Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

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 (2008–11)
v t e

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Cyclone Bulbul Cyclone Bulbul (satellite image shown) hits the Indian and Bangladeshi coasts of the Bay of Bengal, killing at least 24 people. After weeks of protests over electoral fraud, Bolivian president Evo Morales and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign, and opposition senator Jeanine Áñez becomes interim president. The Supreme Court of India delivers a unanimous verdict in favour of the construction of a Hindu temple at a disputed holy site in Ayodhya. A border corridor is opened between Pakistan and India, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims visa-free access to Kartarpur Sahib for the first time since the partition. Ongoing: Hong Kong protests Trump impeachment inquiry Recent deaths: Gordie Gosse Tom Spurgeon Kieran Modra Edwin Bramall James Le Mesurier Rick Ludwin Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

November 18[]

November 17[]

2019 Sri Lankan presidential election[]

Article: 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Defense Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa wins the 2019 Sri Lankan presidential election to become the 7th executive president of Sri Lanka.
Alternative blurb: ​Gotabaya Rajapaksa wins the Sri Lanka presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Defense Minister Gotabaya Rajapaksa (pictured) is elected president of Sri Lanka.
News source(s): BBC

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk • give cr)
• Created by Blackknight12 (talk • give cr)
• Updated by Blackknight12 (talk • give cr) and Randeepa (talk • give cr) and Obi2canibe (talk • give cr)

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

Nominator's comments: Results are expected on Sunday, otherwise Monday. No doubt, prose is lacking hence would like to start discussion on what else could be done to make it to ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since the votes are still being counted, I'm holding off on officially adding a blurb. But since sources from Reuters and BBC are projecting Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the winner, my proposal is: Former Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is elected president of Sri Lanka.
  • With that being said, I unfortunately will have to give this a weak oppose for now. While this election is unusually important for such an overlooked country (due to, among other things, the controversial reputation of Rajapaksa, the election happening months after a devastating terrorist attack, the strength of Indian and Chinese influence in the region depending on who wins, etc.), the article itself is poorly organized. The "Timeline" section needs to be converted to prose (probably reorganized into "Background"), and there is an "Empty section" tag in the "Polls" section, for starters. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The election results are still pending but Gotabaya Rajapaksa claims that he has emerged victorious. Officially the Election Commissioner hasn't revealed a reliable statement about this. Gotabaya is leading the election results by a big margin at the moment compared to his rival Sajith Premadasa. I would support if the winner is officially confirmed. Abishe (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The details are updated and I hope this would qualify for ITN. If Bolivian protests can be nominated for the ITN why can't the Sri Lankan elections be considered. Looks like no one is interested regarding this at least few could have said to oppose this. No response and no regular activity here today and it is quite ironical to say this. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is worse than the article for #Spanish general election which we also did not post. No summary of results and an ugly timeline that should be presented in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Where are the results? And there seems to be a little lack of refs. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The results are updated now and this is seriously important to nominate for ITN. First of all Gotabaya had several charges levelled on him and defied all the odds to become the President. Notably escaped from a suicide bombing in 2006. He is charged with war crimes which were committed durinf the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and had issues regarding the American citizenship prior to contesting at the elections. So these factors I guess would make sense to be nominated. Tamil Guardian CNN Al Jazeera] Abishe (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You still to address the formatting for the "Timeline" section, and many of the sources on the page are just bare URLs. If both of these can be fixed, I will switch to support. Mount Patagonia (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The results have not been summarized in prose. Please summarized the highlights from the table of results in words and cite sources to verify the interpretation. Something like "Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party earned 52.25% of the votes...[1]" and so on to describe the major points detailed in the table. Don't force readers to interpret the results for themselves. The aftermath section is not a summary of results; it is a summary of the aftermath. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series[]

Article: 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championship.
News source(s): MRN, USA Today, The New York Times

• Nominated by Dough4872 (talk • give cr)
• Created by Fan of the 88 (talk • give cr)
• Updated by A.lanzetta (talk • give cr) and WWEFan1926 (talk • give cr) and Dough4872 (talk • give cr)

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

 Dough4872 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Some CN tags. A very thorough ITNR article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16[]

2019 Bolivian political crisis[]

 Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Blurb is still on news and no immediate sign it is about to fall off. Better to consider the situation when the blurb does fall off. --Masem (t) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good point. I nom'd because the blurb is a week old... but so is the box... Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Iranian fuel protests[]

Nominator's comments: Dominating worldwide headlines. Article is well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your blurb is plagiarized. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Modified - Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The content of the article is fine and suitable for ITN. I have addressed some minor CE things. I cannot check references, however, because 13/20 of them are in Farsi or Arabic. I know for certain that some of the details that these references support can be found in English language media. Without those, I cannot know for certain the precise words that protestors have been chanting, for example.130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15[]

RD: Mark Cady[]

Nominator's comments: American jurist, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa (2011–19) who wrote the opinion which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa, dies at age 66. Article could use some expansion. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 14[]

(Closed) Saugus High School shooting[]

RD: Vashishtha Narayan Singh[]

 --DannyS712 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Needs a copy and there are some unreferenced claims.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - A few sources needed, then looks good to go ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support now after updating. Thanks Nizil! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage: lists some positions that he worked in, but nothing mentioned regarding his contributions to the field of mathematics. Spencer^T•C 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Updated/organised/expanded with references. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Spencer, Mike gigs, and Pawnkingthree: Please reconsider you votes. I have updated article. May require minor copying. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your referencing work. My position remains since there have been no new additions regarding his career work as a mathematician. Spencer^T•C 15:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Spencer: Please see my comments at Talk:Vashishtha Narayan Singh#Mathematician vs Academic. -Nizil (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see, it looks like he did not contribute much to mathematics and the article is reflective of that. I will be honest, the article does not do a good job explaining why Singh is notable. Is he notable for being lost on the train journey? If so, then the article should be expanded more to reflect that. Right now, the article is basically a CV in prose form without much meat to it. Best, Spencer^T•C 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Spencer:, as I have written on talkpage, he is notable for "his circumstances" instead of "his accomplishments". I have tried to dive deeper in his circumstances like being lost etc but most of the information is untrustworthy/differing in details and anecdotal so I refrained from adding it. The article could have been better with more in depth information but I believe that this start-class basic article is enough to be in ITN. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Several sentences need rewriting in grammatical English. Stephen 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Stephen: Sorry. I am not native English speaker. I welcome copying by others. -Nizil (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Branko Lustig[]

Nominator's comments: Well referenced article --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now; Filmography unreferenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per P-K3 ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - ping me when ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordie Gosse[]

Nominator's comments: Speaker of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia (2011–2013). Just cleaned up some unsourced content, but should look good. ミラP 17:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Short article but sourcing looks good ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The election result is unsourced. Also, he was in office from 2003-2015 so why is only the 2013 result included? Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As with many other start-class politician articles nominated to RD, very minimal information about what he accomplished in his role as a politician (policies, political issues, legislation passed, etc.) beyond "Gosse implemented a strict policy banning the use of mobile devices, including smart phones in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly during Question Period". Spencer^T•C 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to go in my POV.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The 2013 election result now has a source attached to it. ミラP 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 13[]

(Posted) RD: Tom Spurgeon[]

Nominator's comments: Well-known comics journalist, died yesterday. Article is well-sourced and has been updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I added a couple of refs to a couple unsourced claims, looks good to go now ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Don't see any issues now referencing has been improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Niall Tóibín[]

Nominator's comments: Not much info yet as to how he died, only reported about 10 minutes ago. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sourcing not quite there yet ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - sources improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per mike, referencing needs more work.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Raymond Poulidor[]

Nominator's comments: Notable cyclist, Vuelta winner, several podiums at the Tour de France, immortal rivalry with Jacques Anquetil. Article needs some work, I will try to get to as much as I can later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Prose is pretty undersourced. Hard to tell which of his results are sourced as well ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kieran Modra[]

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated. Australian Paralympic swimmer and tandem cyclist, died in cycling accident. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Seconded. Nice looking article ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 12[]

(Posted) RD: Edwin Bramall[]

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - An admirable man and an impressive article ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced, a true hero and ready for the main page. Only question I would have, should we list it as "Edwin Bramall" or "Lord Bramall"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  I have deferred to the article's current title — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 11[]

RD: Charles Rogers (American football)[]

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, contrary to assertion by OP. --Jayron32 16:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A significant number of claims are unsourced, including many that are BLP issues (which apply to the recently deceased). Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Le Mesurier[]

Nominator's comments: Founder of the White Helmets volunteer organization. Responses section needs a neutrality fix and there's one unsourced sentence in the "Work with the White Helmets" section, but other than that it looks good. ミラP 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose orange tag will need resolving - when fixed, support. Well-cited article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support when the orange tag is removed. The article is mostly well-sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've just ed the article a bit, adding more sourced information about his work with the White Helmets, and deleting an unsourced and incomplete sentence in that section. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good now. Significant improvements made. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The information in paretheses under Military service surely means something, but it's lost on ENGVAR and JARGON. Presumably, he was in the military while not under command, or somesuch. If that was the extent of his official service, then I don't know why there should be a Military service section.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that he joined the army before he was on active service. His actual service is covered by "He was promoted to lieutenant on 11 August 1993, and to captain on 11 August 1996. He worked with the United Nations peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. He retired from the military on 1 June 2000." So that's 7 years of military service, after 3 years at university sponsored by the army, and about 6 weeks on probation at Sandhurst. Perhaps that section could be ed to make that a bit clearer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believe this is the Officers' Training Corps, but someone with more knowledge of British military organization would need to confirm. The U.S. has a similar system called the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of which I am more familiar, but the source is not clear on this. --Jayron32 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delay until article is more settled. I'm not experienced with ITN proposals, but with the Turkish media talking about his wife saying Le Mesurier was thinking of suicide 15 days before his death and was on psychiatric medication, it looks like there likely will be significant messy developments before too long. I wouldn't add such stuff at the moment on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds, but here is an example. Rwendland (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• He was on "psychiatric medication"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury[]

Nominator's comments: Currently ongoing. Quite rare astronomical event. Arseny1992 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Arseny1992: - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. Modest Genius ^talk 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years. ITN does cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down. Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN.  Nixinova  T / C   21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I've reopened this nomination, which I felt was closed prematurely. Although I !voted oppose, 5v3 is not 'clear consensus', the nomination has been open for less than 24 hours, and the outcome could change if there is substantial expansion of the article (or creation of a new one). Let this one play out a bit longer. Modest Genius ^talk 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The article is updated, the subject has some news coverage, the article is okay. Yes, it's not world-changing, but neither are the rote violence and protests that we post on ITN. We can call this a genuinely rare event that will not be repeated anytime soon without running afould of CRYSTAL.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any prose update in the article. The 2019 event just has one line in a data table. Modest Genius ^talk 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Glad this was reopened. It is a sufficiently rare astronomical event. Definitely encyclopedic. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The specific occurrence doesn't even seem to merit its own article (unlike eclipses, where we generally post the stand-alone article about the event). The information about this transit appears to be confined to a date in a chart. There's just not enough Wikipedia content about this event to make it worth posting to the main page. If there were a sizable stand-alone article, or at least a several-paragraph section in a more general article, I could support it. However, there is not enough there there. --Jayron32 13:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A Mercury of transit

• Oppose – Consensus against on ephemeral nature of (past) event, lack of general visibility and lack of wider significance. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I had to add 36 {{cn|date=November 2019}} tags because I already warned about unsourced information earlier, but it was not fixed. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

But on the plus side, it could be illustrated with this pic. – Sca (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) →

Comment IMHO requesting sources for every obvious claim is considered disruptive, as well as requesting sources for every table item that result in what happens currently with ref #25. Especially when every occurrence of any astronomical event can be calculated up and is at NASA anyway, thus the table exists. Or Wikipedia is going nowadays only about adding sources to everything, including adding {{cn}} even to simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2.", then this would be requiring getting a reference, which then explains in long detail why 2 is a sum of 1+1? Common sense guess would work better. If a meteorite would start falling, or aliens from alternate dimension would be invading, the last thing you probably would be doing, is requiring news sources for claims. As for this transit, when it did occur, you as well probably could watch it happen: you don't get a transit or eclipse everyday, and well since this discussion haven't gathered much in favor for notability of a rare event, it may be closed, but is to be taken into account when next transit/eclipse is about to occur, so probably best to note such events as ITN/R criteria. --Arseny1992 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Arseny1992: - in my view as a layperson in this field, nothing unsourced in the article fits simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2." You can't expect our readers to be versed in astronomy. If you can find something to disprove my assertion, post it. starship.paint (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I sort of want to see this on the main page since it's not common by any measure, but there's no way an article on this would have enough data, as seen through the linked article not even being specific to the date. Pie3141527182 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References[]

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: