics involved with both, this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide, which is something we should not be encouraging as ITN items, least we start getting into petty squables between parties from other countries. --Masem (t) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide is relevant to the effects of the shutdown. (And I also disagree that the 2013 shutdown was caused by a "reasonable" partisan divide.) If another country's "petty squabbles" will affect as many federal workers, I'd be happy to post that as well. Davey2116 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated this last week, there was a narrow majority in favor, with more support promised if the shutdown continued past January 3. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I again state that I am not sure what regular updates are expected. Maybe "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the fifth time the House will not fund a wall." "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the tenth time the House will not fund a wall" but that's all. As already noted, most of the government is open. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that people are making daily updates to the page, that's likely to happen, but we're looking at the significant updates that happen to the story itself. From the last several days, this is just a blame game being played by both sides, which is not major shifts or news. The media is sensationalizing this as well which compounds the issue. --Masem (t) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none of the content in the "effects" section is about a "blame game". It is about tangible effects of the government shutting down, which are what they are, whether or not the media is sensationalizing it. Davey2116 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be expected to occur and all that does is expand the summary of the effects, it doesn't radically change the story. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should have been a blurb when it started, but it's easy to blurb when it's over. In the news around the world, nearly a million people either furloughed or working without pay ... certainly seems significant to me, just not right for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb nom below was closed in just 90 minutes, it's way past time for that bullshit to stop. Noms exist for seven days, there is no reason at all, none whatsoever, for someone to just go off the rails and close it. In fact... --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable effect impacting the lifes of millions of Americans. Has been going on for several weeks. It is worth noting and individual readers can make up their own mind as to whether to visit the page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) this is a routine US political disagreement (2) The "shutdown" isn't really a true government "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal. Chrisclear (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose certainly not of interest worldwide in any sense, just more bonkers insanity from the orange one. These shutdowns are commonplace, and unless the Trump unleashes some super-power, this is not of note on an ongoing basis either. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's a topic that creeps in a petty pace from day to day. Suggest we wait until it ends, which it will sometime, then consider for a blurb. Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing, would consider supporting a blurb when it ends if it drags on for an unusual time. "And today, again nothing happened" isn't useful to readers; we don't have other political stalemates like the Brexit negotiations in Ongoing, and for the same reason. ‑ Iridescent14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these U.S.-only [6] shutdowns. Just because one country decides to be dramatic doesn't mean we should be posting it. I want to know if all of these support !voters would support a blurb when (and if) Trump builds the wall. wumbolo^^^23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Obviously not ready now (sourcing issue, the {{advert}} tag), but a prominent enough person that hopefully someone here will take the initiative to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a lot of work this morning to correct, expand, and add/fix a lot of citations. Could still do a lot more work, and surprised that good ol' Herb had such a scant article to begin with for such a storied life. But I think it should now be up to scratch for RD. Kenmelken (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support; all well sourced, neutral, and otherwise problem-free, and to someone like me who's never heard of him before, the article looks rather comprehensive. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll of an explosion caused by a gas leak that devastated a block of flats in Magnitogorsk, Russia, rises to 39. Rescuers end their search efforts at the collapse site as there are no more missing people. (The Moscow Times)
The mayor of Naples offers to berth a NGO-operated ship with 32 migrants who were rescued on 22 December in the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Libya. (Reuters)
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announces that a complete shutdown of the 14th Street Tunnel in New York City, proposed to allow for subway repairs caused by damage from Hurricane Sandy, has been halted. Cuomo says that engineers will use a new technology from Europe to make critical repairs to the tunnel without having to close it entirely. The complete shutdown would have closed the tunnel, which is used by nearly 225,000 people each weekday, for an expected 15 months. (The New York Times)
The newly sworn U.S. House of Representatives passes a major spending bill to fund most shuttered departments and agencies through September 30 and a stop-gap measure to restart the Department of Homeland Security. The proposals will now move on to the Senate which has indicated they will not take up any spending bills that aren't supported by President Trump. (The New York Times)
(Closed) 116th United States Congress and Partial government shutdown
Closing because there is a duplicate nomination under Jan 4 (I know one is blurb and one is ongoing but the discussions need to be combined). Best, SpencerT•C02:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong oppose How many times is this going to be nominated? Ignoring the shutdown, we'ed never ITN the onset of a country's legislative branch (only the result of elections), and the shutdown still is happening because of petty political squabbles that are not appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 00:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this sees plenty of new coverage and even if it's a petty political squabble, it's still a political squabble in the world's most powerful country. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These happen frequently in the US. I think there was one when I was there in 2013. I wouldn't go so far as Masem and oppose if it were, say, in China, where such a thing would be truly unusual and remarkable, but in the US it is indeed just another routine petty political squabble. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) Start of congress is a routine political event and not ITN-worthy (2) this is a routine US political disagreement (3) The "shutdown" isn't really a true "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal Chrisclear (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's in the news around the world, has been going on for two weeks with nearly a million people furloughed or working without pay. Certainly seems significant to me. Noms are open for seven days, not ninety minutes, so unless the discussion has become disruptive, there is absolutely no reason, no whatsoever, no justifiable reason to kill a nom after just 90 minutes and a few opposes. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose how many times do we need to nominate and oppose this? Once Trump unleashes some uber-directive, we can start thinking about it again. Until then, this is utterly humdrum and of parochial interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose At 505 words it is just above being a stub, but the article jumps in at 1988 for a subject born in 1964. A line or two bridging the gap would be useful. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited. Yes, it's short, but I wonder if the gap in his younger years is a result of it being underrepresented in the English-speaking media. Perhaps an editor who knows Chinese can help. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I'll comment out the part that needs a citation, it is not crucial for the article regarding the landing. --Tone08:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - Clearly an historic achievement and a good trend if we get these type of stories on the front page quicker. -- Fuzheado | Talk10:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese Space Agency also released the first image the spacecraft took from the surface of the moon. I am not familiar with rules of uploading images to wikipedia, so I can't help with this, but my guess is it probably wasn't copyrighted. And if so we can include it both in the article and maybe add to the main page too. If it was indeed copyrighted, if someone could just add it to the article under the fair use it would be great too. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we make it more clear that CNSA is Chinese? This is a historic accomplishment for China and I get the feeling that many aren't familiar with the acronym and might assume NASA launched this if they don't look it up. Or is that necessary? By the way, strong post-posting support. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just expand the initialism, no more complaints. It's not the longest blurb in the world so could easily withstand the full name of the organisation being present. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could be done, but since the CSNA is an agency of the Chinese government, it would be simpler and more understandable to just say "China's." (Unlike NASA, which has been a recognized and widely understood acronym for half a century, CNSA is neither – it's quite new to English-speaking readers.) Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the point still remains, we have "NASA space probe" on the main page right now, so major aspects of this complaint thread is based on a false assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm okay with "The China National Space Administration," as it does contain "China." I'm also okay with "NASA's New Horizons" for reasons previously stated (and criticized by some as POV, though they had nothing to do with U.S. nationalism). I apologize again for using impolite cheeky language yesterday. Peace to all. Sca (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please get a usable picture? China, if you are listening, could you release some public domain images. This is your chance to shine! JehochmanTalk02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...or perhaps not. I’d love to see the rover in action, but I’m not seeing it in the public domain. How about the far side landing site for starters? All I can find in Commons so far, but beats the hair-challenged darts champ. Jusdafax (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A nice try, but the photo at right isn't workable – it'll look like just a gray rectangle. It would indeed be great if we could get one like this. David? – Sca (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
American electronics maker Apple warns that iPhone sales are slowing significantly and the product is in weak demand, blaming trade tensions with China. The company says that it has lowered its expected fiscal earnings for the first quarter as a result, citing disappointing holiday sales figures, and that it could lose $9 billion due to the decline. (The Verge)
President Trump and congressional leaders fail to resolve their political differences over federal funding for the border barrier, with Pelosi stating that the president will receive "nothing for the wall" from her party. (Politico)(The Hill)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment: Referencing needs improvement; however, removing all of that material - while the quick band-aid solution - would not merit automatic ITN posting IMO; the article needs some kind of prose description of his career. SpencerT•C21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article looks good and well referenced though I can't read most which are in Danish. However, the last paragraph can do with a rewrite. It will soon be 10 UTC before this is posted, that's why reference like that should be avoided. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I commented out the 10 am sentence. The article is in a good shape, ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone09:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not front page news on CNN or BBC, which is typically Europe-oriented. Even in the Europe section of BBC, it's not the leading story. -- Fuzheado | Talk10:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, it's not remotely close to "the longest outside Asia"; that would be the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway if you include viaducts, or the Kerch Strait Bridge if you don't. Even the 80-year-old Thousand Islands Bridge is longer. ‑ Iridescent18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bridge we're talking about, not the whole causeway (or whatever you choose to call it). Our Great Belt Fixed Link article says the bridge itself is "the world's third-longest main span (1.6 km) and the longest outside of Asia." (And how is this a 'point of order'?) – Sca (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: The main span of a bridge is the longest span between support points like pillars or towers. The length of a bridge is from start to end of the whole bridge and unrelated to spans. The Great Belt Bridge is far down List of longest bridges. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose. Main problem appears to be career section which is largely sourced from the Captain and Tennille webpage. Once that is fixed, I would be happy to support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
A car plows into New Year's celebrators in Tokyo, Japan, injuring eight. A ninth person was assaulted by the driver after he got out of the vehicle. Police believe the incident to be intentional. (Global News)(Channel NewsAsia)
Five people are injured after a man intentionally drives a car into multiple crowds of people in the cities of Bottrop and Essen, Germany. Police say the incident appears to be a xenophobic, far-right attack. (The Independent)
Armed men believed to be traditional hunters have killed at least 37 people in an attack on a village in central Mali. (BBC News)
A Thai man kills six members of his family before killing himself in a drunken shooting spree. (RT)(BNO News)
U.S. and EU diplomats urge the Congolese government to restore internet connection to the country after it was shut down the previous day amid fears of election fraud. (The Guardian)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Could we give the Ultima Thule photo another half day because it was just posted 9 hours ago, and then change to this champion's pic? JehochmanTalk14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems perfectly reasonable. I actually forgot to update the photo when I posted this and was just working on it when you modified the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed, while darts never caught on in America, I can promise you that this is a big deal in the darts core markets (England, the Netherlands and Scotland, and expanding into China); with the exception of football, PDC is the most viewed sport on Sky Sports. ‑ Iridescent07:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support per my comment above to Ed and per this being a rare example of an article on a recent sporting event that isn't terrible. I'd support invoking IAR and leaving the photo off altogether in favour of the Ultima Thule image; everyone who's looked at the back page of a newspaper in the last decade already knows what van Gerwen looks like, while the New Horizons photos are genuinely unique. ‑ Iridescent08:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A different astronomical item now appears at the top, which made the Ultima Thule photograph's use somewhat jarring. I've switched to the photo of Michael van Gerwen, whose name and face are new to me. (Of course, I don't even follow American sports.) —David Levy09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ironically, the article is missing a lot of refs. This story is interesting, but with the clock ticking on Mr. Mouse we'll see if another extension isn't passed in a few years. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that this is not important, but the subset of the population that deem it important (which should include WPians) is not that great. It's a type of DYK thing but I do believe also someone is talking about a Signpost article since this is that important to be aware of. Arguably would only become of greater interest to the world in about 5 years, when "Steamboat Willie" is finally due to fall into PD by the same mechanism. --Masem (t) 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as ITN is not a forum, we should take care not to minimize the impact of wikipedians IRL. IP in the US is IP worldwide, and the tides have begun to change. Let me posit it this way: if we are now moving from corporate-driven IP to something more logical, what is the "right time to post?" ghost19:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth are you getting "IP in the US is IP worldwide" from? It's perfectly possible for something to be PD in the US and still under copyright elsewhere; this is why so many of our own files are hosted in Wikipedia (which follows US copyright) and not on Commons (which doesn't). ‑ Iridescent19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the only thing blocking this is South USA losing its bloody war of independence from North USA so there's one country on this Europe-sized piece of land instead of two? If Britain and/or France wanted to stop North USA's blockade of most of the world's cotton they could've helped South USA beat North USA in war and any story involving a harmonized law between the 2 countries would suddenly be international (USA and CSA). Also some South USians wanted to annex till South America to grow slavery (not if North USA was fighting a war of attrition with them obviously), if they invaded at least Cuba then stories involving a copyright length harmonization between them would be even more international! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon: You changed the words, but the meaning is the same, and it's still wrong. Stories don't have to have "international impact" to be worthy of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: The 100+ results from searching the archives for "internal politics" might have something to say about that, then. EDIT: Not to mention the 159 results for "international impact". Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose. Notability or not is irrelevant; the article is atrocious and has entire unreferenced sections let alone paragraphs. ‑ Iridescent08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a major event in space exploration. How about "...an exploratory flyby" used as a descriptor in the blurb (otherwise it's worded as if it just happened to fly by). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Posted
I posted blurb2. It should be updated after the 10am Eastern press conference. Hopefully we can add the word “successful” and maybe we will get a picture. It takes three hours for the probe to clear the rock, point toward earth, and then send a signal. It’s six light hours away. JehochmanTalk06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, guys. We should go with the alternate blurb, because I'm not good at writing those things. I was just so excited for this that I wanted to suggest it on this page as soon as I possibly could. Dogman15 (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox_02_(cropped).jpg)
_33.jpg)
.jpg)
Sca (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
