Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2019

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Mavis Pusey

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as ongoing) 2019 Venezuela coup attempt

 * Wait leaning support once this becomes clearer. This is being covered, but reports are conflicting and I'd like to get a clearer picture before we put a story on the main page.  Our article is developing well and is well referenced, and if those conditions hold with any future text this should be posted.  However, the whole situation is too confusing, and I'd rather wait and get it right.  -- Jayron 32 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron, and a few hours more may lend some clarity as to the significance of today's events. (Certainly, that Leopoldo Lopez is free is significant, and could turn out to be today's main event.) Besides, there is a neutrality issue with the way the article is named.  Also, the blurb proposed is entirely one-sided and POV. (The Spanish-language press has good coverage and journalists in the middle of the action, but English-language press is having a harder time keeping up.  With the caveat that you will see people die, the hashtag where one can get a sense of what is happening on the ground is Instagram #30Abr ).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Use of the word "coup" seems NPOV under the circumstances.   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it is not "NPOV", it is just a description of the ongoing situation used by reliable media.
 * Examples:
 * The Guardian: Venezuela opposition leader claims coup is under way,
 * Sky News: Venezuela: Military vehicles drive into protesters amid 'attempted coup',
 * CNN: Oil prices briefly jump on attempted coup in Venezuela, etc.
 * The current situation in Venezuela resembles the 1945 Venezuelan coup d'etat in which military rebels and uprised civilians worked together to oust the government.
 * I understand that the media is using the term- I'm suggesting we don't make the same mistake. Coup is a contentious label which implies that Maduro is legitimate and Guaidó is not.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The word coup does not say that Guaido is not legitimate. A coup means that the military is being used to enact a change of government.  It could very well be being used to enact a legitimate change of government.  Or not.  It's use makes no statement on whose side is "legitimate", it is merely describing an event which happens: that the military was used to effect the change.  -- Jayron 32 17:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have continued this topic at the article talk page; it is interesting that I don't find most Spanish-language press describing it as a "coup", so this could be a WP:GLOBAL thing, reflecting a predisposed view of LatinAmerica (as opposed to Arab Spring uprising, for example). Perhaps better to discuss at article talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I said to wait. Coup may be the correct word.  Or it may not.  -- Jayron 32 18:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the story crystallises a little. Right now it certainly appears (from the mainstream news sources I see) to be a well-orchestrated media-fuelled attempt by a small number of people to make a difference.  If this turns properly bad or significant, we can reconsider.  Reposo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing significant enough has happened yet to warrant a blurb. I also think that "Venezuelan presidential crisis", which has been on the main page for 3 months, is a very misleading way to summarise it. It is interesting that it has now disappeared with this coup attempt! I would go for "Venezuelan political instability", although really I would have dropped it from the front page a long time ago. There is vast amounts of disinformation about Venezuela, unfortunately, and the anglophone Venezuelans are overwhelmingly anti-government, so it is hardly surprising that an encyclopedia reflects that.62.239.159.69 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting that when Maduro was attacked with exploding drones, the overwhelming consensus (including by some who are now supporting this story) was that it was a "dubious claim" and "Wikipedia is WP:NOT the propaganda outlet of dictators or strongmen". Whatever is happening now, Maduro is calling it a "coup attempt" and there is no factual accuracy orange tag on the article, no "alleged" in the title. Is Maduro a reliable source or not? Or is he only a reliable source when it fits a certain narrative? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , see above where reliable sources are calling it a coup. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop casting aspersions. No one has cited Maduro as a source in any article.  Reliable news sources are being cited.  You're inventing windmills to tilt at.  Don't do that.  We aren't here to pick sides.  We're only trying to decide if we have a quality Wikipedia article to direct readers to.  If people are seeing this story unfold in the news, and we have a good enough article to direct them to, the rest of this is smoke and mirrors.  We aren't here to decide which side is correct.  We're just here to report what reliable sources report.  -- Jayron 32 17:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Sky news article "Government says it is confronting a small group of "military traitors" seeking to promote a coup". You're right though, Jayron, I'm probably being a bit pointy. Time to take a break. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait just like below, the article is still very thin on verified details, scope, and outcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for a better article (facts seem to be lacking, perhaps in part because parts of the internet, as well as BBC and CNN and other media, have apparently been shut down in Venezuela) but support as soon as possible, as it's echoing all over the media in a way that seems to make it obvious it's a major development of a crisis that's being widely followed. LjL (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment"Coup"? When Guairó is recognized by most nations and international organizations as the legitimate president of Venezuela.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * People, the outline of the Uprising article was ready for launch and being discussed in Sandbox when SamHolt6 put up the "coup" article; the discussion about changing the article title is at the article talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but I'd prefer ongoing, or some other way to combine this with the presidential crisis article. Davey2116 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing.  "Don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin." – Sca (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Though we can say "a government tank ran over civilians", which is obscene, that doesn't make a full ITN story - wait till they've stopped shooting at each other. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, it wasn't a tank at all – More like an APC; comparisons with Tiananmen Square seem overdrawn. – Sca (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The government may have put the man in the tank, but we don't know that the government intended for the driver to run over civilians. Watch that footage, two or three APCs, one ramming attack ... does that look like a deliberate and coordinated effort by the government? I don't think so. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Is the coup attempt still ongoing or did it fail? There have been protests in Venezuela for years now, so we can't call whatever marches happen tomorrow as part of the "uprising". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support The uprising is ongoing, and it's an incredibly significant event. (Also, the article has now been renamed to reflect it is an "uprising" rather than a "coup".) 84percent (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, that would be coup; a coupe (coupé) is a type of automobile. – Sca (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks   84percent (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Needs a better blurb. Otherwise support on notability. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb should be more definitive. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Added ALT1 and ALT2. starship.paint ~  KO   02:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Advise editors who are advising to Support or Wait to approve Ongoing below in the meantime. starship.paint ~  KO   03:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is such an important item, why is it not even mentioned anywhere on the BBC News homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The link to BBC news has been provided in the blurb template above. The presence on the BBC homepage itself is not a requirement for posting. Brandmeistertalk  12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a meaningful gauge of how actual, main stream press is featuring the story. Missing from cbc.ca as well, and way below the fold at nytimes.com, BTW. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness, there's a ton of continuing coverage out there. However, the situation remains confused, with neither side able to declare victory at this point. Sca (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a requirement for posting, I was just surprised that, if indeed this is a genuinely a real story worthy of posting, that the BBC deemed it so insignificant that it didn't make the BBC News homepage in any shape or form. I think you already knew that Brandmeister, but I thought I should reiterate  what I meant, for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 or alt2 Clearly notable, but the initial blurb is non-NPOV. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This uprising is an ongoing event and being renamed that reflect it is not a Coup or etc. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And how is this latest "uprising" different from the Crisis in Venezuela which has been going on since 2010? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is changing the course of the entire crisis. funplussmart (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Guaido coup failed, Maduro is still in power and in control of the military. How is this "changing the course of the entire crisis" exactly? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support seems obvious, it's a big deal for the country. Banedon (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for alt1 or alt2, now that the article has been improved. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted as ongoing for the time being, the main article. Not a clear consensus for a blurb, or what the blurb should be at the moment. --Tone 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Today's coverage again substantiates the ongoing, inconclusive character of the situation.    – Sca (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment good thing we waited, the phony uprising never materialized. Maybe Venezuelan protests (2014–present) is a better target, since the protests have been going on since well before Guaido lost the election? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment wow, this whole article space is a rats nest of POV warriors, choosing terminology based on "rolls off the tongue easier", angrily deriding anyone who doesn't stick to the Guaido-supporting version of events. I'd orange tag the whole mess, but I would expect to be revered in seconds. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "rats nest of POV warriors" remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Also sources have been completely overlooked to support a name change. --MaoGo (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove from ongoing: Mueller Report
{ITN candidate }}
 * article      = Mueller Report
 * ongoing      = rem
 * nom cmt      = As the media is wont to do whenever it comes to Trump controversies, it has moved on to other topics. Although incremental updates are being made to the article as pertains to William Barr testifying before Congress in May, the general atmosphere surrounding the report has just devolved into political hand-wringing. Unless and until something actually substantive comes out of the report's publication, such as the filing of articles of impeachment, this should be removed from ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Agreed – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Was going to suggest this myself as while there's still news coverage of it, its all about how people are positioning themselves for a potential impeachment, etc. But none of that is news, its just talking heads. While there are still daily updates to the article, we're nowhere close to a point of major news breaking events. --M asem  (t) 15:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And the sentencing of Russian spies. The sub-articles are getting updates. So many sub-articles, so so many updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per Masem. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose daily updates, Barr is refusing to come to the hill, Maria Butina just sentenced ... and the sub articles are getting great updates too. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of this is tangential to the report, which has become less of a smoking gun blockbuster and more of a political talking point. We don't cover the day-to-day histrionics of federal politics here on ITN. We leave that to C-SPAN. WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're saying updates to articles only tangentially related to the target article don't automatically qualify the target article for inclusion in ongoing? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's contrary to ITN rules.  Plus this really is out of the news apart from one tiny microcosm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. After being beat over the head with "the sub articles" while twice trying to remove the (then) stale Venezuelan presidential crisis, I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak remove While updates are still happening, this seems to have fallen out of the level of news coverage I would expect for a main page item. This has fallen out of headline news into the deep wonkery pages and from reporting to opinion.  Because of that, it isn't being covered at the level I would expect of a main-page ITN item.  -- Jayron 32 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article undergoes dozens of daily updates. Here is the updates just today in the past 17 hours. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly getting updates, and it is still a hot news item in the States, but the issue is that this is less fact-y information and more about opinion and postulation about what will happen next - eg talking heads. That's the type of stuff we should be careful in documenting and makes it less ITN-appropriate for that reason. --M asem (t) 16:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the number of updates isn't in question, just the overall newsworthiness of this now-stale item. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN defines the prerequisite as regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Perhaps you don't think Barr's refusal to testify is not pertinent but I do. But we just had a weekend. If we check updates from Friday, we have On April 26, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee announced that Attorney General William Barr is to testify on May 2. Are we really prepared to remove ongoing items because of a weekend, and holiday weekend at that. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's no indication that anything substantive will come out of William Barr testifying. Congress will ask the questions they want to ask, Barr will say what Trump wants him to say, and everyone will walk out of that room feeling angry at the other side and no closer to any sort of resolution. This story is metaphorically stuck in the mud, and is no longer "ongoing", any more than Brexit is "ongoing".--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am willing to concede that point on Thursday. Right now this removal nom is two days premature. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To me what's being updated is not "pertinent information" as is all based on speculation and opinion (the type of stuff we should be careful with under NOTNEWS and RECENTISM), as well as the red tape that drives the bureaucratic functions. If/when this starts to get back into where an impeachment is called, or certain involved people are convicted of various crimes related to the events, then maybe we can repost. --M asem  (t) 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN also gives us a time frame to evaluate such matters: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. I have a hard time believing that there has not been an update since April 21 that does not meet the "pertinent information" criterion. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It still needs to be in the news and outside of a tiny element of peanut gallery in the US, it's really really not. This is English language Wikipedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC disagrees with you. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with the Mueller report. Trump's administration has been a hurly-burly of revolving doors, firings, resignations and acting posts. Rosenstein's departure only reinforces that, and we're not a Trump ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) I disagree about not being relevant to Mueller Report but you make a fair point if we assume your posit. But I was not offering it as evidence of new significant update. It was only a response to TRM that this is somehow only relevant to U.S. readers.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC) ---  Coffee  and crumbs  19:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't thunk you proved anything by doing a Google search on the BBC website. But never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it's very easy to find trivial stories on the BBC website if you dig deep enough (which you have to do to find that particular story), e.g. this Trump delight which "trumps" the story you managed to find! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me ten seconds. You said still needs to be in the news and outside of a tiny element of peanut gallery in the US. I proved the story is relevant even to Brits, at least those different than you. A similar search using any other British news source shows continued interest and relevance to our readers. You don't like it. Point taken. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Marvellous video, well done you! No, there's literally no interest outside the US about this "story".  The BBC website also contains a story about Star Wars toys (which is arguably more interesting) and a nippy squirrel monkey.  Searching in a news website for terms will get you results.  It doesn't mean they've got encyclopedic value.   Nip nip! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal It's still in the news, and it's still receiving updates as demonstrated above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. It has been revealed tonight before Attorney General Barr visits the US Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow that Mueller told Barr that he mischaracterized his report. There is even talk of impeaching Barr. This is still in the news. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - yeah 12 hours ago I would have supported a removal. But the recent development mentioned just above by 331dot is significant. starship.paint ~  KO   03:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the revelation changes anything since Trump has been outspokenly critical of Mueller, and I'd expect that Barr would take the same path in response to this letter, which would again be status quo. But whatever; you all can have your day. I'll be vindicated when a week goes by though and nothing has come out of all of this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that there's really no change here. Its speculation that Mueller will get Barr impeached, and even if he did, that's not going to affect the governance of the nation to a point that ITN needs to be brought in. --M asem  (t) 13:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal Folks, either we have an ongoing section or we don't (My vote is for the latter). There can be no reasonable suggestion that the current goings on are not extremely significant developments in re the Mueller investigation itself. The man in charge of the investigation lied about it's findings and now appears ready to break the law rather than account for those lies. Are we headed for the downfall of western civilization? No. But bear in mind that "Brexit Negotiations" was kept in ongoing for months, because we chose to invest every vote on a delay (and every comment on a vote on a delay) with the significance of the UK leaving the EU, a fact that had been settled years prior. So to was it with Venezuela - nothing blurb-worthy was happening day-to-day, but the entire story was blurb-worthy, and the story is ongoing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We have guidelines on what should and should not be in the box. In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Was Brexit in for months? Really? Does Brexit have a much wider impact than this report???? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Collectively, yes it was. Absolutely Brexit is much more important, but the entirety of updates in the Brexit situation in the past six months cumulatively is negligible. The fact that Brexit will happen has not changed, the larger framework of the terms of exit have been long settled by the negotiators, and Parliament has agreed to nothing. Oh, we delayed it a bit. Fascinating.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that you might not have any idea what the financial ramifications across all of Europe are to such a delay, but I'm not going to bother to try here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - no longer a major ongoing story. I haven't heard about it in the UK news for weeks now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - While related stories are continuing, the report itself is not an event to be going on. This could be replaced by an ongoing item making reference to what is occurring. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the sub-articles. So many sub-articles! Really this item should stay in the box until the questions around Trump have definitive answers, no? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Seems a odd time to remove it, with Barr testifying before Congress about the report today.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove I think the biggest news has already occurred with this report. If anything else groundbreaking happens then it'll get a blurb but to say its still "ongoing" is a bit of a push. I think its biggest revelations have come and gone as the report is largely a point in time item. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - So the testimony is over. He will not be testifying on Thursday. As expected, he has disagreed with Mueller and the Democrats. What has changed? What warrants this story remaining on ongoing? Do not tell me his refusal to testify tomorrow is itself a newsworthy event. WaltCip (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The story needs to be "In the news" and regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Seems straightforward enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Mueller report itself is no longer in the news. Most international readers who come here will just interpret all the goings-on tangentially surrounding the report as American politics as usual. And in my opinion, they would be right. Would we have posted the Benghazi hearings on ITN Ongoing while that was going on? I'm sorry if this comes across as bludgeoning, but I really think an admin needs to weigh in on this. This is really not a conventional scenario under which something would be on Ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Barr does not show up to the US House Intelligence Committee hearing today to testify about the report(as he has said), there will likely be further action, keeping this in the news. Suggest waiting until at least after today to remove this. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't significant enough for ITN any longer. This is only here because of systemic bias.  This would never happen to any such event anywhere else on the planet. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either we can have an item in the box for three months where the target article is only getting periodic updates to elements tangentially related to the topic, or we can't. I don't care that much either way, but I'd like some consistency. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove: I have four different methods for getting daily news, and Mueller isn't popping up any more on any of them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your four different methods aren't diverse enough? Big time news in my feeds. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removal This is starting to heat up again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removal –  The Mueller Report is going to be the central talk among the testimonies of Attorney General Barr and Robert Mueller in the coming days or weeks. Aviartm (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? So actual what?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * House Democrats Should Send the House Sergeant at Arms to Drag Barr to the Capitol to Testify.. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removal because the related Barr testifying controversy is in the news. p  b  p  04:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Time to close? This has been open for about 4 1/2 days, and I make it tied at 10-10 (counting the nom as a Remove !vote) with no further !votes for nearly 2 days now, so maybe it's time to close due no realistic prospect of consensus (plus leaving it open can result in a time-wasting distraction from more useful editing)? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Coverage has died down significantly since the release of the report. I don't think the current situation is enough to support ongoing any longer. Noah Talk 23:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove unless and until it works its way back into the news cycle with relevant developments. Perhaps I just don't subscribe to any outlets with strong opinions one way or the other on the testimony that took place a few days ago, but I have noticed a significant drop in coverage within 48 hours of the attorney general's testimony. Just to be sure, I quickly checked a few print outlets; I had to scroll to find anything relating to the testimony, and the only articles regarding the testimony actually only regarded a tweet from The Orange One. We can put it back if and when developments which actually have any impact on the story occur, but the limited continued coverage doesn't seem to suggest that such developments are happening right now. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed, consensus has been shifting toward removal and there have been no major developments/updates to the article for several days to still merit onging. --Tone 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * respectfully, consensus seems pretty split, and two of the last "several days" were weekend days. There is still the Cohen incarceration, the treasury decision on Trumps tax returns, and we can't be sure the the Barr drama is over. You ought have left this up till EoD Monday for any new weekday developments to flesh out. There are many many updates in the many many sub-articles, and as we know, that alone is grounds to keep a story in the box for months. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The relation between the Mueller report and Cohen's incarceration/Trump's tax returns is about as tangential a relation as Chernobyl to Three Mile Island. No reasonable person would say the two have a direct causal link. (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As tangential as foreign aid for a humanitarian crisis which has been going on for half a decade and a contested election? I agree. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

 * Note: Unfortunately I have to be off-wiki once I post this. If anyone wants to propose a blurb, please do go ahead and update the nomination. starship.paint ~  KO   14:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose if Guaido has called for a "military uprising" I don't see it in the target article . If there is a coup underway, that calls for a blurb, pending quality update. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Found the update. This is blurb, not ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And looking more closely at the article, it appears to be more stagecraft and hyperbole. Guaido standing on the edge of some highway with a disgraced general bitching about Maduro, is that a coup? Sounds more like business as usual. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait We don't really have a clear picture of what is going on at the moment. If this does turn out to be a serious attempted coup it will likely justify a blurb. But until we get some clarity, there is nothing to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If nothing else, Leopoldo Lopez has been freed, so that could be a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb only If someone proposes a good blurb for the recent developments, AND has a properly updated article to highlight, do that please. This seems singular enough to merit directly describing it.  -- Jayron 32 14:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per LaserLegs, Orientem. So far it looks like more political theater. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, it is major development. Notable enough to receive foreign heads of state and EU parliamentary reactions --MaoGo (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Still clearly a moving news target with the new military action today. --M asem (t) 15:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that there's an article being worked about the movilization. I'd support the removal if a nomination of the new developments begins. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Placed another article. Need a blurb.ZiaLater ( talk ) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait So far the only thing real here is "At approximately 8:44 am, heavy gunfire erupted near La Carlota." (which is actually Generalissimo Francisco de Miranda Air Base). --LaserLegs (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – In hindsight, it is clear it should not have been removed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It shouldn't have been removed from ongoing. However, if there's a way to combine a posting of this with the coup attempt article, I'd prefer that. Davey2116 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with : it shouldn't have been removed. 84percent (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Support the ongoing placement of 2019 Venezuela uprising for now until a more definitive result occurs.ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 10:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL "Venezuelan uprising"? The POV warriors are out in force. Strong oppose posting this laughably POV title to the MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , what would you call it? StudiesWorld (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A failed coup at best, more likely just continuing political showmanship. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Apparently, pulling it was too soon. This should be maintained as ongoing until Venezuela has a definitive president. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has one, Nicolás Maduro, the fact that some people can't handle it is awe inspiring. WP:ITN already has conditions for including an item in the ongoing section, and chief among them are continuous, pertinent updates. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support returning the Presidential crisis to ongoing; the crucial issue is turning into focus on the Russia-Cuba-US relationship, and when military intervention is more seriously on the table now, with Monroe Doctrine focus, that's worldwide significant, and it is all over the news. The uprising yesterday was of lesser significance in the overall picture, and the big picture is covered at the Presidential crisis article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support would prefer to blurb the coup attempt, and then consider putting this to ongoing when the coup attempt blurb rolls off. Banedon (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems we have a consensus to return it to ongoing due to new developments (when I removed it, there had been an entire week without significant updates) while the blurb has less support. --Tone 11:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some debate about whether or not there even is an uprising. If anything should be on the MP, it's this. Good pull, good post. Thanks Tone. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 UNCC shooting

 * Weak oppose Article is definitely lacking content right now, also unsure (right now) if this even classifies as a mass shooting or if it was a targeted attack. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also strongly oppose using the shooters name in the blurb. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has received less coverage than the Poway synagogue shooting, which wasn't posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As tragic as this is, even by US standards this is a minor event(as awful as that is to say) and is not getting widespread, top-level news coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor shooting in a country where major shootings occur all too frequently. This one is a one-liner in a list of this year's school shootings. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic event (as all shootings are, regardless of the number of victims), but not notable enough for ITN. Funcrunch (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the proposed blurbs state the country in which this university is located. This information would be useful for readers if the story were to be published. Chrisclear (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, minor shooting in a nation where shootings are far too common. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Leopoldo López

 * Oppose mainly because the presidential crisis is already ongoing, and this falls under the general umbrella. One or the other, but not both. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ellen Tauscher

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims and a few inline external links which need fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: John Singleton

 * Oppose for now. No cited text in article says he's actually dead.  There was one, uncited, sentence that said what you said above, but we need scrupulously referenced text before we can post something like this.  An uncited sentence in the article is not good enough.  We can wait until this is confirmed AND our article has been properly updated.  Furthermore, even when he dies, the article needs a lot of work to be up to the quality needed for the main page.  Lots of unreferenced text is in there currently.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Death has been confirmed, but other objections still stand until they are fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose premature nomination, article way too under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears this individual's death has been confirmed but the article is still way too poor to put onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  22:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've just hidden/removed some obvious BLP violations but a lot of work is needed on the remainder. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Josef Šural

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - stub.BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stevie Chalmers

 * Weak oppose a few unverifiable claims (and per another nom here, where is infobox data referenced?) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Main claims have been addressed.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * support - seems ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks ok to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sylvia Bretschneider

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Poway synagogue shooting

 * Oppose practically insignificant in typical US gun crime terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, it is not. Domestic and gang violence frequently leaves multiple victims, but this was neither of those things. It is being treated as a hate crime -- essentially domestic terrorism. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trivial I'm afraid. One death from a shooting in the US, hate-related or otherwise, is a "good day".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment is unacceptable. If you mean this event is non-encyclopedic then write that -- `this event is not encyclopedic' -- and ask for article deletion. If you mean to assert that the event is trivially not ITN then write that -- `this event is not ITNR' -- and demonstrate that it is not ITNR by rebutting claims that *this* event is in the news, rather than an apparently flippant comparison with a former ITN item. But the comment by default reads as `[this event is] trivial', and that is wholly beyond acceptable discourse. You've set yourself up here at ITN as an explicit contrarian, and that has been to your benefit since a `satis' support from you then apparently carries more weight (i.e., if TRM doesn't object, what could be objectionable?), but your contrarian cloak also demands of you a more careful commentary. Words matter, and one massive point of this project is to improve communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8E57:3800:A78A:90E:ED25:490B (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a domestic crime, unrelated to any terrorist related activity, and an extremely small death toll. --M asem (t) 21:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A white nationalist terrorist, radicalized online, carried out a terrorist attack. Article is included in Category:White nationalist terrorism and Category:Terrorism in the United States.
 * So what? Trivial.  Article should be prod'ed and included as a one-liner in some other list of the many gun crimes that occur daily in the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What? I'm trying really hard to AGF and not carry out a personal attack but it's very hard. This is not some random gun crime. You really just have to share your opinion on everything, do you? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you'll find "sharing your opinion" is what this process is all about. This is insignificant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you're in the UK, I guess you're immune to antisemitism there, here a synagogue shooting is front page news, even if only one person is killed. Note, I never voted for support or oppose, I made a comment on your crass statement. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, is it really necessary to be so blunt, insensitive, and antagonistic in your oppose? Saying any death is "insignificant" is unnecessary. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to take a step back and apologise to me. The story is trivial.  The story is insignificant.  Once you've repaired the damage, we can talk again.  Please take a reality check before commenting further.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I stand by my statement. You continue to be disruptive and unconstructive as evidence below. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by statement as well. It's readily apparent that it's you who needs to take a step back. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean I continue to stand by my own opinion that the shooting of one person in the US is encyclopedically trivial. And defending my opinion is not disruptive or unconstructive (sic) in any way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unconstructive definition: "not serving to promote improvement or advancement". Your comments are hyperbolic and unconstructive to this project.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's completely untrue. What is hyperbolic is to claim the death of one person in a hate crime is encyclopedic.  What is  "unconstructive" (sic) is to continually reject logic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying hate crime, and not terrorism? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Deary me, time for you to take some time out here I think. This is one is done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this shooting is encyclopedic. And yes, your constant bludgeoning is disruptive. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and check the mirror. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So go PROD it or take it to AFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A notable event that does not rise to level of blurb-able at ITN. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly in the news, and the article is very good. What reason is there not to put this on the main page? Davey2116 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's of no encyclopedic value whatsoever and will pass into insignificance (if it hasn't already) in days. No lasting impact.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That absurd reasoning applies equally to almost all of the disaster stories that we post. Davey2116 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really when one individual has been killed in a shooting which happens about 80 times per day in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to stop. "no encyclopedia value", "pass into insignificance", "article should be prodded" etc, do you not get how you sound? Again, this isn't the UK, this is not some small news item. Why are you so insensitive and crass? You voted oppose, your opposition is duly noted. Enough already, what you are doing now is more than that. As I and others said, this isn't a random shooting. So stop already. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to stop any more than you do. This is a trivial story, regardless of its location.  It's nothing to do with "crassness" or "insensitivity".  80 people per day get shot to death in the US, are you suggesting this is the only one today that was hate-crime-related?  Seriously?  So, take your own advice and  "stop already".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not trivial in that it's front page news, even if only one person was killed. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is ITN, where we discuss articles currently in the news. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And where articles need to be of encyclopedic value. You probably already noticed there's a huge consensus against this item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I never voted for this item being on the front page. There's a difference between something being encyclopedic and being world news worthy of the front page. You are just being petty and crass and claiming this isn't encyclopedic and downplaying a terrorist attack in the US for some reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not being petty or crass, I'm just stating that one death from shooting in the US is not newsworthy from an encyclopedic perspective.  As noted, at least 80 people are shot to death every day in the US.  Are you suggesting that this is the only hate crime from all of those, every day?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , again, stop saying hate crime, say terrorism. This doesn't happen every day. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Deary me, time for you to take some time out here I think. This is one is done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs. Strongly disagree with The Rambling Man's crude characterization of this distressing event, however. Funcrunch (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a significant terror act for the American Jewish community. It also came on the six-month anniversary of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, which seems significant. The suggested blurb is too trivial IMO. It would be better to say something like A shooting in a Chabad synagogue on the last day of Passover leaves one dead in San Diego, USA or A shooting in a Chabad synagogue in San Diego occurs on the six-month anniversary of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The length could be adjusted. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but not encyclopedically significant, and attempting to relate it to other events which are purely circumstantial is even worse, not something an encyclopedia should do, perhaps a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be against NOR, NPOV to make that connection in the blurb, until it is is determined this date was specifically picked. --M asem  (t) 22:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking the second suggestion. Please reconsider the first one. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would still be a problem, it's prescribing a motive. I'm not saying that this isn't likely a motive for this date, but we're not at liberty to make that connection ourselves. --M asem (t) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I don't follow. A motive could be established by the fact that he shot up a synagogue. But the fact that he did it on the last day of Passover is just a fact, not a motive. Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Indeed, a notable event, by virtue of reactions alone. Not suited to ITN, however. El_C 21:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a hate crime and not a run-of-the-mill domestic dispute gun death which we see countless times every day in the US, and is attracting news coverage, but (thankfully) the death toll is not high enough for ITN in my view. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Exactly the kind of news story that is not fit for ITN. I think we should model ourselves after the PM of New Zealand and not give this maladjusted white kid any more undue attention than has already been received. WaltCip (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whether it's a hate crime or white nationalist terrorism (or, indeed, both) is irrelevant here; whilst tragic, this doesn't rise to the level of notability for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Spanish general election

 * Oppose incomplete article, no blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Just needs a summary of the results in prose. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Altblurb proposed. Results now in intro. Time for a second look? Moscow Mule (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks good enough for me, and full results are included. The 'timeline' and 'aftermath' sections could do with some work, but I don't think they should preclude posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Lugar

 * Weak oppose six citations required but in good nick otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support all citations dealt with, article updated --DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, cn tags have been taken care of, article looks to be in good shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks OK. Lugar was a household name in U.S. politics for decades. – Sca (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Michael Wolf (photographer)

 * Weak oppose needs more citations, and I'm not sure what makes something a "notable exhibition". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems referenced and ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Kenneth

 * Support blurb, oppose ongoing. Not my area but quality looks adequate, the article appears updated, and it's in the news internationally. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing for a week old storm that already dissipating. Blurbs are in the box at least a week these days, blurb it now, or blurb it when it's done, and update the death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - which would be appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Switched to blurb. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reopened. I am not entirely sure why this was withdrawn; I do believe it was closed rather prematurely. 12 deaths and likely to increase across 3 different countries; this is a major cyclone. According to Bob Henson of Weather Underground, the Tanzania-Mozambique border region has never experienced a cyclone above tropical storm strength. In history, only 5 cyclones of major hurricane (SSHS) strength has hit mainland Africa; Idai was the fourth, Kenneth is the fifth. Given these reasons, I believe the storm is notable both for its death toll, and for historical regions. Per the above, I give this nom a strong support. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:7058:BE5D:BAB3:F93C (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator stated on my talk page: I have decided to withdraw any form of a nomination for Cyclone Kenneth. I have changed my mind on the worthiness of it. We had not had any conversation (except here) on the  topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Support in principle. However, the article seems very top heavy. Can we move some the material in the lead to the body? Is everything in the lead verifiable in the body? --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no moving can be done. A rundown of the met history is required in the leads for cyclones. I did condense the material as much as possible without compromising it though. Looks like I am being forced to go on with the nomination even though I officially withdrew it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 10:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can strike your nomination if you want, whilst leaving the discussion open. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave the nomination on there since it appears the death toll is rapidly climbing. The flooding is really killing people. Death toll increased from 5 in Mozambique to 38 this morning, with the addition of 7 in Comoros thus far. Sadly, looks like the toll will only increase from here (20 inches predicted in the next 5 days from remnant moisture) due to flooding and as more bodies are recovered from the wreckage caused by the winds. It now looks as if this could be another storm with hundreds dead. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant loss of life that has received substantial news coverage. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant enough and article quality is good (though I am suprised it doesn't mention this on the heels of Cyclone Idai last month, which has lingering effects that are expected to make Kenneth's potentially harsher. see . But that's not ITN-stopping coverage) --M asem (t) 15:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Sri Lanka Easter bombings

 * Oppose not really clear what this means. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This development is indeed in the news, but since most of deaths occurred a week ago, the addition of 15 doesn't merit re-dating the blurb. This aftershock, if you will, is best handled via updates to existing article. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Kilson

 *  Comment Support. This isn't going to fly without more work, imo. Are you planning to do that,, or are you punting floating it here in the hope that someone else will? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking good now. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. I try to make every article I nominate to meet our standards. I am not aware of a requirement that the article has to meet the standards before nomination. I continue to work on articles after nominating so I don't know you would use the word "punting", especially minutes after I nominate it. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * AGF yourself. It was a genuine question. I'm aware that you often work on nominations extensively. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yes, I will do what I always do. Perhaps punting does not mean the same thing it does here in the U.S. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Floating is probably a better word. I usually use punting to mean pushing a boat with a pole, but it was the gambling sense I was going for. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was definitely floating the idea in hopes of soliciting assistance. Punting has cowardly connotation in American English. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, that's not a UK meaning as far as I'm aware. It certainly was not what I meant. Apologies for the inadvertent offence. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the US meaning either; in the US it refers to punting, a play in football in which instead of passing the ball to a member of his own team the player kicks the ball as hard and as far as possible upfield, in the hope that it will land somewhere advantageous to his team. &#8209; Iridescent 08:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One way or the other I obviously misunderstood the comment and I apologize. Please let's move on. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satisfactory, bizarre conversation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - I've punted that one over to the main page. CambridgePunt.jpg &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And now we know what punting means wheresoever it may occur. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ellen Schwiers

 * Support I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick comment Support. Excellent expansion,, but there's some references missing eg in the infobox. I'll try to get round to reviewing this fully later but I'm honestly snowed under at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the infobox needs a ref when sourced in the body. I dropped the relatives who are not mentioned there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but eg the date of birth is neither mentioned nor cited in the text, nor is Daniel Jacob. Nor strictly is stage director, as she could have produced the play mentioned not directed. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * DOB is there now, and the son. "to stage" means "to direct", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not unambiguously, imo. I'd assume produced as the default, I think. It's not very idiomatic in English with a single person: theatres stage plays, people produce them or direct them. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready to to learn. German "inszenieren" = put a scene on. For me, "direct" sounds more ambiguous, but if you say so ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Put on [a play] would usually mean produce but my German–English dictionary is translating inszenieren as direct [a play] or produce [radio/television]. On the other hand, it translates Inszenierung as production. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking ready; I will post later if no-one either objects or beats me to it. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Elina Bystritskaya

 * Comment. Thanks for bringing this here, . I fear this is going to need quite a bit of work, especially on the referencing, but also expansion of the main biography, before it is suitable for the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unref. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Havlicek

 * Comment Oppose. Needs copy editing and fully referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs referencing especially in the statistics section. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * References have been added to the statistics section, and there are no outstanding CN tags, so I reckon this is good to go. We ARE talking about one of the NBA's legends, after all.  p  b  p  03:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Change to support. Referencing issues have been fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple paragraphs without a single reference. Stephen 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention much of the infobox. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the information in the infobox is corroborated by the basketball-reference link near the bottom of the infobox or in the prose. p  b  p  13:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not referenced properly. See my previous note; just the first thing I checked, the place of birth, isn't even mentioned in the text, let alone sourced. Additionally, as is evident from the place of birth not even appearing, there's next to nothing on his personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added his place of birth to the Personal Life section (which is adequate in my opinion.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are even quotations in there without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to everyone who said more citations were needed: I've gone and fixed up all of the CN tags and unreferenced paragraphs I could find. Please re-assess.  Thanks!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, ,  p  b  p  13:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks like everything has been referenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Additional references have been added. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Malaria vaccine pilot program

 * Quick comment. This was in the news in the UK a few days ago, and I note that our article states the "trial" began on the 23rd. I looked into it then, and this isn't a clinical trial (a single phase III has already been completed) but a post-European Medicines Agency-approval essentially expanded-access programme which will report safety and feasibility of giving four doses in the context of Africa. The four doses together only give an estimated ~40% protection. As far as I recall, and from memory only, this or similar has been in development since the Stone Age, presumably because four doses are actually needed to provide a very marginal protection. I'm not aware of another approved vaccine with such unfavourable characteristics. None of this is to say oppose, as I personally found it very interesting, but the news coverage does not really reflect the situation. (COI note: I have consulted for GW infectious diseases, though not malaria, in the distant past.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to find different wording for a blurb. My understanding is quite similar to what you described; that this isn't a trial for efficacy of the vaccine as such, but for safety, feasibility, costs, etc. Even so, "trial" is the most neutral wording I could come up with that's still used by the sources; many others are calling it a "rollout", even though it's clearly not on the open market. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a trial in my understanding of the word. Expanded access program(me) is the usual term when the company supplies the intervention free or at cost with the aim of getting safety data. There's also the question of the ethics of using a vaccine that isn't (afaik) approved in Malawi. I don't know what ITN wants to do when most of the news sources are, well, wrong is the word that springs to mind. But I might be too close to the topic area to know what trial means in non-technical English in this context. Program(me) seems a neutral word. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've suggested an alternative (long) blurb. Note, I haven't yet reviewed RTS,S; also malaria vaccine is not fully updated and, from the state of the lead, looks as if it needs a copy edit; also I don't know which English variant is appropriate. Also the item should be moved to 23rd. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose (weak mainly because we seem to be in a slow news period, but perhaps also partly due to my lack of expertise and confidence when discussing this topic). Either our eventual blurb somehow unexpectedly manages to make it clear this is a not-exactly-trial of a not-very-promising low effectiveness vaccine which was basically only a (somewhat unimpressive) 'first' way back in 2015 (raising the question in our readers' minds of why it's on ITN, thus expecting them to somehow guess the unstated answer, which is presumably that it's a slow-news period), or else our blurb will tend to mislead our readers into thinking or expecting that something really new and important is happening now in 2019 (not 2015), thus making us look like ghastly clickbaiters, and thus damaging our reputation in areas such as accuracy, trustworthiness, quality, consideration for our readers, etc... Tlhslobus (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, I am an expert in the infectious disease field, and I literally don't know what to write in response to this. The reason this vaccine has been approved, even though its efficacy is low, is because a malaria vaccine has been the Holy Grail for at least four decades. Malaria is one of the most important infectious causes of death in the world, up there with HIV and tuberculosis as the biggest causes of death from infectious disease. According to the article "In 2016, there were 216 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 445,000 to 731,000 deaths." Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubtless everything you say is true, but I'm still quite unclear which of my above points you are trying to refute (all you seem to have done is give me reasons why a low-efficacy vaccine was approved in 2015, not reasons why ITN should be posting a related not-exactly-trial in 2019, and incidentally, merely the start of the not-exactly-trial, not its results). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un Meeting

 * Oppose – Stub. Anyway, no concrete results, just talk. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless a notable agreement comes out of this meeting,(i.e. Putin convinces Kim to give up NK's nuclear weapons) it is just two world leaders talking to each other.  Unlike Kim meeting Trump, it is not uncommon for the Russian leader to meet the North Korean leader(unlike Trump's meeting, which was the first one and also between two hostile countries). 331dot (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As of now, no suitable text has been put in Wikipedia about this. Two targets are offered above: the first is the article Kim–Putin meetings which is such a small stub it contains next to no useful information.  The second is the article North Korea–Russia relations, which the only update is a picture with a caption and has ZERO prose text about the meeting.  Ping us when you have actual text to assess.  There's nothing useful to link from the main page as yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per all of the above. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Prefer North Korea–Russia relations as it puts the event in context, but it has not been updated in favour of starting the (at present) useless stub Kim–Putin meetings. Not opposed in principle, mainly because we seem to be on a slow news cycle with events going back to the 18th, more than a week ago, and this is in the news internationally. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral (although oppose for now on quality and updates). I think it's incorrect to say this is less significant than the Trump-Kim meetings. Nothing concrete came out of those either, and it is the first time Putin and Kim have met. There's also geopolitical significance in that it ups the ante a bit, given that the prior US talks. It has also been covered quite significantly as Espresso Addict says. It's borderline IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Reposted to RD IAR-ily) Death of Lyra McKee to Ongoing

 * Support as a special case - this does seem like the wrong time to remove. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but see no problem IARing her to an earlier spot in RDs using today as the basis. It doesn't seem lik there's going to be a massive investigation to her death, or the type of death mourning we got with Mandela (week long ceremonies, most of country closed down, etc.) That is, there's never going to be a separate article for her death, at the present. --M asem (t) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reinstated her as an IAR 7th RD entry at the head of the list, using funeral date, per 's comment above. This is in the news today, people will be looking for it, and this seems a sensible compromise given that ongoing isn't really the right place. If consensus is against this then it can be removed again. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with 's solution. Thanks, . ETA As RDs seem to be accumulating rapidly at the moment, I would not necessarily suggest leaving McKee at the funeral date for the full cycle; eg Hannelore Elsner has only just been posted and Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian is rendered stale with hardly any consideration. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if you're not seriously considering this for ongoing, please change the template. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of unpicking one template to substitute another? Suggest that for the next RD to be posted, the posting admin takes off McKee instead of the last, as the case is now off the BBC top index page. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Agree with re-dating the item, per Masem. At this point the ongoing coverage seems to be mainly in the UK, and it's fading. (A tragic loss, though.) – Sca (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the RD item, as I thought the news had faded here too, although I now note the BBC is fronting its Northern Ireland index page with "Political talks plan for Northern Ireland expected ... in the wake of Lyra McKee murder". I'll leave this open for now in case anyone wishes to discuss ongoing further. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nils John Nilsson

 * Comment. Death needs to be mentioned in the body, not just a date in the lead. I'd also prefer a brief personal life section. The unique material in the infobox must be sourced, and there are other small referencing problems, such as the name of the chair he held and a barelink. It could also do with a selected publications, at minimum to list out his most-notable books. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose agree with EA above about death being noted in prose, could use some more beef in the article too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support He was a giant in artificial intelligence. I've added a section regarding his personal life and death, and removed the barelink, which is not an RS anyway. I believe it now satisfies minimum ITN standards. -Zanhe (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. I believe it's ready now; pinging to please re-assess. Davey2116 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: David Winters (choreographer)

 * Quick comment. Not checked this but on a quick skim there is indeed some untagged unsourced material (eg all the unique awards & other material only in the infobox), and some "timeline" problems (ie one-sentence paragraphs beginning in [date]). It could do with some kind of personal life section too, which jumps from 12 to death, though there could be some interleaved in the career that I'm missing. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is worse than I initially believed.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support well of course I am going to support the article that I massively worked on recently. I also really went out of my way to find citations on Newspapers.com. I apologize for the numerous inconveniences with the article I was in the process of correcting them, and it's not easy due to the length of his career and that Winters is a unique character all over the place, furthermore as of yet many of the stage shows aren't even in yet, I started them the day he died... For the records Winters started his career and studies at 12. I can put the agent spotting him in early life as well. Regarding his personal life one need to read his biography (which I will purchase shortly). All that I am aware is that all that is documented is his friendship with Alice Cooper and matching him with his wife, and that he was romantically involved with Linda Lovelace (I may be wrong about this). I also believe that TCM is now an acceptable citation, I started the conversation Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unreferenced material needs to be referenced. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It seems that a legitimate effort was ongoing to correct what the user above mentioned. And this effort is still ongoing HeavyMetalTheMovie (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently seeing 27 [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick comment The citations are down to 16 and the first 26 years of his career are covered. The subject had a lengthy career so 16 citations are like 5 five on another. I am still stumbling on stuff he got involved but would be hard work to add on short notice, mostly stage shows to be honest. Most of what need to be cited are Awards related to independent films he made and credits for projects which are either over 20 years old or obscure. Now its not a case where the subject need the extra credit to prove himself. Please reconsider.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg

 * Comment Once all issues sorted out, perhaps propose a blurb. This guy was like, local version of king for 36 years. Kingsif (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment His titles and honors need references. The rest of the article is probably satisfactory for RD. As he abdicated a long time ago this is not ITNR and I don't think his importance justifies a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the titles and honors section needs referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heather Harper

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. I was coming here to comment that it needed some more sources, but hopefully everything should be in the Guardian obituary. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lê Đức Anh

 * Oppose tagged for inadequate inline references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Luzon earthquake

 * Support - Was going to nominate it myself. Article looks decent enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems good to go. And for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not significant. Low death toll and magnitude Rockin 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support News sources are reporting this, and the article is of high enough quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Altblurb to note two major quakes so far have been reported in the same. --M asem (t) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I need to redact that. Apparently the second quake is not connected to the first one despite being in the same region and <24 hr later. I'm not seeing any deaths/injuries tied to the Visayas one, yet, so I wouldn't combined them. --M asem (t) 17:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it might still be better. There have been 421 aftershocks. I have a sinking feeling there will be more.--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as those are the Luzon quake aftershocks, then that's fine. I had heard about the Visayas quake, but now that I know its not connected, that should be kept separate (and right now, 0 deaths == not an ITN thing). --M asem (t) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you support posting now? I think the article is ready. The original blurb is fine by me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is good. --M asem (t) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support notable and article is well cited. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Julio César Toresani

 * Weak support it's not going to win any awards but it's just about ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems at least to need some referencing work. There seems to be no source at all for all the results in the infobox, and many teams mentioned there that aren't in the text, but I can't see how to tag that. I've tagged a few others that seem to be missing but I don't read Spanish so they might well be in the existing sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed all the ref issues and added a short summary of his career as a footballer.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much improved, but (unless I'm missing something) you still seem to need sources for the infobox stats on Senior career. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here. I included in the article.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that doesn't look to be the source of the data; the club appearances are bundled, and the goals scored under Colón de Santa Fe are different. Perhaps someone who knows more about football than I do could help out? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are different because they are shown in different ways. The source divides the appearances by teams while in the article the appearances are divided by time periods. For example, for Unión Santa Fé the source says 89 caps and 13 goals because it's covering his two periods at the team (1986-1989 and 1991). If you sum the numbers in the article, 56 apps (in 1986-1989) + 33 apps (for 1991) you gonna see that they match. For Cólon, the sources say 85 apps (for three periods of time: 1995-1996 / 1999-2000 / 2002-2003). If you sum the number of apps for Cólon shown in the article, you gonna see that they match exactly with what the sources say.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I summed them all. The stat I mentioned did not add up. Possibly I made a mistake; I don't speak any Spanish and I don't follow any form of sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I can help you. In the source, the "PJ" (partidas jugadas) is correspondent to the "apps" (appearances) in the article. The "Goles" is equal to "Gls" (Goals) in the article. The article says that, with Unión de Santa Fe, Toresani played 56 matches for the team between 1986 and 1989, scoring 7 goals and then, he again played for the Unión in the 1990/1991 season appearing in 33 matches and scoring 6 goals. The source says that Toresani played 89 matches for Unión scoring 13 goals in total. It means, all the matches he played and all the goals he scored for Union at the two periods of time he played for the team. If you sum, 56+33=89 apps, and 7+6=13 goals. The article says that, with Cólon, Toresani played 30 matches at the 1995/1996 season. Then, he played 25 matches at the 1999/2000 season and finally, Toresani played 30 matches at the season 2002/2003. The source says that he played 85 matches in total for Cólon in the three periods of the time which he was with the team. Then, if you sum 30+25+30=85. Understand?--SirEdimon (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an infant. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that. I meant to help, but I don't know how.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you've fixed the error now. Excellent, thanks. The totals look to match up now. Although, being very pedantic, the individual stints at each club are still not sourced. should be up soon, perhaps he could recheck and see if he thinks the stats sourcing is now adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As the individual stints aren't verifiable, they could be totalised per the source. Then there's no issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy McNeill
Look fine now, nothing especially contentious I can see.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  'Oppose Support Went through it and several statements need referenced. Given iconic nature among Celtic fans am sure this will be done quickly.
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wu Yili

 * Support as usual, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have not checked the Chinese-language sourcing. Couple of sources needed, in particular a more reliable statement for the idea that she was one of the world's oldest pianists at 87. (In my experience it is relatively common for pianists to continue into their eighties.) Some features of the personal life could be expanded, eg when did she marry (her husband suddenly comes out of nowhere), did she have children. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added the source for "Elaine Yi-Li Wu" (it's the name printed on the cover of her album). I've removed "one of the world's oldest pianists", that's what the source says but not essential to the article. It's not really wrong though, as "one of" makes the statement conveniently vague. The husband did not pop out of nowhere: it's clearly stated that he was the lead violinist of her orchestra, where they presumably met. None of the sources I've found mention any children of hers, but do not say she's childless either, so there's nothing I can add about that. And I'm not aware of any ITN rules that require such detailed information. Many RD articles, including Hansjörg Auer that you recently nominated and posted, have little or no information about their families. -Zanhe (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the world's oldest pianists, for some sense of "old" and "pianist". ITN still requires "a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items", though this has been pushed under the carpet for some RDs of late. I believe Auer to have been unmarried because English-language sources did not mention any spouse, including some of the "personal account" variety that one would expect to end with a note about the grieving spouse, if there were one. There was some information about his mother surviving him, but that did not seem encyclopedic.
 * I'll take another look at Wu with a view to posting when I've gone through the enormous list of pings I got up to. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA. I realise that I did indeed miss the first mention of Wu's husband. Apologies, I was tired and trying to get through assessing this nomination before retiring. Thanks for adding the material on the Cultural Revolution. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thank you for adding the info about her work on Guangdong music. -Zanhe (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hannelore Elsner

 * Support a dn needs resolving in (currently) ref 1, but otherwise this is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a dn? Ref 1 looks ok now. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * dn. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tagesschau went to a disambiguation page. I was so sure that was a primary topic, - well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support seems well-referenced, and although she was probably internationally not as well-known as Bruno Ganz, she was one of Germany's most familiar actresses with a continuing presence until her death. --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking good,, but I'd like a source for her birthname of Elstner (or hide this text in lead & infobox) before posting. (There's also another minor sourcing issue tagged that need not hold up posting, imo.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Birth name and marriages sourced. More obits over night, - anybody welcome to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not seeing much in English; I'll take another look this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you expect in English when all her films were in German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Guardian usually covers European film. They had good coverage of Agnès Varda, as I recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - good work. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Polly Higgins

 * Oppose until references are added for claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I've expanded and referenced, though I've only been able to find her organisation/personal site/PR material to support the honorary degree/professorship. That could perhaps be removed if necessary. Pinging to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive bio, well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David Lama

 * Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Not confirmed dead yet 67.183.112.3 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The IP is right. All the sources say "presumed dead".--SirEdimon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - until confirmed. Then Support.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - reopened as death has been confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Very notable mountaineer. Article is ready. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:6D6E:4CB4:B734:395F (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe a blurb for all 3 is reasonable. We did that for those 3 athletes that died in a helicopter crash about 4 years ago. Particular if all 3 are in good sharep. --M asem (t) 04:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the idea in principle, but Auer is a short stub, and neither of the other two is properly developed, despite their presumed deaths having been in the news several days ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The news today is that the bodies were found, so its no longer guessing. --M asem (t) 05:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple tags, several sections are unsourced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ukrainian presidential election

 * Comment I've slightly copyedited the blurb per standard practice. Brandmeistertalk  22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I included the "political newcomer" bit in my suggested blurb because that seems to be what is most newsworthy. (Not only a newcomer, but a comedian known for playing the part on TV that he's now more or less replicating in real life.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb – Of five RS sources, one, AFP, declares Zelensky victor outright, while four say he's won "a landslide" but hedge with references to exit polls. AFP says he drew 73 percent to Poroshenko's 25.5 percent. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support not altblurb which is loaded like a tabloid, we're here to report facts, not spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – (a) "A wide margin" is not sensationalism at all. (b) All RS sources above – none of which is a tabloid – use more effusive terminology: "Wins presidency by landslide" (BBC), "Appears headed for landslide victory" (AP), "wins Ukrainian presidential race by landslide" (Reuters), "becomes president-elect in landslide win" (AFP), "drubs Poroshenko" (dpa). Regarding the snide comment, "Spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting," I'm getting tired of these kinds of disparaging, belittling comments, which violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF, among others. Please desist once and for all. – Sca (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. I commented on the content not the commentator.  I don't even know who constructed the journalistic alt, nor does it matter.  Give the threats a rest, boring.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support yes, this is an okay thing to happen. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The filmography and TV appearances sections seem to be completely unreferenced. Support alt3 is these issues are fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't the election article be the target here? ITN/R is for the election, not the candidate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. A comedian with no political experience winning a presidential election is funny, but I don't think it's necessary to highlight. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb The extra details in the other proposed blurbs are not consistent with our normal practice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I necessarily support "funny" (per Zetta) alt blurb, but just because an event is ITN/R, that doesn't mean the blurb has to fit a mold; why not write a blurb that accurately presents the news being reported, since recurring events are still going to be different each time. Here, the not-politician who has done no campaigning won with a landslide, which is remarkable, and also plays the president on a comedy show. Both facts are notable, and half what has put this election in international news (can you remember the last time there were US headlines about a Ukrainian election?) Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment bold the election, not the winning candidate. Election needs a copyedit, I'm not sure this is a normal sentence: " However, March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of parts of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast by separatists (since April 2014), roughly 12% of eligible voters were unable to participate in the elections." --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Election article actually isn't terrible, just bold it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The election should be the target article and it isn't ready: no reactions, it isn't fully updated in the lead and the grey map is probably intended to be colour coded with the results. Also we do not usually post based on non-official results, so please could someone with the appropriate language skills check that the table has the final official results, preferably using inline direct links for clarity. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reactions are an aftermath to the election and not necessary, and some would argue superflous. The only relevant reaction now, the president's concession is included. We have official preliminary results with more than 70% (updating) 99.27% of the votes counted. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We used to require at least one sourced paragraph of post-result analysis, including such things as a note as to whether the election was considered well conducted, comments on turn out, any discussions over government formation, and how the election result was viewed internally and externally. Otherwise the article provides no real expansion on "x won", and there's no point in linking it. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I will keep working on expanding the Results section. But AFAIK there has been no contention about the results. Even the incumbent president has Tweeted about the fairness of the elections and mentioned it in his concession speech. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was talking about the general case of an election. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The map has color, The other map doesn't so I'm guessing it's been updated in the last half hour, since it read well, too. Added picture + alt3. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first map shows first round. The second map is for second round. The election article is otherwise ready and has a summary of the results. We could use some one SVG skills to update the second map.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The first round map has been moved to replace the grey one, but there have been prose updates, and it looks ready. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The election article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Don't worry, Ukraine, we have some right comedians in politics here in the UK too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Why hasn't this been posted? Most RSs have shifted to second-day stories, such as "Comedian's win in Ukrainian presidential election poses riddle" at Reuters. All agree on the 73/24% result, which once again is oviously a "wide margin," no two ways about it. Updated links: AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You do know that we aren't concerned with what other news sources do because we aren't a newspaper. Complaints of this nature are not useful to anyone.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, we aren't a newspaper. But in cases like this all our information comes from RS newspapers or news agencies. Why should we ignore the information they provide about the character of this election? Cuz we're above that sort of thing, or what? Absurd. – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: What do you mean by "other news sources" - ?? ITN is not a news source, it's more or less a news summary. Wiki/ITN dies not have reporters covering news events; it's entirely dependent on news entities for information about such events. – Sca (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * More useful to the readers (remember them?) would be a blurb that told something about the nature of the election and its results. One of the possibilities in this election was that Poroshenko would be reelected. That he wasn't, and that political neophyte Zelensky outpolled him by a wide margin, shows how widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions is in Ukraine. It makes no sense to exclude that fact from the blurb. Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If readers want to learn more, they are allowed to read the article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And if they don't want to read the article, ignorance is bliss? – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted alt3, keeping with tradition. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Boring. What does an internal ITN 'tradition' have to do with real events in the real world? Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't interested in being exciting. We're interested in being correct.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Please explain why "by a wide margin" (73-24%) is incorrect. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt3 The bolded article should be the election.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the fact that he was a comedian before becoming the president should be mentioned in the blurb. That's what a all of the major media networks mentioned in their titles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.9 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Sri Lanka bombings

 * Would it be appropriate to withdraw this until we have enough information to consider a blurb. Given the little that we know, this seems to be a suitable candidate once the article is more than a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is growing and well-referenced. The topic is significant enough for a blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb should be updated before posting. The article is developing with new information so wait for some time so we have some accurate information before posting. Incident is clearly important. -Nizil (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as is, number can be updated again as appropriate even after the blurb is on the main page. 89.138.131.240 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * support Sadads (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – This has an almost 100% chance of being posted. Give it an hour or two for the page to develop properly. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable event/tragedy. --Ant a n<b style="color:red">O</b> 08:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support needs to be posted ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. I have used 156 as the highest figure I could confirm (NDTV), please keep it updated. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment at 443 words it could be considered a stub. What was the reason to express this to the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, see WP:STUB. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you can lead a horse to water. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But you can't make it post articles to the Wikipedia main page with sentences like "Explosion in Dematagoda reported from a housing complex in Mahavila Udyana Road."
 * If you find it so upsetting, you are welcome to fix it. In the meantime, trying to claim this was posted as a stub is not the way to do things to improve article quality, now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has lost its front page quality. Do we pull? Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if you’re more specific. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Background is missing, reaction information is more than all other information on the page. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has actually improved through the collaborative energies of WP:VOLUNTEERs. Hey, the system works. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good work. Better to help improve the article, rather than wasting everyone's time debating pull/post/pull/re-pull, like the Notre Dame fire article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't pull an article that is obviously the top story on every news outlet around the world. Good call to keep news items in the news. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks adequate for now, although the reactions are basically padding, IMO. Let's not go down the pushmi-pullyu path again. Sca (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Article is not of excellent quality, but it's clearly improving. Echo Fuzheado; this obviously belongs at the ITN. Once, the media-blackout is pulled, I hope to see a much well-documented article. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would stress that article quality has to take into account of the location of these type of events. If this event took place in a major 1st World city (eg like the fire at Notre Dame) I would fully expect many many more details. But Sri Lanka is not a First World country, news is generally slower there, and with the social media blackout imposed, it will be even slower. What is there (excluding the international reaction section) is pretty damn good in this situation. The article is sufficiently well structured to make it easy for new contributors to add to it. And unlike the Paris fire, there's not a massive rush of edits, it is relatively more stable. So seems fine at this point. --M asem (t) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are all valid reasons to keep the article at an AFD, but it doesn't explain why it is important to feature an article on the main page which is as light on details as this article. It was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about ITN Purpose #1: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news? Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no, we still want quality, but I stress that what that quality is varies on what exactly happened. I am willing to give an event in a more remote/less technically advanced country the benefit of doubt of lack of details compared to something happening in a major Western city where there is no shortage to news. There's enough details of this event, and the necessary organization, to make it postable for something happening in Sri Lanka, but wouldnt' be appropriate if it were an event in the US or the like. --M asem (t) 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did I say the subject is inappropriate for the main page? No, I did not. I said that there was no reason to rush the article out. The attacks section is still laughably short. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually agreeing with Laser here; I'm working on the article but getting it clean and correct is hard with a lot of disruptive IPs and the well-meaning edits from users that are uncited and/or in poor English. It's better, but still has enough issues for two templates at the top. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The attacks section may be short compared to if this happened in Europe or the US, but that's because of Sri Lanka not being a highly advanced countries, remote enough that Western reporters are going to be a bit slower on uptake, and that there is a social media block out, which is going to delay info getting out. When this was posted, the major attacks were all IDd and an initial death toll had been made. We're still waiting on the "who" but we had what, when, and where all covered and the rest will take time to get filtered to the WEstern news. --M asem  (t) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * More updated now, happy to be posted. I objected not on content, per se, but on written quality and layout.Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment it was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever., well wrong, twice over. Firstly what was said above, it clearly meets one of the major pillars of ITN, to publish information on events that people come here to see (e.g. how many pageviews do you think it'll have by tomorrow?  how many complaints from actual readers have we had about its appearance, either upon posting or now??), but secondly, clear consensus to post.  Really, if we're trying to translate "two real reasons" into "no reason at all, none whatsoever", I think there's a problem in understanding here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TRM, as always you've added clarity and aided in my understanding of how best to help the project. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Saburido

 * Oppose Support purely on article quality—whilst well-written, it reads like a narrative of the entire accent with bare-bones for the rest of the content. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Updated article to be less storytime about other people-y. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced. And definitely a person that has recieved enough of pulblicity and attention overall for over 20 years to be RD worthy. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ready for posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The photo is copyrighted by the Texas State Department. I did not remove it as a courtesy to to correct me if I am wrong. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposing based on a photo? Remove the photo and then discuss it with Kingsif.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO is a basic tenet on the Main Page and Wikipedia in general. I could be mistaken about the license. Forgive me if I am not quick to revert an edit made by another editor. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems fine for me, but as there's a reasonable doubt I removed it myself until Kingsif is able to clarify it. I'm prety sure that Kingsif will not be offended about it.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not offended at all :) does Texas not come under "original work of the US government", which all bears no copyright? Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Each subnational government in the U.S. has its own copyright laws. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, should probably PROD it on Commons then Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be rude of me when I know the user who uploaded it is active almost everyday and they can self nominate for deletion. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – The article appears well written and minimally comprehensive. Restored ready mark.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian

 * Very Weak Oppose This is a really good article, with lots of solid referencing. But as I'm digging into the references, it looks like the Career section doesn't match the given sources. There's some contradictions in some of the text there about the chronology (including even the subheading "Exile and return to Iran" which doesn't actually include any information about a return to Iran). I may have time to help align that section with the sources later, but can't make promises. It's really close. Kenmelken (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Xiao Yang

 * Support satis (as usual from Zanhe). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, ready to post. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seeking clarification on age at death. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGF on Chinese-language sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Turpin case

 * Weak oppose yes there's some moderate news coverage, yes the article's of decent quality, but it's a lurid story of limited encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have to sadly oppose this. It is a national story brought to international attention because it happened in the US. Not saying its not notable or within Wiki criteria, but just not for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I haven't seen this in the news at all, ever, and hadn't heard of it until I saw this nom. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lyra McKee

 * Support: Notable death because of background, and circumstances in which it occurred. Also received international coverage. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per This is Paul. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing Ready. Let's slow down a little here; it's unclear to me whether or not the subject was notable prior to her death. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe she meets WP:CREATIVE but I can understand the hesitation.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Now appears adequately sourced and developed. I think the subject's notability before her death is very questionable; the standards for journalists are very (too?) tough and she would not have been eligible as an author (requires a minimum of two published, reviewed books); such figures appear at Speedy quite often, in my experience. Let's see if anyone wants to move it to "Killing of..." but I don't think that needs to hold up an RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extinction Rebellion

 * Comment & Support Added more context to blurb to explain why it's not just a plain ol' protest. Kingsif (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This barely registered as a blip in the World section of the New York Times, who are usually quick to report on these sorts of things if they are notable. So I have my doubts as to the notability of these protests.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree with Walt that it's below the radar on most major news sites. (The Guardian, though often a valuable RS, favors these kinds of topics. And the Telegraph 's Thursday piece about Emma Thompson? C'mon.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: News coverage of it has been pretty significant here in the UK. I count eight related headlines on the homepage of the Telegraph, which is much further to the right of the political specrum than the Guardian, and in the paper edition over the last few days it has also taken up a large amount of space. However I will acknoledge that it's been less reported abroad. In terms of notability it's unusual for protestors to be arrested in such large numbers in the UK - over 500 people at this point. It's been even reported that police were running out of cells to hold protestors. As an example of TV news there's this interview on Channel 5, and another on Good Morning Britain. User:GKFXtalk 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Where are you getting "closing stations" from? They caused a brief interruption to service on the Docklands Light Railway for an hour or so, but there's no mention—either in the Wikipedia article or any coverage I can find—of them closing stations, let alone "for several days". &#8209; Iridescent 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my version of the blurb. I've amended it to focus on the road-based protest and the number of arrests. (ref Met Police on Twitter) User:GKFXtalk 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it's quite un-British to do this (and the French do it practically weekly), it's still not enough for me to be considered worthy of even a passing mention in the year's most encyclopedically interesting events. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll take the risk of disagreeing with TRM, and say that this isn't even un-British. A similar group (probably including most of the same people) were camped out outside St Pauls a couple of years ago, the fuel protestors blocked roads practically weekly in the 2000s, anything with the slightest connection to either GM crops or oil drilling can expect a group of protestors camped out nearby… "Blocking the road" is nowadays the default course of action for any British special-interest group trying to draw attention to whatever cause they're promoting. &#8209; Iridescent 18:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: When was the last time over 400 people were arrested, in the UK? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the government, last year, an average of 1914 people were arrested in the UK every single day. Who knew?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like a bigger deal than the Boston Marathon, which was a routine local sports event, but is currently in ITN.  It looks like there's more to come as people like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg get involved. Andrew D. (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly will not get anywhere. Climate change last year was deemed [next to] irreversible as this point.  All the protesters will achieve is legal trouble and (to a degree) embarrassment. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the reversiblity of climate change or otherwise has a bearing on this ITN candidate. (Also, citation needed!) Nor does anyone appear embarrassed. The relevant factors for notability are the amount of disruption caused, actual or likely impacts on government policy, etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The great unwashed have now gone home, after their mummies and daddies picked them up in their 4x4s.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , if they're riding in Range Rovers their mummies & daddies doubtless made sure they were thoroughly washed before they left home. – Sca (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There's literally still an XR truck and several hundred people chanting on... a bridge... as I type now. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Moderate sized protests, no where near in size to what we generally look for at ITN. Long term significance is likely negligible, if that zero. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the good reasons outlined above. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant protests, with a decent article. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It has received little coverage outside the UK. The impact of these protests have been very limited. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Capitalistroadster. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lorraine Rita Warren

 * Oppose because it is missing a biographical section and has no mention of death in prose. The criticism section also needs to be integrate to avoid undue emphasis. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lacking references and the criticism section has an NPOV tag. The media appearances section is unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is in poor shape and contains next-to-no reliably sourced biographical material. Could someone remind me of previous instances when we have published RDs of individuals in this type of joint article? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Mountaineer deaths

 * Support - I could accept this solution. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb little/no international coverage. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - tragic as they are, the significance of their deaths does not reach the level usually required for ITN blurbs. Besides, out of the three articles, only Roskelley's is close to being ready in terms of quality. -Zanhe (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I think I'd rather see 3 RDs than a blurb for this; a blurb would give this more importance than the news coverage suggests. It also looks like not all three would be ready to post at the same time anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A very sad event but the trio are not exceptionally notable. The avalanche has received some coverage but not enough to justify a blurb. Just post each to RD once article quality is sufficient. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jess Roskelley

 * Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed per There is no mention about it or a citation. Aviartm (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. We might also want to wait a little; we do not usually work from "presumed dead". The avalanche is being reported as on Tuesday. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - reopened as death has been confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable mountaineer. Article has no issues. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:6D6E:4CB4:B734:395F (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for main page. -Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Still needs some (independent) sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did we edit conflict? I'm not seeing your edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , all good, my PC hung. Normal service has been resumed. Stephen

(Posted) RD: Hansjörg Auer

 *  Oppose  why are you nominating a red link? -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: article has now been created but still a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update 2: now Support after expansion by Espresso Addict. -Zanhe (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - reopened as death has been confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is short but has no issues. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:6D6E:4CB4:B734:395F (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The article currently comprises six sentences. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I've had a go at expanding it. Pinging to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work, ! I've changed by vote to support. -Zanhe (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As no-one seems to be getting around to this, I'll post this, if no-one objects, in a couple of hours. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Mueller Report

 * Ongoing major story which has been in the news around the world for years. Parent article and various sub articles get regular, quality updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing. Stuff will trickle out over the next week or so as people and the news read the report.  The release of this report was highly anticipated and is global news. If this is posted as a blurb, the fact that the report was redacted should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We posted when we knew it was completed, so the fact that a (redacted?) version is out was something that was going to happen - whether voluntarily or coerced by Congress. As I suspect that every outside that even slightly off-from-political-center is going to try to find or disprove the evidence towards Russian involvement, we're likely going to be dealing with a lot of POV in the short term (that is, this is not a good state for Ongoing). The better point to post is if the Justice Department seeks any action, or reports they will take no action, against Trump or others from this report. --M asem  (t) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Justice Department policy (especially with Barr) is that they can't do anything to President Trump; only Congress can. There were other matters referred out of the SC's office but those were redacted so we don't know what they are(though one is likely Assange) 331dot (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So we can wait for Congress to take action. We posted that it was done, but since no one else can do anything with the redacted version, this is not a ITN point. It's "in the news" but we try to avoid too many stories on the same topic when they are inconsequential updates. --M asem (t) 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Other than more hearings, Congress is not going to take action as Speaker Pelosi has said there will be no impeachment as long as the chance of conviction in the Senate is zero. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this is a non-story from an ITN point. We posted that the investigation was complete, and if no one plans to take any action, then its done. I know its all over the news because the media are looking for any dirt to throw, but we don't engage in political mudslinging stories here. --M asem (t) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points but if we were to specify any potential action that the Department of Justice might take would still go back to the articles wikilinked in the blurb currently. And the Justice Department has already said they do not plan on charging President Trump or his inner-circle. And the special counsel said they have no more indictments.1 Aviartm (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ongoing Concur with the above. This doesn't seem like a blurb-able story, but it's a top news item, and we have a good article to direct people to which is current and up-to-date.  Seems to fit ongoing well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing per above. Article is pretty good, and it's certainly receiving significant coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article may be renamed to just "Mueller report" per my suggestion there. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Didn't we post this before? I can see this is a big news story in the States but it's not so key elsewhere. I see no rationale whatsoever for posting it to ongoing; what conditions would it be removed under? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My nomination is not for Ongoing, but for ITN. And my other nomination about the conclusion of the report which was highly contentious, which got uploaded in the end, is similar, and that was just about the conclusion of the report. This nomination is about the public release of the report. Hopefully that clarifies things! :) Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it's making headlines around the world. Conditions for removal would be the same as any other: the article is not getting updated, or the story is no longer "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the article, but I don't oppose a blurb in principle; it should probably not have been posted before, but that's not a great reason for not posting it now. I am stating my opposition to ongoing because several ITN regulars suggested that above. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ongoing refers to the Ongoing section? I know about the existence of the section but I thought Ongoing meant to wait until more details came out, ex. "Event is ongoing; standby." Aviartm (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee it won't be in the news in the UK for more than a few days unless something major ensues. Given the relatively small updates that have led to other articles being kept at ongoing in the absence of heavy global news coverage (see the two removal nominations currently open), and the bias in editing activity towards US topics, we might be looking at this for weeks or months. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, but not as Ongoing. The release of the report itself occurred at a fixed moment in time. That report is now available online at the DoJ, as is Barr's "summary". It was two years in the making. Its release, even redacted as it is, should be blurbed in ITN. In contrast, repercussions of that report (and other ongoing investigations, for that matter) should be differently captioned. Whether the repercussions will continue to be front page news around the world has never been an ITN criterion for a basic blurb. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) might make a better target for ongoing than Mueller report. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That page has already been nominated before by me as you can see here. And the importance of the news is the final report, not the whole entity that is the special counsel. Aviartm (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  Weak support – Tons of coverage followed by Demo vows to keep on digging, but the only really new detail so far is that DT tried to get Mueller fired – which considering all the other muckymucks he's canned is somewhat less than surprising. Nevertheless this remains a big topic. I'm not averse to Ongoing, though. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment marked ready. Looks like there is consensus to post, leaning towards ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing for now. Discussion regarding a blurb can continue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment tiresome, never blurbworthy right now, ongoing at best... if something comes out of the redaction subpoena, let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

 * In the last week, there have been few, if any meaningful updates to the article. Certainly not continuously updated as stipulated by WP:ITN. An arrest in Spain on charges from 2008, humanitarian aid for a crisis going on long before the election, sanctions starting in 2015, these things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis. The last update which had anything to do with the actual contest was the IMF denying Maduro access to reserves -- and that was over a week ago. The fact is, neither man is going to concede, there are no new defections, Maduro controls the military and the whole thing has faded into the larger Crisis in Venezuela. The presidential crisis is over, and if someone wants to nominate a different article for ongoing, they can, but this one is stale and it's time for it to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Major events have long tails - thousands have been killed this year in the (how-can-they-still-be) ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria. Just because things keep happening does not mean ITN-worthy things are still happening.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose recently there was the arrival of the Red Cross, and a lot US-Canada sanctions. Also sub-articles have received major updates.--MaoGo (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red cross aid for a humanitarian crisis that has been going on for years, long before the election. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Red Cross entry was two days ago and was updated recently. The major plot may be going cold (who know what will happen next), that is why I mildy oppose, but surely the crisis of Venezuela in 2019 is covered with this article, independently from the title.--MaoGo (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? The presidential crisis is over? Independently of whether the article stays on the main page, or is changed to the broader Crisis in Venezuela ... What has happened to the Presidential crisis article is that it has grown so large that major updates are now done in the many sub-articles (almost one for every section), with smaller summaries back to the main article, but the crisis is far from "over", and remains the most highly viewed Venezuelan article. "These things may have been made an issue by Maduro and Guaidó but they are not part of the actual crisis"?  These things (corruption, crime, humanitarian crisis and failure to accept aid) are the reason there is a crisis. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully -- and I know you're basically the sole maintainer of this -- be it the humanitarian crisis or the sanctions both of those sub-articles make it abundantly clear that those issues were ongoing well before January 2019. That is, while the presidential crisis may overlap with those other issues, neither of those issues is a direct consequence of the crisis. The presidential crisis didn't cause the food shortages, it's just that the latest round of humanitarian aid has been politicized by parties in and out of Venezuela with a stake in impacting the leadership. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When a very large article (about a geopolitical event of major significance to a number of countries with ongoing developments in multiple realms-- sanctions, censorship, healthcare crisis, aid delivery, recognition of representatives in major governmental bodies, etc) is well structured, well cited, and with contributing editors getting along congenially, one might expect that most content is being regularly updated in the sub-articles, with thankfully rare but succinct summaries back to the main article. On the other hand, your requirements might be satisfied if the involved editors were not correctly using summary style, and instead chunked all new content into the main article, so that it would later have to be cut and moved to the summary article.  Do you want ITN to reward that kind of editing?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Contrary to the assertions of the OP, there have been several meaningful additions to the article right up to within less than 24 hours of when they made the nomination. There were several substantive additions made just yesterday, and information in the article covers information as recently as April 16 and April 17.  This is still producing enough new information to keep the article moving forward.  Evidence shows this is still an ongoing and evolving story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * the 24 hours before that? And before that? Adding images and fixing refs != continuously updated. I went through and cataloged every update > 100 bytes for the last week, if I'm wrong, then fine, but you don't get to tell me that adding a few images on the 13th is "good enough". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. I said the text added yesterday represented a substantive update, and there are several items about information from as recently as April 16 and April 17.  Cherry picking some days when no updates were made doesn't make the other information go away.  Also, expressing incredulity at the evidence presented by others, and taking a rude tone doesn't actually make the information go away either.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you felt I was being rude, it was not my intent. WP:ITN stipulates  a continuously updated Wikipedia article not a sporadically updated Wikipedia article. This one fails the test, because the story is going cold. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is going to have some disagreement on what is continuous enough. For me, this one is continuous enough.  It isn't for you.  We've established both those as true things.  There's no need to beat this into the ground anymore.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, independently from whatever ITN requirements are, why do you think the presidential crisis is over? There are two men with claims to the presidency, and a pretty significant geopolitical conflict building up around that problem, not at all resolved, but reflected in issues like delivery of aid, sanctions on Cuba, oil supply to Caribbean countries, US international relations with Europe and Latin America, etc.  Yesterday's sanctions were a pretty big foreign policy deal, and all of that editing action took place in three sub-articles, and was summarized back to the main article as it should be in one succinct edit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The sanctions, the humanitarian crisis, the oil embargo, all of those things were going on before the presidential crisis. That's the point I keep trying to make: the presidential crisis is largely over, Maduro won, he's not in any danger of being unseated anymore, and the ongoing Venezuelan crisis which has been happening since 2010 -- well it's ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what your point is now; thanks for responding. That you believe that "Maduro won" the "presidential crisis" aids in understanding your position in the matter, in spite of the familiar geopolitical alignments of countries who don't yet believe anyone has "won".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that he won and is legitimate, just that Guaidó is out of cards to play and the story has gone stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per Jayron.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal but no issue pointing to the general VZ crisis article. The fact there's so many sub-articles makes this a difficult topic to see lots of activity at one level but the crisis clearly is ongoing. --M asem (t) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather that, if it's getting regular updates, because this story is about done. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - The presidential crisis is FAR from over. This is an ongoing crisis reported every single day in several media outlets. I really don't understand the insistence in trying to remove this from the main page.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN stipulates  a continuously updated Wikipedia article and as I've demonstrated, the target article is not being continuously updated with details about the presidential crisis. Does WP:ITN matter or not? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And here I am, spending sunup to sundown updating about a dozen sub-articles. :) :) Seriously, this allegiance to "rules" could contribute to poor editing practices!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sub-articles about the Crisis in Venezuela which has been "ongoing" since 2010 and of which the Presidential crisis is part of, not the cause of. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Serious broken record here. You can check contribs, right? Yes, the crisis in Venezuela is ongoing, and because the Presidential crisis is on the main page, I cleaned up the mess that was there, too. Here are some of the new sub-articles about the presidential crisis, mostly created to keep the size of the main article manageable:  Venezuelan crisis defection, International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela, Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Roberto Marrero, 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts (if you don't understand how those relate to the Presidential crisis, please inform yourself), Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy, Troika of tyranny ... and more ... not to mention all the individual BLPs affected. Other editors have probably created at least a couple dozen BLPs to be used in the Presidential crisis articles. Seriously, I am wondering why you keep this up; my talk page is open if you'd like to spare this page the ongoing back and forth. It's pretty clear that most people understand that this is a rather significant, ongoing geopolitical matter, which is too much to be contained in one article. Seriously, I don't care if the article is on the main page or not, but your persistence in this matter is intriguing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the problems we have here is that there is only really room for two items at a time in Ongoing, or three if they are all short (which this is not). When Ongoing goes over 2 lines, as it did for weeks until the recent removal of two items, it causes ongoing & annoying main-page balance issues, requiring daily addition of recycled DYKs, for example. There are two new proposals for Ongoing receiving support at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah,, thanks for explaining! I'm not sure I have ever frequented this page, but I was beginning to think the only reason Laser was advocating for removal was that we have a well-oiled machine, dedicated editors, and a good structure of sub-articles, so that the main article is mostly used for summary and doesn't get hit with a gazillion edits!  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you kindly never again, under any circumstances, comment on me or my motivations. You don't know me, or anything about me. Since you asked (without actually asking) I want this turd of an article off the main page because it goes days between updates and the sub-articles (talk about a broken record, we get it, you're updating articles in the Crisis in Venezuela) have absolutely nothing at all nothing in the slightest to do with the "Presidential crisis" which ended with Maduro keeping control of the military. That's why I wan't it off the main page. Full Goddamned stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the sarcasm in Sandy's comment. Sandy doesn't use the main page, didn't see the reason to not have as many articles in ongoing as theoretically wanted (when half your argument is "it's full"), and made a joke about herself not knowing that once it was kindly explained by someone else. I think you owe her an apology for that obscene last comment. Of course, you also overlooked when she listed a good half dozen or more articles with "presidential crisis" in the name that have been created and maintained. (It also seems most other editors disagree with you that other articles without the most explicit of connections are only Crisis in Venezuela-related. And I would side with their view.) Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the OP didn't want a caustic response, they should not have used sarcasm to denigrate me and utterly ignore my carefully documented position. Still I appreciate your response. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal It's not over, and the articles are being updated. Davey2116 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal If you take a look at any of the talk pages for many Venezuelan politics related articles, you'll see a great deal of organization in editing the daily updates of the presidential crisis across them efficiently. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, 8:1 for oppose removal, I suggest this be quickly closed as WP:SNOW Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Venezuelan politics" isn't in the ongoing box, the presidential crisis is, and it's not being continuously updated. It seems WP:ITN doesn't matter anymore. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

NepaliSat-1

 * Comment – Consider changing the blurb to "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose One article consists of 3 sentences, and thus is a stub, so ineligible for the main page. The other article, as of this writing, does not even exist.  When there are two, well-developed and well-referenced articles, ping me to re-assess their quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One down, one to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Articles are short, but still sufficiently past stub-stage for main page readiness. Good to go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the newsworthiness of this otherwise common occurrence is that it a first for Nepal, is it not reasonable to debase that significance by noting it was built in Japan and launched from the US? Surely substantial contributions were made by groups and scientists for whom this is old hat. GreatCaesarsGhost   14:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've expanded the article. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   15:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Can you do similarly to the second (as yet nonexistent) article on the Raavana 1?
 * Yes i can, i will be working on it. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   16:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created the article. ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Danke schön. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Danke dir auch ___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb and alternative by me. All three articles appear ready to me.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support nomination, Oppose blurbs – Blurb should instead be more concise and factually accurate. Coffee's blurb implies Cygnus NG-11 is a launcher. In actuality, NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1 were payloads of a mission called Cygnus NG-11. The blurb should instead be along the lines of "NepaliSat-1 and Raavana 1, Nepal and Sri Lanka's first satellites, are launched during Cygnus NG-11" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added "respectively..." to avoided the impression of co-ownership of both satellites by both countries. I also stand corrected and have struck my alternative. Support Alt2. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both these satellites weigh around 1kg, will be in short term orbit and use, and are minor payloads for the ISS resupply mission. Hardly their respective country’s entry into the space race. Stephen 23:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But an entry nonetheless; nothing wrong with having a cubesat / microsatellite as a country's first satellite. In addition, they're not payloads to the International Space Station, they're payloads to be launched from the International Space Station as part of the Birds program. [1 ] – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal of 2019 Iran floods from ongoing

 * Weak oppose. Wait a day or two.  I can still see some updates dealing with information as recently as 3 days ago, it's certainly heading in the stale direction, but I'm not sure I'm ready to declare it dead yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose same as Jayron32, I saw updates a few days ago. Unlike political posturing, floods actually end, so either the waters will recede or the article will go stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to reassess. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. There have been no substantive edits since 15 or 16 April. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Helium hydride

 * Comment. Not the paper from that issue of Nature I expected to see nominated here! (In fact, the BBC is currently highlighting two other papers from the issue.) While the article is updated, there is insufficient there or in the blurb to tell the reader why this is important. Also needs more clarity on the compound name; it's an ion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I note the entire update appears to be "and its first unequivocal astrophysical detection was reported in 2019" +ref. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Bolded article is sufficient and well updated, item is a current event which has been reported in reliable media. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron zzz (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Potential WP:EGG should be sorted out, as Helium hydride currently redirects to Helium hydride ion. Brandmeistertalk  18:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull. This doesn't rise to anywhere near the same level of importance or scope for scientific discoveries that some recent posted items have.  It's a fairly run-of-the-mill science story.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit. As written it is unclear (even to me as a chemistry undergrad) why anyone should care about HeH⁺, and whether scientists have found it for the first time this week or if it's something they see all the time. If on the other hand, the blurb was "Helium hydride, believed to be the first chemical compound ever formed, is observed in space for the first time.", then it would be clear why I should get excited about it. User:GKFXtalk 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This really is a "so what" hook to anyone other those deeply entrenched with (whatever) the significance might be.... Needs some kind of explanation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarify. Explain significance.  Right now, to the layman at least, it's like saying "stars have helium and hydrogen in them."  In other news, water is wet.  I may be showing my ignorance here, but I think that's how people will perceive this story as written.Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I did understand the significance on first reading, but from my education, so I concur with the above that it needs a rewrite. Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull. Doesn't explain the importance of the issue.  Bolded article is fine, but ... Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull, the discovery was only of helium hydride in a nearby nebula. The hypesters make a claim that helium hydride was the first compound formed in the universe, which is just them repeating an existing theoretical result, and connect it to the discovery of some helium hydride created 600 years ago. Then Wikipedia users fell for that hype because the picture of the nebula was pretty. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Just from a procedural standpoint. The nom was active for 48 hours with full support at the time of posting. After all the brouhaha re: Notre Dame, the last thing we want to do is pull because some people now see it as meh.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Significance was added to the blurb some days ago. Stephen 02:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mya-Lecia Naylor

 * Oppose. It is tragic that such a young person has died suddenly but the article is only slightly above 1000 prose characters. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you feel is missing from the article? Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything beyond the list of roles she performed and the fact of her death? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also reliable independent sourcing for all the material sourced only to her online CV, currently I think accidentally deleted, but I'm not prepared to restore it. Nikkimaria has replaced the Daily Mail source which was used until a couple of hours ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the subject meets WP:NACTOR, per a single recurring role in a television series on which we have an article, in which according to our article she was 9th billed. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support not a stub, well referenced, satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is short, but I don't see any refs issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two CNs, filmography not references. --M asem (t) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, both those two cn's were completely incorrect, they should have been Better source. But in any case, resolved.  And the Filmography is entirely referenced in the prose.  This is good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's good; I'd personally prefer the refs also on the table but there's a 1:1 matchup. Tiny concern one source is a primary, but not enough to stop RD at this point. --M asem (t) 23:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 23:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Christina Koch/Peggy Whitson

 * A new record for what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Women spending time in space, so "women in space" was what I thought of. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the article, it's set to be the longest single stay by a woman at ISS. That's not quite how I read your explanation.  And for what it's worth, oppose a "set to become a record news story".  When it becomes the record, consider nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok but the AFP article actually does say, "record for the longest spaceflight by a woman". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , when will Koch pass Whitson? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * She's in space now and the mission was announced today that she is set to make the record -- she is set to make it, next Feb, so the 'newsiness' is present and ongoing (also, I think they are interesting people, so there is that, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for answering that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until this event is imminent. This event will not occur until February 2020. Our article on Christina Koch has some tone issues and other MOS issues which should be handled in the mean time. I recommend WP:GAC followed by WP:DYK. Close this nomination so we can focus on actually possible nominations.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The record won't be set until February 2020. Consider renominating then. There are all sorts of things that could prevent her from making it that long, per WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD blurb: Alan García
<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment yes the article is an orange tagged mess. Lets give interested parties a few hours before piling on opposes. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Both recommended articles are not in good shape, Garcia more-so with many many CNs tags. Op Car Wash lists a number of named individuals without a single source (no "overarching" one that I see either) which is a BLP problem. Clearly significant however, no question this should be ITN when quality is there. --M asem (t) 15:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb once the orange tags are solved. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb; not convinced that he was a "major transformative world leader", and the manner of his death doesn't really make him one. Would obviously support RD once reference issues are dealt with. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one would suggest that he was. There is a completely distinct criteria for the unexpected death of prominent figures by suicide.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb when quality issues are fixed. The story is suicide when he was about to be arrested regarding corruption allegations. The allegations are a big story and while we would not normally post until the conclusion of the trial, there now cannot be conviction so this major change is when we should post. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The story is not so much that the person died but their manner of death was unusual and significant(suicide to avoid arrest on corruption charges). 331dot (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Referencing is dreadful and unacceptable for a BLP. Posting on the main page is out of the question absent major improvements in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly way sub-par on a quality front. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Alan García was an extremely influential figure in Latin America. Highly notable death. We've linked to far worse articles on the main page. --JECE (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not as targets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Tentative oppose Operation Car Wash is not too bad; I've added refs for Early Life on García's article, but for a vital article it is very poor, and too poor for main page at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) With article improvements, support; I've also removed the use of "suicide" as a verb in alt2, replacing with "kills himself". Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Although you said that he did not die when I stated that, and I turned out to be right at the end. DoctorSpeed <b style="color:red">Want to talk?</b> —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Two sections with orange tags at the top and citations needed elsewhere in article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Support on principle, oppose on quality. Looks like a significant international story.  Three citation needed tags in the first article, one citation needed tag in the second.  The second article appears to be in much better shape than the first, although there are a couple of unreferenced paragraphs and lists; if the first article isn't fixed in the near future, we should just bold the second article and post that as a blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)) Article is improved.  Note that I am supporting a blurb on the "unusual and significant manner of death" principle, not the "transformative figure" principle.  It's a rare occasion when a fairly well-known former head of state living in a democratic republic kills themselves to avoid prosecution. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with alternate wording – I support this nomination, but omit the "commits" portion. Please use a more appropriate term such as "completed suicide", "suicided" or "took his life".
 * "Suicided" is not a phrase that most native English speakers would use and I guarantee you it will not be used in the blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not include "suicided", but thanks for the concern. I will include different blurb in this edit. Does "dies by suicide" translate well?<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Dies by suicide" is technically correct, but uncommon. Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Suicide" cannot be used as a verb in English; replaced in alt2 with "kills himself", but "takes his own life" is another option. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The fact that he was president of Peru doesn't by itself make him significant, nor does the fact that he committed suicide. Lacks wider import. RD only. – Sca (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - The ITN death criteria does state that a blurb may be merited for unexpected manner of death, but really, I just don't think that applies here because this wasn't a transformative figure nor a current sitting head of state. That might merit a change in the death criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this meets the death criteria: (emphasis mine) ("For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is frustrating that such relevant news don't get quickly to the front page on quality grounds. Yes, I understand the reasons and I respect the rules. I understand this is English WP, and Alan García might not be quite as relevant for the English-speaking world, but as a non-native English speaker, I also see en.WP playing a global role. I mean, a twice-democratically elected former President (with both terms finished, totaling 10 years of rule) of a 30+ million people country with a fast-growing mid-income economy commits suicide among accusations of corruption. I also wish/hope that more committed, fluent English speaking editors were willing to contribute with their experience —and maybe even with the same time they invest in voting oppose— to improve one of the articles and make this happen. Cato censor (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment –      Tagging you all because there have been some updates to the article. It's not perfect, but there have been some improvements. I suggest supporting specific blurbs if you choose to support this nomination as well.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I still feel the blurb needs to mention Op. Car Wash (that's a well-known term) but it doesn't have to be featured as long as Garcia's article is to shape. Understanding the scope of what the arrest warrant was for gives some idea to why he committed suicide. --M asem (t) 14:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article has been improved significantly. Not the best shape, but it is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is obviously notable; few deaths per year get more notable than this. Former head of state, unusual method of death, and connection to a major scandal. This received significant coverage by all the news sites I visited yesterday. Article has been improved since yesterday. Davey2116 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb – Great work! can you check the sourcing in the Election history section. I am unable to verify that information. What is Infogob and Nohlen? It does not seem to likely to be challenged though. Oppose Alt0 and Alt1.---  Coffee  and crumbs  20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please at least post to RD. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. Regarding terminology such as "dies by suicide", we don't want to use unidiomatic expressions just because they sound a little better. "Kills himself" is not really better than "commits suicide" and also sounds more informal. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-comment this should mention a connection to Operation Car Wash. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Headbomb; at very least the nature of the charges needs to be mentioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-comment:Should mention the nature of charges, i.e. Operation Car Wash, and President of Peru should probably be linked. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Another post posted: I am not the first to find "commit suicide" problematic, and alternatives such as "took his life" have been offered above. I should not be in the "commit a crime" corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While there's alternatives, which I proposed because I know how fussy people can be about it, the actual verb in English is "to commit suicide", it's the only correct way to say non-idiomatically, and 'commit' does not have inherently negative connotations in English (you "commit yourself to marriage", for example). Kingsif (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose RD This is, after a very busy week, about to drop off the list - it's more recent than 4 of the RD deaths, so I suggest Garcia be added to RD when it rolls off the list. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jörg Demus

 * Support To me, the article is good enough now for the Main page - great work, ! Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, ready for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape, key collaborator of Fischer-Dieskau and a pioneer in period performance. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 14:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping .--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. ETA I noticed when I came to give credit to for her sterling work here that she had given me credit as an updater, but I only added a single sentence; I don't feel any more involved than I usually am when I post RDs, but feel free to (ask me to) revert if you disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Guro Fjellanger

 * Comment. Needs more detail on what she did, as opposed to what positions she held. Also generally more detail eg education; when (if) was she elected to parliament? did she marry/have a family? where did she live? (And I assume "gymnasium teacher" is a bad translation?) Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that English-language obits from The Guardian and The Independent will come quicker than they did for Neus Català. We will likely only get crickets from U.S. press per usual. Otherwise, the language barrier is just too much for me to overcome. I added a note at WikiProject Norway. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked for English-language sources before commenting and didn't find anything. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal of Algerian protests

 * Remove Was about to nominate the same myself for removal. Last substantive update to protest events was around April 9th, which included two very short sentences.  There have been a few odd reactions and quotes added to the article since then, but this has basically been a week since any new developments.  It's time to go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – Per Jay. Sca (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove so I can stop maintaining my list of days where it's not updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you weren't kidding about your special zeal. What gives?  Got a problem with Algerian protesters? ps... your list couldn't have had too many days on it, master Legs. ^^  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed. --Tone 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Bravo! You pulled it just minutes after Belaiz resigned. Well done!   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind your WP:CIV. The article did not reflect Belaiz at the time (which you know, as you added it), and Tone was acting on consensus. Ongoing is not a permanent residence, and removal does not suggest a belief that the event is fully and completely over.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, we've all been waiting hours for you to nominate a new blurb about Belaiz resignation. We can't wait forever.  You should really get on that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, no, Jayron32. While I understand the game, I'd rather spend time with family than play at the moment. I still can't get over just how bored someone must be to keep track of every 12-hour period during which an article has not been "substantively" updated.  This encouraging of ambulance-chasing and dutifully reporting crowd counts for each day just makes entries unnecessarily long and tedious.  GCG, my comment was an amused reminder that you should have had the entry on the front page well before Bouteflika was deposed, but didn't, because the protests were "petering out".  (an ITN expert really said that :) Then, once the President was deposed, you couldn't put it on ITN because nobody would help fix his uncited BLP page. So with limited time, I went through the bureaucracy of having it added to ongoing to keep ITN from looking entirely foolish.  From now on, I think I'll stick to content and leave the bean-counting to the overseers.  SashiRolls t ·  c 21:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Al-Aqsa Mosque fire

 * Oppose. "The fire was extinguished within seven minutes and did not cause any damage". Since we're never going to have an article on this, by definition we're not going to have anything to put on the main page. &#8209; Iridescent 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if we ignore the Notre Dame fire, this was a guardhouse that burned on the roof but the fire was contained within minutes with no serious damage to the structure. Extremely trivial event in the larger picture. --M asem (t) 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Boston Marathon

 * Comment I've done some work to expand and clean up. There are still some refs that need cleaning and more can be added, but have definitely taken it beyond stub. Don't have any more time to help today. A little more help though and I think this can be made ready. Kenmelken (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – There is well-sourced summary and this is ITNR. I don't see any contentious claims on Worknesh Degefa and Lawrence Cherono. Fine to link unbolded. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its amazing how a major event like Notre Dame is pulled because of "article quality" while this WP:BLP article is posted as a stub after a single support opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not a BLP (unless you are talking the racers, but they are not normally the target article for race wins) and 2) the quality is equivalent to nearly all previous Boston Marathon articles. --M asem (t) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This also stayed here while nominated for 12 hours compared to the less than an hour to post the Notre Dame blurb.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's ITN/R so once the quality is up to scratch it can be posted without further supports. But some people will just whinge at anything. Stephen 03:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Les Reed (songwriter)

 * Support Good enough, although depends a lot on one source. (Far more importantly, he wrote Marching On Together). Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of Discogs. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That section could just be removed. I think we'd struggle to cite it any other way, we're not talking big hits here, and they're not what he was mainly known for. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to clean it up and replace it with a bunch of citations to the original singles (with publisher, serial number etc), but Black Kite's suggestion also works for me, and can be done in 15 seconds. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably worth doing for the time being until you have time to cite it properly. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comment . I'm uncomfortable with relatively uncontroversial material like this being bulk removed for no other reason than to facilitate mainspace exposure. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if it can be referenced, you can put it back by providing the references. Easy as pie!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like Coffeeandcrumbs has done it. It wasn't a large amount of information anyway. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Re-posted) Notre Dame fire

 * Oppose until some context on any damage/death is provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support was in the middle of nom... edit conflict... think it's notable (The Notre Dame... is on fire!) without the damage information. It's, you know, the Notre Dame. Kingsif (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict (x2) - was in process of nominating myself! "Developing story. May warrant posting depending on update and article quality and the amount of news coverage." Extensive damage would likely warrant posting. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Beaten to the nom with multiple edit conflicts support. Obviously a major fire, article overall not in bad shape. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support is for original blurb atm. The article on the fire itself is still a stub and not ready for MP. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per TRM. I'm sure the context will become clear over the next few hours and we can post, but for now it's too early. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict and support (x4) - Came her to nom. Clearly notable, based off of images and reporting damage is expected to be extensive. Most outlets refer to the fire as serious. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is going to be in the headlines/discussion for a few weeks at the very least in the European/American press. Sadads (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Slow the F down - As TRM says, plenty of time to wait for some context/information to this. We hardly know anything about it yet.--WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I am watching as the cathedral burns live out of control. This is the first time of a known fire on a world famous landmark that has stood for almost a thousand years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1992 Windsor Castle fire. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - very clear that this is what's going to be in all 2019-in-review programmes in December... I prefer the original version over the alt (keep it simple...) L.tak (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, seems fine by WP:ITN. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but "catches on fire" is an Americanism (elsewhere we'd say "catches fire"), so I have given, and prefer, Alt2. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I was about to nominate this myself, but yes, this is front page material. Either alts are fine. 'Catches fire/catches on fire' is too casual. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rarely have I seen such a poor ratio of supports to article updates. —Cryptic 18:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. It seems the rules are being cast aside in favour of shouting sensationalism today... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is disingenuous. As stated below, I have been physically unable to update the article because the MediaWiki software has prevented me from doing so via continuous and repeated edit conflicts. I dare say I'm not the only one who can't do a major copyedit on it, because people doing small bits of gnoming will get in first. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted There is general consensus to post. If another admin wishes to pull this, you do not need to ask for my permission. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the spire collapsed, this is a big deal, but those details are scattered around the article. Write one paragraph with the details, please. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull obviously. There's nothing in the article!!!--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have they sent in the flying water tankers yet?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we change the image to one of the images of the fire now that they are available? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not unless there's a free one available - I don't see one at the moment. No doubt there will be at some point. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Fire at the Notre Dame de Paris cathedral in 2019.png is available. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Support This is an "in progress" disaster. The article is being expanded rapidly. But there is enough to post this. [When I was growing up, I knew the Roman Catholic priest, Msgr Leonard Fries, who as an American Army Chaplain in WWII celebrated the first Mass in Notre Dame after the liberation of Paris from the Nazis. I think I am going to be sick.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull per Walt, update is not there. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying to update the article, but can't because of continual edit conflicts. That gives me confidence it will be expanded quickly and diligently. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for what? Notre Dame isn't going to get better, and coverage is ongoing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that said Walt, not Wait. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull Aren't the admins here to protect the hoi polloi from ourselves?  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Maybe it went up a little quickly but it passes the significance test and will surely get expanded shortly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull what a fucking joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the best response to my judgement is insults like "what a fucking joke", that suggests I was probably right. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it suggests the article was posted too quickly, and nothing is gained by putting it on the main page when by your own admission, no major copy-editing can be done due to the extreme number of edit conflicts. We look like a bunch of twits putting this bare skeleton of an article on the main page for all to see.--WaltCip (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To me it suggests that despite 14 years here, including nine as an admin, we haven't learned WP:CIV. – Sca (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be larger in size and contains more sources than pretty much any RD nomination that I worked on recently that hit the main page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How you managed to derive that from just four words is astounding. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know TRM and have worked with him for a while on ITN as well as his efforts to catch errors on DYK. I'm sure he'd agree that my observation jives with his.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the rush to post was shambolic and unseemly, but apparently commonplace nowadays. And, try as you might to goad me, please don't bother, CIV plays no part here.  Try to learn more and speak less.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 *  Pull and Wait until the article is sorted out  I'm trying to update it, but it's mostly impossible and people keep duplicating information or putting bollocks like YouTube algorithm fails in it. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, adequate update IMO, has the jist of what happened and is well-referenced. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't pull, major event & article will develop rapidly. Renata (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't pull, I supported the inclusion and it got posted... my stance is against a pull due to the massive notability of the event and inclusion criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't pull it's not the greatest article in the world, but it's good enough given the enormity of the event. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled per several !votes above. A one line sentence is not sufficient for an update, and while I See there is a separate article, it is far too soon for that to be created. ITN is not a news ticker. We should wait until we can report how massive the damage is, how many injured, etc. --M asem (t) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We can report that most of this historical monument has collapsed in barely a few hours. That's a lot of damage. Like, it's not just news - it's the news. BBC have dedicated the entire BBC News channel to covering it. Nothing else is happening compared to this. Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But we are not a news channel. When we can report on that with some degree of quality, yes, then we can include it. Regardless what happens, I am 100% certain it meets the importance for ITN posting, bt right now it is a question of being of the right article quality, and we aren't sacrificing this for purposes of being timely. --M asem (t) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is the "right article quality"? As stated above, the article is beyond the size of a stub, every claim is reliably sourced (or if it isn't, it seems to be sourced or reverted very quickly) and in general it seems to be a far better quality than many articles that hit the main page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, right now, there are Twitter sources for this. There is zero reason to even touch Twitter for this type of event. It's getting there, I'm trying to help too here. But these also need to be reflected in the Cathedral's article too. --M asem  (t) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The last four !votes before you pulled were all clearly against pulling. But ok. Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that, but he said he was pulling per several !votes above. And it seems like he ignored a sizable number of !votes to the contrary. Lepricavark (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This got more than a one-line sentence update. —Cryptic 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is more about the fire in the lede than the body. That's not appropriate. --M asem (t) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree - and that was actually the basis of my first comment here, when Notre-Dame de Paris was the bolded article in the proposed blurb - but the blurb that was actually posted bolded the fire article. Both the new article and the update to the non-bolded article were in excess of our normal standards for posting to the main page by the time you pulled. —Cryptic 19:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore The pulling of the blurb appears to be contrary to a very strong consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm concerned any admin reversing the pull would be wheel warring. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Most of the reasons for "pull" (where one was given) is that there was no update to the main Cathedral page; that update has happened in the last hour since those votes (still less than the number of "don't pull"s) were posted. I think it would just be following consensus to re-post. Kingsif (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ritchie; I'm not sure I would have pulled it as it being on the MP plus being such a prominent structure likely means it will get updated; but it's done, and the legitimate concerns need to be addressed. I'm not going to wheel war. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Would they just be enforcing the consensus? Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Under that logic this would never be able to get posted again. Masem's pull was clearly done without seeing the most recent few !votes, due to edit conflicts and stuff. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unpull (is that a word?) A general overview is better than none at all. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 19:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore - There are many editors at work on the fire article. I've tried but keep getting edit conflicts. Article is coming along, and it is clear that the building has suffered very severe damage. ITN worldwide, so should be on MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Change The title for the article of the fire has changed from 2019 fire at Notre-Dame de Paris to Notre-Dame de Paris fire so the link is going to a redirect page currently which should be changed to reflect the article title change. --Bluecrab2 (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore The article is not that bad and is being improved minute by minute considering the number of editors working on it. The enormous notability of the news should prevail.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore Massive story, that we have reasonable coverage of, both for the current events and for history of the cathedral. Pull was against strong consensus.  Jheald (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore Masem went against consensus, mentioning the lack of an update to the non-bolded article, which is irrelevant, and claimed it was too soon to have a separate article on the fire, which is nonsense. We have a reasonable article which will only improve.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore. The article is rapidly being expanded, and at any rate it seems really bizarre for us not to have such an important event in the display. Gimubrc (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore – The article is rather basic but sufficient for a start on a major developing story. Notre Dame is instantly recognizable throughout the Western world. No. 1 story on main news sites. (Five sources added above.) Sca (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore. Pulling this was outrageous. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article looks a bit better now, although I must admit to laughing bitterly when glancing at the "Reactions" section and seeing a mention of the Orange One's whining about the fire messing up his precious plans for a tax roundtable (whatever that is).--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reposted I now feel with the edits (including those I've cotnribted) have established sufficient quality to post (including the longer update in the cathedral's article). Yeah, the reaction section's unnecessary-ish but that's more a matter of taste, they are all sourced opinions. --M asem (t) 20:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can now concur with this too. You reposted at About the right time probably. It seems people were confusing consensus with vote counting earlier, even though issues raised hadn't been addressed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Restore I would have opposed a couple of hours ago on the grounds that it was a stub. It's being rapidly developed, and it's in a good enough shape. (This wasn't originally a post-posting comment, but thrice I've gotten into edit conflicts with other users !voting to restore.) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Restore - Article is ready to be posted, per Brendon. Jusdafax (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that this was pulled is astonishing to me, Wikipedia is a work in progress and everyone knows that this isn't going to die in news coverage overnight in terms of article coverage depth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the specific purposes of In The News, we value quality over timeliness. We recognize everything is a work in progress, but this is the Main Page, not just Wikipedia's news ticker, so we want the article to be of a quality to show how well WP editors can corroborate to make a quality article in less than a few hours. We can wait the few hours to fix up refs, sort out details, etc. but being able to get something in anything less than 24hr is impressive. --M asem (t) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-reposting comment – Rather than the bland "A fire breaks out," suggest "Fire heavily damages...." – Sca (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Matter of timing. Fire is still going, no timetable on when it will be exitnguished if it can. When it is out, then switching makes sense. --M asem (t) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the blurb can be improved by mentioning the spire and roof. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just take a look at the Reuters story, not to mention the French agency AFP: "A colossal fire swept through the famed Notre-Dame Cathedral in central Paris on Monday, causing a spire to collapse and threatening to destroy the entire masterpiece and its precious artworks." This isn't merely a roof fire. Sca (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I had deleted the word "major" from the blurb because it's WP:PUFFERY (so is "colossal"). We should focus on the specifics to get across how big a deal this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO descriptive adjectives, however sweeping, aren't necessarily "puffery" if they fit the situation. From what I've read it seems the entire famed edifice is in flames. "'Everything is burning,' André Finot, a spokesman for the cathedral, told French media." –Sca (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the wording of "serious fire", but we can call a large fire a large fire. We don't need to go over the top with puffery, but it wouldn't be undue to use some adjective. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On WP:ERRORS, I've also suggested "Fire heavily damages" as a fairly restrained preliminary description of what's extensively supported in RS reports already. – Sca (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @ That sounds like a good next step in the inevitable blurb evolution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Even though the article has been posted. I think this is definitely for ITN. Historic event.BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Post-discussion discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

 * Oppose Article 17 (formerly 13) " new, conditional exemption to liability". Ok, how does that work? The section doesn't say, it just explains that special interests dislike it. A few CN tags should be fixed. No comment on "significance" (I don't live in Europe) but I don't feel the article is "minimally comprehensive". --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All CNs were fixed. And actually, there was nothing in that section about special interests; the worked "claimed" is coming from the directive in that ISPs that claim to have certain measures get the conditional exemption. That I've reworded. --M asem (t) 14:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "As a whole, Articles 14-16 in the working version of the Directive, would improve the bargaining position of authors and performers, even though it set out systems that were weaker than some existing ones in member states." improve how? weaker in what way? What do articles 14 through 16 even apply to? This article isn't up to scratch. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I point back to when this passed the EP that there was generally broad support but this member states vote was the last hurdle. --M asem (t) 14:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Frankly the time to post this would have been when it had passed the EP. This is an intermediary step in the process between then and European states actually passing appropriate copyright laws.--128.227.165.102 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We should have posted this back when the Parliament passed it, but now is also a good time to post. Clearly notable, and article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The article is not balanced - the entire lede appears to be an attack on it, some in Wikipedia's voice. Some is also inaccurate (I've just removed a section saying that IMPALA opposed the bill, when they've actually welcomed it, but there's still very little on who supports the bill and why in the lede).  One would think from the lede of the article that the EU has passed this against the objections of everyone else. Wikipedia should not be showcasing such an unbalanced article.Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cut out a lot of the anti-stance that was in the lede; the anti-side still needs to be discussed since Article 11/13 were big concerns throughout the language developement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
 * No, I agree that there was major concern about it, but reading the article you got the impression that there was no-one who actually supported it, which is of course total nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support extensive, extensively sourced article about something that has been a major contention topic in the EU and elsewhere as repercussions are likely global. LjL (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - great sources, major story. changing the "internet world" we are currently having.BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment My other problem with having this on the fron page is that people are going to click on it expecting to read how it's going to affect them, a question which they're very unlikely to have answered unless they're very well versed in the intricacies of the situation. Don't get me wrong, the sections are well-written, but it could really do with a section on "OK, if this is passed, what will change?". Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is something we can't really answer, because the actual changes will be implemented at the various national levels over the next 2+ years, and exactly what is passed will determine how draconian this might be. We known that for the EU, they see this as boosting economics due to a more unified copyright system, but the impacts on users can vary greatly depending on how harsh the states pass language. --M asem (t) 01:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Because of the controversy section and the word controversial in the blurb. I would prefer a more NPOV section titled something like "Campaigns for and in opposition" (or something better) with a more broader discussion of the responses to the directive. In modern political parlance, calling something controversial does not only mean just contentious; there is an inherent implication that the idea is bad when it is called controversial. (The meaning of words evolves.) Surely, some people must have been in support of the plan. Was there really no one publicly advocating for the plan? Even though I think the law is just nuts, we should avoid advocating for the position we agree with. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was very little campaigned "for" the directive, outside of position statements from those that did favor it, which is partially a problem to try to create equal weight here. Most of the news on this was "the users en masse hate it, tech companies hate it, we shouldn't pass it." and that ties our hands in terms of UNDUE. The section prior laying out position statements is about the best we can do to balance that. --M asem (t) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The altblurb is better so I have struck my oppose. I don't think I'm ready to support but I won't stand in the way.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does the lead say the directive has "generally been supported by academics" when the Academics section seems to state the opposite? Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I fixed it. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Owen Garriott

 * Oppose with regret. Article is just nowhere near good enough.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have it most of the way there for the citations, but am off to eat in case anyone can finish them up.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the article is cited now; I added some information like when he was married and his parent's names.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be sufficiently referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping – . --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nearly there but a few more cites needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I commented out the new unsourced stuff that drifted away from public domain bio from NASA. I also remove the shoutout of his family from the lead.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks good now, thanks for the updates. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David Brion Davis

 * Comment. Needs referencing. Also the lists turning into prose, especially to give a prose account of his career; the body jumps from 1946 to 1968. There's a lot of material in the lead that isn't in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gene Wolfe

 * Oppose while not marked, much of it is unreferenced, not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Western Libya offensive

 * Oppose adding items to Ongoing without an initial blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , nobody was interested in nominating it for ITN when the offensive started but I think it is an important ongoing event so nominated. -Nizil (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – AGF on the sources and there are plenty of them, we have to admit this is a very informative and pretty well-written article on a significant and ongoing subject. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, extensive and regularly updated article. It is better fit for ongoing than an independent blurb. --Tone 15:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, impressive work, & a talk page worth reading. The number of links to Twitter is concerning, though. Why not link directly to the sources? SashiRolls t ·  c 22:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Masters Tournament

 * Oppose Article needs expansion in narrative text and has significant gaps in referencing. Agreed that this is a huge story and on merits would likely support even if it was not ITNR. But the article needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to current gaps in referencing especially in the composition and nationalities in the field. Narrative sections seem OK. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose incomplete, and not updated in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, not oppose outright for identical arguments above. The blurb can be posted if 2019 Masters Tournament is updated to the standard set out by other editors. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – there is a synopsis of the final round now but referencing is getting worse not better.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd expect far better article quality from one of the most prestigious golfing events of the year, much less from an event won by Tiger. Article quality is why the Boat Race gets posted almost immediately. WaltCip (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Improve - The bolded article has a few citations needed, a few two-sentence paragraphs, and copious amounts of red links. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Appears adequately sourced and updated now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bibi Andersson

 * Support Sad news. Persona is one of my favourite films. I've gone through and found sources for all the CN tags.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per Lugnuts improvements and actress at the top of her field of work.BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - A legend. Article is in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could some of the people who supported and (presumably) checked this article please provide sources for basic material such as her birth name, please? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by authority control.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . It looks like the variant name was introduced in an accidental edit by someone editing immediately after me on a mobile device. On a side issue, for the technophobes amongst us, what do you mean by "Confirmed by authority control"? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually only confirm her current full name and birth date from NYTimes. I am not sure if her full name was also her birth name.---  Coffee  and crumbs  00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC) ---  Coffee  and crumbs  00:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also Birgitta Andersson. So I really don't know. But I think this version is fine.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. K. Shivakumar

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – good to go.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While you're in town.--- Coffee  and crumbs  14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Neus Català

 * Oppose citations required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Scaled Composites Stratolaunch

 * Weak oppose uses Daily Mail and is a relatively small incremental change to the record. However, definitely saw it in the news and besides the DM clanger, the article is in reasonable shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is one DM reference, dating from before the decision to deprecate that source. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the DM was reliable before that date?? Seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In a word, yes, the DM was a reliable source once. In this instance, it should be replaced with another source if one can be found. That the DM is used here should not be a bar to the article appearing on the MP. There are a few minor faults, but it's not in a bad shape by a long chalk. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The DM is not a reliable source, period. It didn't magically change from reliable to unreliable on the day we deprecated its use. As such, it had to be be replaced, as indeed it now has been. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the DM has pretty much never been RS, certainly not in an era when powered flight existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support basically per TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I've fixed up the few citation needed tags in the article and agree that it's just about significant enough and interesting enough to post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – How can we promote a plane taking off and landing (intentional understatment) and not promote a mission that made it to lunar orbit and made contact with the moon (intentional euphemism). I also not thrilled by the blurb. I would be more receptive to a blurb that mentions air launch to orbit which is really the most notable thing about this project.--- Coffee  and crumbs  14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring anything else, to answer "how can we Y but we didn't X" - because they're different things that have different standards of notability/impressiveness/aims. In terms of landing probes on the moon, by now it is fairly routine for all the people who do it, so someone not being able to is a non-notable weak failure. In terms of launching planes with massive wingspans, that's still dangerous, so a new record is a much more notable success. Kingsif (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Forty-odd lunar-impact (intentional or otherwise) missions in seventy-five years -- half of them completed by the 1970s and more than half of them crashed -- is not fairly routine by my books. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb – Now thatBeresheet is post I have no objections except the boring blurb. I have suggested a new one.---  Coffee  and crumbs  06:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted with original blurb, as Coffeeandcrumbs' suggestion has not been discussed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yvette Williams

 * Support Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive bio, well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support just coming to nominate this myself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping . --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks to for the ping.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Quetta attack

 * Support This is certainly notable, and article quality is good. Davey2116 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard issue disaster stub tells me almost nothing about the blast (the most important part), very little about who is responsible (the next most important part) with a wall of text about the aftermath and reactions. ITN frequently railroads such articles to the main page, so before this one is done, it needs a copyedit to clean up grammar like "The hazara people protested on regarding the security of them" --LaserLegs (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with LaserLegs that there's a lot of horrible prose in there so we're not promoting that to the main page. As for notability, meh.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability per LaserLegs. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivor Broadis

 * Oppose a lot of unreferenced material in there right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - I've eliminated the citation needed tags, and looks like it meets the criteria now. Let me know if this is in error. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not going to oppose the post but his international caps are mostly uncited in the table. Some of the games are mentioned in prose but the table has more info that is unsourced. One well placed source would probably handled it. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for bringing this up. I have added a source for the England games. It may be on the edge in terms of whether that's a reliable source or not, but I don't think it's user-generated and is seemingly used in a lot of articles already:  Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Smith (footballer, born 1945)

 * Oppose still needs a few more citations.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - I fixed up all the citation needed tags so it was good to do. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Cognito

 * Support A bit short, but good enough. My favourite was him claiming he'd emptied a comedy tent at a festival, even though "... it was pissing it down outside, and Phil Collins was playing on the main stage". Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sweet and choke-full of interesting and funny tidbits.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Has been ready for some time now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to the rescue. If you have the time there are 3 other recent deaths on this page ready to post. Thank you! --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I should have started at the bottom of the page! I've posted another two; the third doesn't meet my criteria. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is not an unreasonable criterion. There is always DYK.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Moved to Ongoing) Iranian Floods to ongoing

 * Support Agree with everything stated by nominator.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to ongoing Stephen 23:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Beresheet space probe lands on Moon

 * Not updated yet Will reserve judgement on quality pending an actual update to read; prefer altblurb as the Wikipedia angle seems like navelgazing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment No to mentioning Wikipedia in the blurb. It's navelgazing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would change blurb as per ITN/R, to "Israel becomes fourth country to land a spacecraft on the moon."
 * Except it wasn't Israel. It was a collaboration of several private corporations, and the Israeli state did not really have anything to do with it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * the Falcon rocket was not Israel, but the spacecraft was. And again, we go by RS. It's quite ludicrous to say "The Israeli state did not really have anything to do with it." WE don't need to split hairs. Right now, when the spacecraft lands, Israel will join three other countries in having landed on the moon, and this spacecraft will be the first private funded spacecraft. SpaceIL is Israeli and privately funded. To not mention Israel is not right. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How did we handle other, privately launched space vehicles when we posted them? If we've established a precedent one way or the other, that would be helpful to know here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We didn't post the launch and orbit of this rocket, although I think we might have posted the first Falcon 9 when it launched. The first launches and orbits are ITN/R, and I would say the first private launches of something would merit inclusion. In this case, it's ITN/R for a couple of reasons, see here In_the_news/Recurring_items Sir Joseph (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the Falcon Heavy news here is so routine that no-one has nominated it here... (well, not yet anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually mentioning Wikipedia in the blurb is newsworthy and potentially quite interesting to readers. Shouldn't call it a "digital copy" though, just "a copy of Wikipedia"; it's obvious it wasn't printed out. — JFG talk 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Look at nearly any NASA, ESA, or other national aerospace space mission and there's tech data out the wazoo. I realize this is private, theres probably less info out there but there should be a better attempt to summarize the probe's technology. Oppose inclusion of Wikipedia as WP is not the only chunk of information that is up there - NYTimes reports "It also will ferry a digital archive containing 30 million pages of information — including a full version of the English-language Wikipedia encyclopedia — provided by the Arch Mission Foundation, a nonprofit seeking to create a backup of humanity’s knowledge." . Focusing on WP is very much navel-gazing.   Also the landing is not for another hr as I am typing this so there is a chance this could go wrong. --M asem  (t) 18:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but on the other hand, IAR, and we have a private company who (hopefully) landed on the moon. Yes, it needs a better article, but that should be on the front page. Forget all the bad news going on in the world, we got to the moon. How many people alive today can say that again? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reiterating Support for Current Alt2 Support Alt 2 when it happens. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * comment I think we can close this, since it didn't make it, unless it is newsworthy itself the first attempt at a moonlanding. We should have had this ITN a few days ago when it orbited the moon, but oh, well. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Mission failed.--WaltCip (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, this should be closed. --M asem (t) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess so. Bummer. Ahiijny (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it crashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - it is the first private lunar lander, and a quick glance at news websites shows it is quite literally in the news. Very significant for them to get as far as they did, considering how many have tried/are currently trying.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. How many people can say that they crashed something onto the Moon?  Right, this is still a big deal. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how many, but I can tell you that in one region of the U.S. people are said to "hang the moon," under certain conditions. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it is obvious, but would support an alt-blurb that says it crashed. At work now so don't have time to formulate one.  Kees08  (Talk)   21:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on the crash news. If we were in a slower news period, this might be the right type of story to help, but we're definitely not in a lull of potential stories, and a failed unmanned mission is not as significant a news story at this point. --M asem (t) 21:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question isn't this ITNR under "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations"? Crashing doesn't matter - it still arrived. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's assumed that a probe gets there and is still a working probe. A probe that arrives as a mass of worhtless metal because of a failure would not. --M asem (t) 23:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The line in ITNR says "arrival". It doesn't say "arrival in working condition". Banedon (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually says "arrival at their destinations", which is more specific than just arriving and suggests that the mission being completed (to reach intended destination) is the ITNR-worthy part, which implies that mission success is what we're looking for. Otherwise we could say that any probe reaching lunar orbit (which this one did intact) is valid, even if it then shuts down but was aiming for deep space. Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, this should have been up a few days ago when it arrived in lunar orbit, so I think we can put it up now, as an IAR as well, in addition to all the other reasons. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But lunar orbit was not its destination. The moon's surface was. (The way I see it, if you ignore the cost issue, anyone can launch a chunk of metal and plop it on the moon with little care for the safe arrival of that chunk of metal. It's the safe arrival of a probe in mostly-working condition that is key as ITNR. Not saying this is otherwise invalid for a news story  just not ITNR. --M asem  (t) 00:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll get this clarified on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done . Banedon (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, lunar orbit was one of its destinations. To say that "anyone can launch a chunk of metal and plop it on the moon" is frankly insulting to those who worked on this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be frankly insulting, but it's still true; any nation with the technical capability to build an ICBM has the technical capability to hit the moon, Mars, Venus etc. The technical challenge in these missions is either the landing or placing the probe into the correct orbit, depending on the mission objective. &#8209; Iridescent 10:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You sure? I am under the impression you can't just hit Venus, etc, with an ICBM because of the complexities of the rocket equation. Banedon (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as pointing it at the sky and hoping, but it's not something that requires arrays of supercomputers provided your only objective is to be captured by the gravity well and crash somewhere on the planet; the Soviets were routinely sending hard-impact probes into Venus as early as the 1960s. The reason you don't see North Korea or Pakistan on the moon isn't that they don't have the capability, but that it's very expensive for very little gain (we know what the moon looks like from space; the prestige is in soft landings, which difficult). Regardless, ITN is probably not the best place to be having this discussion. &#8209; Iridescent 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a source for those claims? Especially since one has never needed a supercomputer array to land something on the moon - c.f. Apollo landing on the moon in the 1960s with a fraction of the computing power of a modern mobile phone. Banedon (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it really as easy to hit a target elsewhere on Earth as it is to reach Mars or Venus? I suspect the technical requirements differ enough not to be trivial. Yes to the technical challenge of achieving the correct orbit (this also applies to some satellites and space probes with out-of-the-ordinary orbits). See here: "'The dramatic lunar capture maneuver was the linchpin of the entire operation [...] The lunar capture is an historic event in and of itself.'" Though this is not made clear in our article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I find this ITN worthy. First private lunar landing.BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support number 2. Connor Behan (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support first private moon landing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support first alt blurb. Achieving lunar orbit (one of the mission objectives) is ITN/R. The fact that the news centred on the (failed) landing should not take away from that. Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - If a blurb is posted, it must focus on the orbit and not the landing. If, during the height of the Space Race, either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. crashed a lander onto the Moon beyond repair and destroyed it, then touted it as the "first successful Moon landing", they would be laughed off the world stage.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the orbit is the important thing. Though the analogy with crashing spacecraft into the Moon during the Space Race is not a good one. The first man-made objects to reach the Moon were deliberately designed as impactors. See Luna 2 which was 1959. It took another 7 years to achieve a soft landing. The crash should be mentioned. Hopefully the next one will not crash. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I specifically used the term "lander" and not "impactor". For any object that is designed to be smashed into the Moon without concern as to its structural integrity, the destruction is part of the mission objectives.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because of the outstanding citation needed. But Support Alt3 which I suggested. I do not see the need to promote the company's names and we need to make clear that it crashed. However, even reaching the moon is a major feat. Many state-sponsored missions have been sent to intentionally crash on the moon. This mission attempted to do more but the achievement of the reaching lunar orbit and (un)intentionally crashing on the moon is still significant enough for ITN.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Failed mission, especially weak compared with the Event Horizon Telescope. zzz (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb 3, per above. I believe this is sufficiently notable and has received significant coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Laser Retro-reflector Array may have survived the crash "“Yes, we believe the laser reflector array would have survived the crash although it may have separated from the main spacecraft body,” the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s David Smith, the principal investigator for LOLA and an emeritus researcher at NASA Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland. LOLA will begin planning observations early next week, he said." Count Iblis (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per being smashed to bits. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb3; space probe crashes are ITN/R as per the discussion started by Banedon. Support mentioning orbit as per WaltClip. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:988:EB38:D09D:4C1E (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support -- (1) Highly placed in several acceptable sources, (2) In total, there have been some 40-odd missions which have impacted the moon in one way or another. That really is not all that many when you consider just how much time that period spans, and that half of those missions ended before the last of the Apollos. I agree that any nation which has ballistic capability could quite readily impact the moon: yet besides China, they have largely lost the willingness to pay for such missions. The first national lunar impacts were crashes too, sometimes deliberately, often not. This is the first time a private collaboration has set a human imprint upon the moon -- and that is unique, and very, very important. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Re-Posted) Julian Assange withdrawal of asylum by Ecuador

 * Support on the merits. I know we don't typically post mere arrests, but this is a significant step in a years-long international matter. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose / Support - High profile arrest. We should post when he is convicted. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any conviction is likely a long time away, this is in the news now. Essentially he has been a fugitive and we did post the arrest of El Chapo after he escaped. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. However, do you also oppose the alternative blurb which deals with a related but separate matter (the withdrawal of asylum)? Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We report convictions rather that arrests as to not suggest guilt of the crime. There is no implication of guilt here at all; I don't even know what crime he's been arrested for. The story here is the withdrawal of asylum.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While we typically do not post garden variety arrests, we have posted arrests when something about the arrest is notable, as was the case with the escaped El Chapo who was an escaped fugitive. In this case, Assange was a fugitive from the UK justice system(he was wanted for failing to surrender) and was given asylum by another country to avoid extradition to yet other countries. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that is the case then I support. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment skimmed sections, looks ok, few CN tags need fixing. Given the subject, and WP policy around BLP, it needs to be checked not just for having refs but that the refs actually support the content. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb should ideally mention both the vacation of asylum and the arrest. Neither really makes sense without the other, for a complete story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I added an Alt-2. Chetsford (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt-3 is longish but informative at a glance. Huge international story. Jusdafax (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP Alt-4: In consideration of BLP, I added an Alt 4 that deals with the historic significance of Assange leaving the Ecuadorian chancery for the first time in seven years, and does not mention anything related to the report that his departure was the result of an arrest. Chetsford (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt-3a below. Sceptre (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Julian Assange is arrested by British authorities for failure to surrender to extradition to Sweden after Ecuador withdraws his asylum."
 * I oppose Alt-3a. While well intentioned, AFAIK he was arrested on a charge of "failure to surrender" but by adding the explanation we are making a positive claim that he "failed to surrender to extradition to Sweden" which we can't know except with a trial verdict. Chetsford (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not mentioning that he was arrested is very disingenuous to readers. He didn't leave voluntarily to go on vacation, he was taken into government custody. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has some prose style problems (it's got major WP:PROSELINE issues and needs some general love), but it's well referenced, the update is in both the body and the lead, minimally, and everything looks well referenced. It's not perfect, but it's sufficient for the main page.  Alt3 seems to me like the best blurb so offered.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Not certain about the right blurb wording, but Alt-3 looks the best of the ones currently there. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support same thoughts as Jayron32. QUESTION: should we say London rather than British authorities? In the US that distinction is profound.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The UK is a unitary state. All such organizations are an organ of the national government, and the UK does not have the same concept of "divided sovereignty" as such exists in the U.S.  There are a few legal differences (i.e. for example some distinctions between Scotland and England/Wales law), but this is not one of them.  The MPS has whatever jurisdiction the UK national government has given them, and as noted at Metropolitan Police Service, while domestically they have jurisdiction in London for normal crimes, "The Met also has significant national responsibilities..." that include things like this.  Simply put, when acting internationally, they are acting as an organ of the UK government, not as an organ of any sub-national government.  (Also, as such, there is not really any subnational jurisdiction which is not also an organ of the UK government in the way that the states are independent of the Federal government in the U.S.  That concept doesn't really exist in the UK in the same way).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If posted, the blurb must state that this coward was arrested, otherwise it gives a false meaning to the story.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Alternative blurb II" is the only one that makes sense. Trillfendi (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - On notability. This has been top news in all media I have seen.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable story, alt-blurb 3 looks best to me. Article is very good. Davey2116 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – From what I've read, Ecuador didn't just withdraw asylum, the Ambassador then invited the police into the embassy to make the arrest. The blurb should not imply that Assange left the embassy of his on volition and was arrested outside.  EdChem (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – This significant development in what's been a notable ongoing story for seven years merits ITN display. Alt3 looks like the best current option. (But ... should we have a separate story on his arrest and possible extradition?) – Sca (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I know we usually don't post normal arrests, only until they are convicted of crimes. I know that there's general resentment towards Assange due to Wikileaks, and I'd certainly consider this a high-profile arrest but it still only an arrest, and whether he's guilty is unclear. --M asem (t) 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assange found guilty of skipping bail. Sceptre (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support  c o m p l a i n e r  14:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a high profile story and the article is good. He has already been convicted of skipping bail and is being sentenced next month.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this? "Ecuador withdraws asylum it had granted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, leading to his arrest by British authorities."
 * Preceding unsigned comment posted by IP User 5.44.170.9.
 * The news isn't that he's been arrested, the news is that he's out of the embassy and in custody after a marathon hibernation there. (Did he get the seven-year itch?) – Sca (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant news and article is well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb III. Significant story. Nice4What (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb III: "​Ecuador withdraws asylum it had granted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is subsequently arrested by British authorities."


 * Strong oppose alt4 as this implies that Assange left voluntarily. He was arrested in the embassy after Ecuador let the British police in. Iffy★Chat -- 15:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted using Alt3 which appears to be the best at this time, obviously discussion can continue on this. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blub, but oppose picture. I'd prefer to keep the Eye of Sauron image for now, which is informative.  This Assange head shot is outdated.  If we get an arrest photo or mugshot, I think that might be usable. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb needs to be flipped to focus on the arrest, which is what is making news. Ecuador could have withdrawn its aslyum, but that would not mean anything save for Assange being now without safe haven. The fact British police arrested nearly immediately is the story, so the blurb should be something like "British authorities arrest Assange ater Ecuador withdraws his request for asylum". --M asem (t) 15:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with a blurb placing the arrest first, as suggested by : British authorities arrest Julian Assange after Ecuador cancels his asylum status. — JFG talk 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a contentious article about a living person, the article contents too many uncited claims. The target article violates WP:BLP.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but needs updating. He was found guilty and faces jail, as mentioned above by Sceptre. This is a noteworthy event about a great journalist, although it shouldn't be put in "ongoing" or anything like that. w umbolo   ^^^  19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Revert back to the picture of the black hole. I saw this sentiment shared by another editor who commented above. Nice4What (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The black hole had its day in the limelight. Assange's portrait is more timely today, something else will take the lead tomorrow (perhaps the lunar lander if it succeeds). — JFG talk 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull Far too many CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull 11 [citation needed] tags on a BLP is inappropriate for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled Per quality issues id'd by Ad Orientem and TRM. Far too many CN tags that are not in "easily fixed" territory. --M asem (t) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue was first identified before posting.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Story of Dr Dolittle p107.jpg

Here we go again. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support article quality is more than sufficient, CN tags or not, especially compared to the volume of coverage. Banedon (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lack of quality always overrides timeliness. We're not a news ticker for that reason. --M asem (t) 23:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Promoting a BLP with violations? Seriously?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and I would say "arrested in London after having his asylum withdrawn by Ecuador". Also, many of the CN tags are dubious. Who really thinks it's not obvious that Assange appeared in a documentary about Assange? Connor Behan (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - global diplomatic and social importance to the decision to withdraw asylum, even apart from subsequent developments.  I spent the past half hour fixing all the citation needed tags so hopefully you have no further objection. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Readd with the blurb reinstated. Article quality has been fixed, this has taken an embarrassingly long time to readd. Nice4What (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-posted based on quality improvements made by Wnt. --M asem (t) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: The blurb posted is:
 * WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is arrested by British authorities after Ecuador withdraws his asylum.
 * I think this is misleading as he was arrested inside the embassy with the support of the Ecuadorian government. Perhaps a better blurb would be:
 * British authorities arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy after his asylum is withdrawn.
 * or perhaps:
 * Ecuadorian Ambassador invites British authorities into their embassy to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after withdrawing asylum.
 * Also, is this best discussed here, or at ERRORS (or not at all)? EdChem (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For brevity of the ITN box, whether he was in or outside the embassy, it doesn't matter. Just that the UK police were ready to seize him as soon as Ecuador withdrew. --M asem (t) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: "British authorities" in the blurb is inaccurate and imprecise. Can we bring this in line with reliable sources which say he was arrested by the "Metropolitan Police"? See for example NY Times coverage . Whizz40 (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can say it's less precise, but that does not make it "incorrect." Met Police is a "British authority" anyway and no need to copy sources verbatim. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Brexit negotiations

 * Question doesn't parliament still need to approve the extension? I thought a "leaving the EU act" of somesort had already been passed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. See UK formally accepts extension: "Sir Tim Barrow, the UK’s ambassador to the EU, has written to European Council president Donald Tusk to formally accept the extension to Brexit until 31 October.". Carcharoth (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, and there is no other deadline looming before October 31st, then remove ongoing and I think some sort of blurb would be appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal at least for a few days. The latest development, well covered in the article, is the extension to October, and since that development just happened yesterday and the article has been updated with it, we meet all of the requirements for maintaining ongoing at the current time.  If nothing gets updated in a few days, we can revisit this, however there is still fresh, well-reported news on the subject which has been added to the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'd also be OK with a blurb if someone were to propose one. The main page should link the article in some way, I'm just agnostic on whether or not that is as a blurb or ongoing.  Outright removal, however, is a bad idea right now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was kinda hoping someone would propose a blurb. But then the Julian Assange story broke and attention seems focused on that... There is Brexit negotiations in 2019 as a possible hook for a blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, let's wait and see what the proposals are going forward after May addresses parliament. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The summary appear to be "go on holiday for Easter, have a think about it, and then let's get back to sorting out what to do". There is not going to be any big announcement. The only news that it is possible to blurb is the extension to 31 October. Are we really going to have Brexit negotiations in ongoing while Parliament is in recess after today? Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - removing it right now is counter-productive.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal with blurb replacement to identify the delay. The 6 month delay from this planned delay is significant, and tells use Brexit will be out of the news for a while. --M asem  (t) 13:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – An extension, with more confused, inconclusive Mayhem to follow. ZZZzzz. Leave in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and hope that Brexit will similarly be absent from the news for a while. This removal nom is appropriate because nothing is actually happening, with "still haven't left the EU" being a boring daily news story. Also would propose a blurb regarding the extension and fact the UK have to now elect reps to EU parliament and presumably participate for the fiscal year. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. who added a blurb, but the template logic hides it if you put "rem" for the 'ongoing' parameter. So I will start a new nomination with Masem's blurb and ping those who commented on the ongoing item (someone can combine them if that is doable). Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this will be in the news for a little while longer, because they can't just tick the clock down to October. If it really does fade then we can re-evaluate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep it in ongoing for at least a while longer, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like updates to the page slowed down in the last few days. I would support taking it off ongoing and replacing it with the blurb. This removal won't pass, but we should reevaluate in a few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal Will be mostly out of the news until October. Nice4What (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove. The delay is in, and UK parliament has just gone into recess for two weeks. Nothing of significance is likely to happen for a while. --LukeSurlt c 22:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal it only just happened. Give it some time and remove it if/when it drops off news sites. Banedon (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This is non-news. I'm now skeptical of any political ongoing item, since these empty negotiations are doomed to fail. w umbolo   ^^^  08:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal and post blurb if feasible. Brexit is no longer ongoing, but the lack of a hard Brexit on the scheduled day is still a fairly big news story.  There are people around the world who will be scratching their heads the next few weeks wondering "did Britain crash out of the EU?"  So a blurb could be worth having, but it should be dated (and expire) per the time when the extension actually happened, so it may not actually get done before it would drop off the bottom of the list.  Meanwhile ... the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) is still ongoing, it's a damn sight more important, and it isn't on the ticker. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, at least until there's clear evidence it's not being updated in any of the several relevant inter-related articles. (I'm also opposed to a blurb, as nothing blurb-worthy has happened yet, as far as I'm concerned). Predictions here that nothing significant is going to happen until October is WP:CRYSTAL (for instance, May and Corbyn may want out before May 22 to avoid humiliation in the Euro elections, elections whose campaign could produce other relevant developments, and so on ad infinitum). But if and when the relevant articles stop being updated then the item should be removed.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – I have looked at the history of many of the articles that begin with Brexit. Every article came to an abrupt stop in editing on or before April 14 with perhaps a single edit on a few of the pages in the last 24–36 hours. Most important of all the main target article and the most relevant subpage Brexit negotiations in 2019 have not even been copy edited for past 36 hours. This story is adjourned for the summer. Let's make room in the ongoing section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This is out of the news even in the UK at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal. This will rumble on, but probably in a very low key way until approaching the Euro elections (as May wants to leave before then), so we can take some time off just as the MPs are doing until it starts heating up again later. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Ha, I nominated this just today but somewhat missed this discussion (thanks Coffeeandcrumbs!). On procedural grounds, the last updates were 6 days ago so this makes it not ok for ongoing. Of course, we can add it back when new developments occur. --Tone 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-removal support. My opposition was made last week, when this was still being fresh.  Situation has changed.  Good call.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Brexit deadline extended

 * pinging those who posted above. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Added ALT1. It's not the greatest, and the original blurb is fine, but the main impact people will see is the force re-join of the council. Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the European Parliament, not the European Council - I took the liberty of correcting that. See also 2019 European Parliament election where this extension is mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per ZZZzzz comment above. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not very interesting. If we weren't going to post the meaningful vote, or the earlier extension, then no reason why we'd post this one. Keep in ongoing though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, but this is the meaningful extension! Well, chances are there will be another extension after that if things change again and there is no resolution to this, so maybe you are right. The gift that keeps giving. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer blurb over altblurb, otherwise Agnostic on blurb vs. ongoing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Christ, this is such a bloody farce.--WaltCip (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. In the news, blurb-worthy imo. Marks a major point in the Brexit negotiations process. I'd prefer the shorter first blurb. (Also if we can get the black hole picture back up there we can get some great juxtaposition à la some newspapers today. Metro: What Brexit Looks Like From Space. The Times: ...and here's another inescapable black hole.) -- Ununseti (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg

Wake me when they exit. – Sca (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Brexit negotiations is already listed under Ongoing. There are new developments almost daily. Until Britain finally Brexits, individual developments probably don't warrant featuring. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was originally in Ongoing a month out because of the looming deadline. However, as that deadline no longer looms, inevitably there's going to be a lull in events as everyone goes back to the negotiating table. This blurb should be used to incidate that we'll pulling the ongoing, but will be ready to add it back in come Sept. or October. --M asem (t) 21:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support weakly in favor of putting this as a blurb and removing it from Ongoing, with a return to Ongoing if it's still seeing coverage when it rolls off the bottom. Banedon (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - For blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, keep in ongoing. Keep it in ongoing for the moment, as there are more crises scheduled for the next few days in this endless procession: on 12 April the UK government needs to formally decide whether it intends to take part in the European elections next month; if it can't agree to do so than the becomes set to irrevocably fall of a cliff with a deadline that can't be extended, and if it does agree to participate then it will immediately trigger what will be the nastiest and most divisive election campaign since Germany 1933. Everyone is sick of hearing about this, but unfortunately this isn't dropping out of the news for the next couple of months. &#8209; Iridescent 09:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Historical note: By "election of 1933" you presumably are referring to Hitler becoming chancellor. Allow me to point out that Adolf Hitler was never elected to any office in Germany. He came to power on Jan. 30, 1933, not as a result of an election victory, but because a cabal of reactionary politicians persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg, then in his dotage at 85, to appoint Hitler chancellor, figuring they could 'manage' him. (The chancellorship was not an elective office.) The Nazi Party's high-water mark in a free Reichstag election was 37.3 percent, in July 1932 – and the Nazis' share actually declined in Germany's last free election, in November 1932, to 33 percent. – Sca (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And the NSDAP politicians who had gained that critical mass in the Reichstag were not elected? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If the European elections for 2019 in the UK become the news, then Brexit negotiations is no longer the correct target (they aren't really negotiations with the EU any longer, more internal wranglings within the UK body politic). It is entirely possible that ITN will see an item on change of government in the UK or new UK Prime Minister before something concrete enough happens with Brexit to see a blurb-able item on ITN! That says something about what a mess it has become. Though maybe some sort of record can be set for the length of time for having an item in Ongoing - anyone want to calculate the current length and the past records? Hopefully if there is an election or change of leader, Brexit will get a mention somewhere... (it does seem strange that such a historic event is not getting more blurbs rather than just being in ongoing, but maybe understandable). Carcharoth (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ongoing" is a relatively recent addition (c. 2015); had it been around at the time, I've no doubt the Iraq War would hold the record. AFAIK the entry that's been there longest was European migrant crisis. &#8209; Iridescent 10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support as per Babba Q, the blurb is in poor quality as it seems. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb2 Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb (but keep in Ongoing until the relevant inter-related articles stop being updated). An extension in negotiations isn't sufficiently notable to deserve a blurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018–19 Sudanese protests

 * Support - Significant. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Will support (soon) — All the mainstream sources are quoting unnamed govt. sources and one provincial minister. I would prefer to wait for the military statement on State TV, expected in a few hours. Note: I have fully protected the Sudan article for the next two hours. El_C 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * any reason to still delay on this one? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, no reason to delay. The announcement has been made: "Sudan’s defense minister said on Thursday that President Omar al-Bashir had been detained “in a safe place” and that a military council would run the country for a two-year transitional period. In a statement broadcast on state TV Defense Minister Awad Mohamed Ahmed Ibn Auf said there would be elections at the end of the transitional period." (Reuters). El_C 16:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support if/when confirmed If confirmed, and only when confirmed, definitely cause for a blurb. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - clear and obvious. Chetsford (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - as per others. MSG17 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - from what I'm reading, he didn't "step down", he was removed from power and arrested. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – as per above, it's reported that al-Bashir was confronted my the military in his palace and then resigned, hardly an simply step down from his position. I'd also add to the blurb that he was President for 29 years, seems to be worth mentioning. Nice4What (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - sources are describing it as a coup, and we have a one-line stub for the coup. Have proposed an ALT to reflect this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support either Alt1 or Alt2, could replace the boat races for example. SashiRolls t ·  c 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, but "coup d'etat" should also be target IMO. Kingsif (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article still has several citations needed tags and so does our article on the president. The BLP makes several contentious claims include some connections to Carlos the Jackal, Osama bin Laden, Abu Nidal and other United States' and allies labeled 'terrorist leaders'. This may be true but the article contains no citation for WP:V.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - I have eliminated the remaining citation-needed tags from the protests article, to offset Coffeeandcrumbs objection above, so that is now suitable for the bold target. Other than that there seems to be consensus above. Omar al-Bashir and 2019 Sudanese coup d'état are still not main-page ready so they are not bolded. I've posted a variant of alt2 with slightly cleaner wording. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The 2019 Sudanese coup d'état should be the bolded target even if it's not as main-page ready. The coup happened on April 10th, while the 2018–19 Sudanese protests have been ongoing since December 2018 and  (as an ongoing event). Even the structure of the sentence grammatically places the coup as the object of the main clause, so the current bolding is just awkward. — MarkH21 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you in principle, but the coup article unfortunately isn't ready to be a bolded main page article yet. It has two empty sections, and the section about the event itself (presumably the one titled "Arrests", which lies between Background and Aftermath) doesn't actually talk about the coup at all. Once the article meets the criteria at In_the_news I would be happy to bold it but I do'nt see a valid case to bend the rules here, especially given that the protests article is up to scratch so there's no need to pull the whole story. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point and was making some edits, which seems to have happened concurrently with your response! The "Arrests" section did talk about detainments made during the coup, but I've made that more clear now. I've done a bit of re-organization and added a bit of material - it's certainly in a more respectable state now. — MarkH21 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your initial decision to not bold the article. However, I think we can bold it now.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've left the protests article bolded as well for now. Can unbold if people think that right. Also flipped the word order so the coup is the first mentioned thing. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - following a request on MP talk, I modified the posted blurb a bit, but now it's double the length of the other ITN blurbs...not sure if there's a good balance there between concision and clarity. ansh 666 18:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Bardenhewer

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good-quality article, ready for main page. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ready for posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGFing on the German-language sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Homo luzonensis

 * Support - identification of a new hominid species is definitely ITN worthy. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if this pushes Iranian flooding off ITN, there will be no bad news on the main page at all. Seriously, Support blurb per User:Zanhe. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic discovery and possibly will it change history of mankind as we know it.BabbaQ (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely significant. CMD (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per others above (I'll leave quality to be judged by others), even tho we will probably need to update WP:BIAS to denounce hominidism as our latest wicked sin against Political Correctness, on grounds that we would not have posted the discovery of a new species of earthworm. We have of course long been guilty of speciesism, as we don't post stories about the tragic demise of dozens of earthworms. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but sufficient, and the item is being covered as a current event by appropriately scholarly news sources. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on article quality in that the lede should be written more about the importance of the discovery, why the layreader would understand this importance, with the details of the find/evaluation in body. -M asem (t) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The lead could definitely use that summary but I don't think that detracts from the overall quality and the significance. Kingsif (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - marked as ready. Note that there's an ongoing request to move the article to Homo luzonensis, with unanimous support so far. Can an administrator please close that discussion and post the ITN under the new name? -Zanhe (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've completed the RM. No change on my comment above, but the move was clearly SNOWing. --M asem (t) 21:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Very notable. Davey2116 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Event Horizon Telescope

 * Support - and wait until photo released and announcement made officially.BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and comment Just seen this on the BBC News site (source added). Maybe the galaxy where the blackhole is located could be added into the blurb and/or be the main target, as it is a Featured Article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep in mind that this project is not solely NASA, so any works from it look to be copyrighted save for those that are purposely published as CC (as some of their papers have been). The photo's out, but its NFC for us which affects how it can be added to target article as well as limiting the blurb. --M asem (t) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the image is in fact CC: the first publication is "First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole", which carries a note at the top that "Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence". Smurrayinchester 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we are good. Just wanted to caution that not material published by this group is PD like NASA works. Explicit CC licensing is good. --M asem (t) 15:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support important popular development in science. --MaoGo (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article is short and provides almost no context.  The update to the article is no longer than the blurb itself, consists solely of a banal sentence in the lead.  The article needs expanding to provided context and significance of the development.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most important scientific pieces of news of this decade, has popular appeal and cool picture. I was actually surprised not to find it on the main page already.  c o m p l a i n e r  14:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Big news! Might be worth linking to Messier 87 as well, since the information about the black hole itself is in there. (Maybe it'll get spun off into a separate M87* article later on.) As an informal starting point, this Reddit comment gives a good sense of the context of this development. Ahiijny (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting I'm in the process of posting this.  Just waiting for the bot to protect the image.  Please work on the article in the meanwhile.  Jehochman Talk 15:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle; I haven't had time to check the article update. However I've added an altblurb which names the galaxy and makes it clear the new event is the image release (it was actually taken in 2017). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've used the alt blurb and edited it slightly to keep it short enough for the space. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Did anyone actually check the quality of the update before voting or posting? While I broadly agree Wikipedia should have a decent article on this, it currently does not.  As of this second, the entirety of the updated information consists of a single sentence in the lead of the article about the telescope.  There is nothing else there.  By Wikipedia's established standards, The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. (bold mine).   to reconsider posting until the article meets standards.  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus here to post. Feel free to work on the article.  Posting, pulling, and reposting after everybody has lost interest in the news isn't really the best thing for our readers.  We could also change the main link to M87* as that article has a lot more meat.  Jehochman Talk 16:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blindly applying the result of a blind vote does not result in what is best for the encyclopedia. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * People want to see the picture. The telescope article may be thin, but it is accurate and provides all the salient information.  Supplemental information is available at several links provided.  I don't see anybody else saying that this news item isn't beneficial to the readers, and I don't think anybody is blind.  It's ok for you to disagree, but please suggest exactly what improvements are possible and should be done to the article. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull – This blurb is essentially the sum of the update to the target article. This article offers nothing substantive about the recent for our readers. ITN is not a news ticker and we are not here to publicize things we like. Per WP:ITN, this project "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest" (emphasis mine). If the major update is the photo, we have POTD for that. I love space exploration more than the average person but I am shocked at the IAR to promote a single photo.--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture is the news, headline news around the world. There is a consensus to post. If this does not agree with the rules, then the rules need to be updated. Jehochman Talk 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "If what I decided to do was against the rules, then the rules were wrong". OK.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR basically. Hddty. (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I came here ready to argue that this should be pulled. But the telescope was created to make this observation, so it cannot be argued that the target article has not been properly updated. And the image, although mercilessly hyped, is not itself hype. This is not an embarrassment to have on the front page. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the fact that the article about black holes has gone from describing entities predicted by a (widely accepted) theory to describing objects that have been (sort of) photographed does represent a substantial update. Or we could say 'Oh well, we didn't report the second most important scientific discovery of the decade because the article was too short but, with the 164th edition of a boat race nobody cares for, we were spot on, since there were enough members of the Old Boys' Network with too much time on their hands to fill in an adequate amount of inane details. We're encyclopedic, us'  c o m p l a i n e r  14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news and we have adequate coverage. The entry should stay. Andrew D. (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support - Pretty sure we've broken the ITN record for the oldest image posted (it takes 53 million years for light to reach us from Messier 87)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanhe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if that's true, because in the world of cosmology, 53 million light years is a pretty damn small distance. Banedon (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support my very important day's business was interrupted by a newsflash telling me this image had been released. It's universal.  Good posting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? The article is great now! --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, good posting, as I noted.  You can ask me again if you like! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Theory of relativity clears states that one's observations of a news event and its related WP article clearly change from others as one approaches the event horizon.... :) --M asem (t) 22:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that this black hole is not a perfect circle clearly proves that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is wrong, thus obliging us to accept that it has now been supplanted by M asem 's General Theory of Relativity, as outlined above. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. Fully agree that it was appropriate to use IAR if needed in this case. Pretty good article that was the first source that I've come across to at least begins to address roughly why it doesn't look like the perfect black circle that I had previously been led to expect. My thanks to all those who have been working on it. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Is there any chance of altering the blurb to mention who did it? I was expecting it to be more like "The EHT publishes the first-ever photograph of a black hole, produced with algorithms developed by Katie Bouman" - just because this is more of an individual achievement. Like, we'd say "Neil Armstrong becomes the first man to walk on the moon" and not "NASA have sent astronauts up to walk on the moon". Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Bouman did not appear in ITN, the Katie Bouman article is new enough and long enough qualifies for DYK. IMO, there are too many countries involved in this project. We want to avoid giving an undue amount of credit to a single person. I have a good DYK hook in mind. I can nominate it if you like. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for DYK Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

 * Oppose – Absent from major news sites. Lacks general significance. (Article appears to be entirely the work of one user.) – Sca (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose So, basically, nothing has changed? 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Aside from the confusing wording of the blurb, per Sca Rockin 15:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sadly meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Conviction of Hong Kong Umbrella Movement Initiators
While I don't deny that I am calling for some kind of intervention (which admitted should be made at the White House site, US military, or other places), the most valid meaning of that claim here is to have someone help with: 1. Updating the article to reflect the fact (I think I wrote the blurb as neutral as possible); 2. Help to vote for this event showing up on the main page. -- Patrickov (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - What do you mean "help"? We're not here to right great wrongs.--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... which said "(I) will have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses", which IMHO already happened, as I have included in the sources.
 * Support Good article, important news story that is widespread in the news (possibly because of the tangential relation to Britain, but in the news nevertheless) Kingsif (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose people get convicted of crimes all around the world every day. I don't understand at all why this would be so significant that I might find it a synopsis of the year's events?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In all due respect, you seem to suggest that if the event is elected it would also be a candidate for On This Day. I didn't see this through, but is it a subtle requirement that the event has to be anniversary-worthy? -- Patrickov (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's how I would judge newsworthiness for ITN purposes. Would I see it in a synopsis of the year's events around the globe? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – still has a few citations needed.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. Sorry that I am not very much an expert in this field, so I merely added one sentence on the recent development.  -- Patrickov (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the blurb links to the Umbrella Movement, an event that happened years ago, while the recent subject is the convictions. Either link to a subsection in that article about these convictions or make a separate article about the trial. Nice4What (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support it was briefly in the news, but seems to have fallen off quite fast. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Israeli legislative election

 * Wait for coalition to be formed, which won't be happening anytime soon. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No - the election is ITNR. The formation of a government is a distinct event that, as you note, can happen much later or not at all. We post when the results are known and the article quality is certified.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Netanyahu said "set" for fifth term by most major news sites.   – Sca (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This will be an interesting blurb to write, because it is possible that the final results will give Blue and White more seats, but Likud is in the better position to form a government. Maybe it should be phrased as Netanyahu's coalition won the most seats? I don't know. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support & proposed blurb. There is more info at Hebrew Wikipedia, but article still in good shape on English. Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support apparently all we need is a single sourced sentence in the article announcing the results. Meets current standards for posting.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's an incorrect assertion. We need an updated article with no maintenance tags which is written in an NPOV manner with inline verifiable citations.  I'm very surprised indeed that you would make any other claim, how odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is updated. It has no maintenance tags and is written in an NPOV manner with inline verifiable citations.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point at all. You said "apparently all we need is a single sourced sentence in the article announcing the results. Meets current standards for posting. which is blatantly false, have you now changed your own version of posting criteria to match the norm?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Correction. Apparently all we need is an update (with update defined as at least a single sourced sentence in the article announcing the results). Meets current standards for posting. This article is updated. It has no maintenance tags and is written in an NPOV manner with inline verifiable citations. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect too. The article should be free of dispute tags, and NPOV. Come on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I fixed the citation needed tag. Thank you for pointing out my errors.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but object to the current blurb which states as a fact that Netanyahu will remain PM. The statement should either be qualified as widely accepted opinion (not sure on proper wording) or removed altogether. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb - no coalition has been formed yet (though its likely Netanyahu will remain PM). Furthermore, Israel doesn't have a premiership or a premier, but rather a Prime Minister. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Premiership" is to Prime Minister what "Presidency" is to President. You talk about the premiership of the PM, come on. Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Depending on which section of the article I read, Likud has won 34, 35, or 36 seats. They may not even have a plurality (of seats)? That blurb is definitely CBALL, even if that outcome is understood. 159.53.110.144 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard E. Cole

 * Comment One significant CN needs to be fixed. This also is better as an RD - doesn't have the level of significance that a blurb would merit. (Unless he was the absolutely last known enlisted surviving soldier, which I don't believe is the case) --M asem (t) 22:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only once that CN tag is dealt with. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as of now. not ready. Ping me if fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a CN?Hu Nhu (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , the tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the matter? What needs correcting?Hu Nhu (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , at least one citation to a reliable source is needed to verify the content of that paragraph. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Where do I write that source?  Am I to understand that the source listed, foxnews.com is considered inadequate, indeed unreliable, and I need to add another source or replace the current source entirely?Hu Nhu (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reviewed reliable source and wp:verify as to the CN correction. I added two additional sources, yet they are of the same ilk as the original and in the same editing location.  I have doubt that this will resolve the CN tag because I am unable to glean what the precise problem is and thus unable to adequately address it.  My apologies for the uncertainty; much of Wikipedia, especially this ITN, is new to me. I will part the discussion.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Support conditional on the cite tag being resolved. I am not generally a fan of "last man" blurbs, and with the WWII generation dying off we are going to be getting a lot of these. But the Doolittle Raid, while a tactical failure, was massively important on the strategic level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD looks okay.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD not a hope for a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian McDonald

 * Oppose. The article is a one-line stub at present and thus is not eligible for a link to the front page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really. A one line article? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good faith nom. but not at all ready, neither in length or sources.BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose seriously. Seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – I am sure it can be expanded more. But I think i covered the notable periods.--- Coffee  and crumbs  05:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready IMO.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good enough for main page. Very clear improvement since the last oppose - see the difference since then. Marking as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

 * Comment Check your blurb. I'm not sure how Texas Tech, with 77 points, defeated Virginia, with 85 points.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Must have been wishful thinking on my part. That or lack of coffee. Thanks for correcting me.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wake up, Walt! – Sca (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose for now. Article has no prose summary of the game. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC) *Oppose per Jayron. A referenced paragraph or two summarizing the game is a bare minimum for me to support.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Problems fixed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should also discuss the Women's finals, which was held Sunday 2019 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament, to avoid the gender bias. --M asem (t) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Women's Basketball Tournament is not ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm looking back at the ITNR discussion for the Men's and see that the Women's was addressed there (as why its not included). I disagree with that reasoning, but not going to make a point about it here, so this would be fine with just the Men's, then. --M asem (t) 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm OK with including the Women's tournament, so long as the article is up to the same quality. "Not on ITNR" does NOT mean "we are forbidden from posting it".  People seem to think that it does mean that, though I don't know why... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The threshold for significance in college sports is utterly random. The D1 basketball final draws less than half that of the football final. Both amateur, both not top tier (BB even more so due to one-and-done). One is ITNR and the other has never been posted. Now we want to add another, even lesser event in the name of gender equality? I do wish we would establish some common standard; this piecemeal treatment is...amateurish.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The threshold for significance in <literally anything in the world> is "are reliable sources covering this to sufficient detail" Since this is "In The News", our threshold for significance is slightly more restricted, we aren't looking for any reliable sources, we're looking for reliable news sources.  Are news sources (where news is "the types of news sources that have a reputation for reporting important stuff") covering this in sufficient details.  That removes the "do I like this myself" aspect that would otherwise plague discussions like this.  ITNR is just a list of items that we expect reliable news sources to always cover in sufficient detail.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I will work on this, it should be up to par later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too weak, bare URLs, unreferenced claims, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM. – Sca (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article could always be improved, but it has a good amount of information. I don't know why a paragraph summarizing the game is necessary. Natureium (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Thanks to Muboshgu.--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , please reassess now that I've put some work into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the final scoreline so obfuscated? What a peculiar format. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you mean basketballbox? I didn't design it, I can't speak to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's indecipherable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I lied, I can speak to it some. It covers game stats the way basketball scores can be condensed from box scores. It shows the overall score, scoring by period, and the team leaders in points scored, rebounds, and assists. Those terms should probably be linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to TRM, I don't see what's indecipherable about the scoreline. It's fairly standard. More importantly, it's no different from the one used last year.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "#3 Texas Tech Red Raiders 77, #1 Virginia Cavaliers 85 (OT)" really? Why not: "#3 Texas Tech Red Raiders 77–85 (OT) #1 Virginia Cavaliers"???  Why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a bit ticky-tacky? Both read the same to me.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It parses fine to me, I think this is an WP:ENGVAR thing; TRM is bring up a score reporting format common in the UK, where news sources will report football and rugby scores that way (TEAM ## - ## TEAM). Such a format is unknown in US press, and it would seem weird and uncomfortable to US readers, where scores are commonly reported as (TEAM ## - TEAM ##).  There's no inherent benefit to either format, though ex-post-facto I'm sure we could all come up with some imaginary benefit to the format that coincidentally aligns with our own national standards.  It's just a difference, and different is not a synonym for worse.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wild, who said "worse"? I just said it was indecipherable to me.  It matters not because this is American Wikipedia.  And honestly Jayron, to say the format I have suggested is "unknown in US press" is utter bollocks, but you've made so many mistakes lately, I'm just going to add this one too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never said it was the American Wikipedia. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone suggested you did. PLEASE, read more carefully, you are making mistake after mistake after mistake right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this is posted, please can it be rephrased somehow to avoid the jarring "defeats". In BrE we always treat sports teams as plural, so it would be "Virginia defeat Texas tech" and it looks wrong to post it otherwise. I understand it's the same the other way around for US readers, so the norm is to phrase it in a way that avoids this construct altogether. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For that matter, In rowing, Cambridge win both the women's and men's Boat Races (women's crew pictured). currently on the main page looks very strange to me because of the pluralization. Natureium (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought the norm was to go with whichever country the blurb is "native" to.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) -- At any rate, the blurb I used is the same format as the one nominated in 2018. I'm open to changing it, but I think we ought to establish an ongoing precedence.--WaltCip (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Virginia Cavaliers defeat..." could work but it might get wordy to include both teams mascots. Natureium (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, the statement "Virginia defeat..." would be equally as jarring to US readers, for exactly the same reason. British English uses notional agreement and US English uses formal agreement.  Neither is right, neither is wrong, they are just different.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why we don't use either construct on the main page - which has no WP:TIES. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Use American English for American-centric blurbs. Use British English for British-centric blurbs. This is not complicated. Post this damn thing already. "Virginia defeat" is a ridiculous unreasonable thing to say.--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not ridiculous. It's just not American.  Neither is wrong, neither is right, neither is better than the other.  But the one which should be written here is the American usage.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous unreasonable to insist that an American team be described using British English. In BrE we always treat sports teams as plural, so it would be "Virginia defeat Texas tech" and it looks wrong to post it otherwise.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the best way to do it, no, but we also should not use words that disparage others. It's not particularly useful in building consensus and including other people, who may have different backgrounds, to use a tone which is blatantly disparaging and rude.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have proposed an alternative blurb, which is similar in format to what we posted last year, and is our standard form for sporting events on both sides of the pond as it works in all Eng vars. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Perhaps the women's tournament should be proposed separately(as a standard nom); the blurbs can always be combined later. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Seems like major issues dealt with and consensus to post. I've boldly gone with the alt blurb since it matches last year's wording. If anyone objects to that then let them discuss or amend as appropriate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David J. Thouless

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Candida auris

 * Oppose no reason offered as to why this should be ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment My earlier self-reverted support notwithstanding, I am also curious why this is suddenly in the news.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Panic story. WaltCip (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No explanation as to why this should be an ongoing link, nothing self-evident in the article itself that it qualifies as such. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose; no explanation of why this should be ongoing; drug resistance is not a new problem and it doesn't seem any more urgent now than before. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Xiong Zhaoren

 * Weak support the article is satisfactory but is literally only linked from here and Deaths in 2019. It would be more encouraging to support beyond the BLP1E if there were additional links into this BLP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I don't think a general who had a military career spanning 50+ years and two wars, and whose story was made into a major film could be considered BLP1E. I've added a few more links, but unfortunately most notable Chinese topics still lack articles, and many topics most pertinent to his life, such as the Fuzhou Military Region and the classic film Reconnaissance Across the Yangtze, are still red links. -Zanhe (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – This certainly reads like a notable long life, even via Google translate.--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGFing the Chinese-language sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Boat Races

 * For one of the races the article hasn't been updated to include the winner, and the other race hasn't even happened yet. Why are you nominating this now? &#8209; Iridescent 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article does include the winner for the women's race, and I thought my comment implied at least that the women's win was significant enough to perhaps get its own blurb (hatrick, very quick). Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If mens' and women's events are held the same day, we don't post different blurbs. --M asem (t) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment images of Cambridge crossing the finish line now on Commons. thumb 1, thumb 2, thumb 3 not sure which is best, may need cropping, etc. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the reduction of size on main page, you may need to crop to just (one of the) Cambridge teams. --M asem (t) 16:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment sorry folks, dropped the ball on this, been out at an Easter egg hunt. Will do the necessary updates ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly no one cares about maintaining the boat races and we should remove it from ITNR immediately :) --M asem  (t) 15:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All done now, at least as far as being reasonable enough for ITN posting is concerned, of course happy to address any concerns brought up. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb updated and, my goodness, what a fantastic article and what an incredible result. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All good and content expected for a recent sporting event. --M asem (t) 16:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is in good shape. I've cropped the image of the women's race winners and added it to the template. I'm unsure whether it's best to describe it as "Women's boat", "Women's crew" or something else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting altblurb. Photo can go in the protection queue for possible use. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a "period"/"full stop" missing from the blurb. 17:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Image switched, as it's now protected. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm surprised by the lack of !!!klaxon!!! in this thread. We could use a WP:BOATRACE  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what happens when a near-FA quality "in the news" ITNR article is nominated and updated in a timely fashion with reliable sources. WHO KNEW?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting commment: The blurb grammar feels a bit weird to me. It looks like Cambridge is used as a collective noun, so I think "wins" instead of "win" sounds more natural here. Ahiijny (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The way the blurb is now is more natural to British English speakers, and as this is a British subject it should stay that way.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, ^^^^ that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm okay, fair enough. Ahiijny (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is completely no global importance. 🐱💬 02:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove This has little importance whatsoever. What impact does this have countrywide and globally? Answer is little and none. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/R.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Campbellfield factory fire

 * Oppose a couple of injuries and a handful of school closures, sounds like every day in winter in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunate but no deaths. Worth a brief mention in our Campbellfield, Victoria article but not worth noting as an event of worldwide note. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not appropriate for Ongoing, maybe a regular nomination if there is extensive damage or injuries. Ongoing is for articles that get incremental updates; there's nothing to incrementally update about this. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this isn't what ongoing is for, but once the fire is out, the article will be a great candidate for our run-of-the-mill disaster blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Ephemeral local event absent from main Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

 * Oppose Significant updates appear to be added roughly daily to the article or its sub-articles. No reason to remove. --M asem (t) 00:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at these significant updates? a major general is demoted for trash talking Maduro, then nothing for two days, then an update about sanctions from the US, then nothing for two more days, then a major re-org and some tidbit in the red cross section about a judge asking to remove protections for Guaido (which was later stripped. Now we're back a week. Three updates of dubious significance? In a week? You wanna tell me where the "significant updates" are? You think maybe we could make decisions based on WP:ITN instead of trying to WP:RGW? This has gone stale, it's all bleed-over now from the wider crisis. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is still ongoing and it's in the news every single day.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Sca (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a major ongoing crisis with huge implications far beyond Venezuela. The article is being updated regularly. Seriously? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Three updates in a week. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, ongoing is for update rate, not persistence of event. In this case, the coup has failed, so it is not even persistent.  Abductive  (reasoning) 04:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is closer to becoming a new blurb than it is to being stale. Banedon (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Developing, still present on major news sites. Sca (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove if gets 2 !votes so do I. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the issue may be that the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis is very long and so updates are being applied to subpages that have been broken off from the really big one. This week International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis was made, off the top of my head. Oh, and Juan Guaidó just called for "Operación Libertad", and we're not sure what that is, but it could have a massive effect. Even on BBC night news they're discussing why there's more protests in Maracaibo than Caracas, it's definitely ongoing and in the news more than nearly everything else in a lot of countries. Kingsif (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, that's part of the broader Crisis in Venezuela which != the presidential drama. The rule for ongoing is that the target article gets routine updates. It's time to boot this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A primary reason for its creation is that the current drama sanctions couldn't fit on the target article. It's very big, it's not going to get routine updates, perhaps ongoing should account for that. The many linked subpages are getting updates, though. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis are the cause of related to the Crisis in Venezuela, and go back to at least 2015. The presidential crisis is now a chapter in the larger crisis, which has been ongoing since 2010. It's time for the presidential crisis article to come off the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – the article may be stale for ongoing at ITN as it is no longer sustaining frequent updates. The pageviews have similarly dropped off. If its subpages are being updated, we should link to them. They can be nominated and discussed.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Substantive regular updates with timely information is still happening.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal as the topic is still in the news and there are updates happening. If anyone thinks a different article would make a better target, then propose that in a new nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - still in the news.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Algerian protests

 * Support ongoing Article in reasonable shape and this has been going for some time now. Brandmeistertalk  08:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - Good shape. Ongoing is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only found one estimate of crowd size, from nearly two weeks ago "Human rights activists said that there were up to 800,000 demonstrators on 22 February 2019". What "human rights activists" who knows?. The timeline of the protests article now reads like a timeline of the overall crisis, not adding details about people in the streets. There is something significant happening in Algeria, I'm not sure this is the right article for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Crowdsize was mentioned for March 29 and April 5 when you reviewed the article. You are aware that the police don't make handy crowd-size estimates in Algeria, right? I've fixed the 22 Feb text you asked about here.  What follows is interesting, though a bit bemusing: before the article was said to be too timeliney, now it's not timeliney enough. Oh well.  ^^  Feel free to fix any further problems you see. SashiRolls t ·  c 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If all that can be said about the 5th of April is "The streets were again exuberant and crowded with hundreds of thousands" then I would say the article is not at all "minimally comprehensive" as required by WP:ITN. I have no interest in expanding the article, I read it, found it lacking, and explained the reasons why. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Still going on, potentially significant. Sca (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ongoing with continuing fallout. Significance already established with the resignation of the president. I wish we could blurb. But the president's page is still a mess.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. Protests among the Algerian diaspora here in Canada too. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:EDD6:545C:DDBA:D02 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fritz Hollings

 * Looks quite comprehensive to me. – Sca (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One section about his early Senate career has a citations needed tag at the top and there are some citations needed tags elsewhere. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its not bad, but there are still whole unreferenced paragraphs, notably at the start of "Early Senate Career". Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nina Lagergren

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sydney Brenner

 * Oppose a few [citation needed] tags and a maintenance tag, far from sufficiently referenced, we don't post BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: The Rambling Man, BabbaQ, I just added references and removed all the [citation needed] tags and the maintenance tag. sentausa (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Awards are mainly unreferenced still. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per TRM. Ping if changes made.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Was Oppose now Suppor thanks to work done by DatGuy on the Awards and References section. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added two references that seem to have all the noted honours. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – we are ready to post.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) LGBT rights in Brunei

 * Support Big newsworthy topic, shows Brunei's implementation of Sharia law Rockin 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub of an article doesn't explain the subject in any meaningful detail. The section on "Rights" has two sentences, one of which is about an individual being fined. Not comprehensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article does not seem to be updated sufficiently. It says the law "was scheduled to be enacted" on April 3, and then what... Was it enacted?  Was it not?  What happened when it was?  What were the responses?  What is the context of those responses?  We have a few scattered objections (the UN and George Clooney).  When were those objections made?  This has been in major news outlets lately, so it would be a fine topic for ITN, but the article simply does not provide enough information or context to be useful for our readers.  It needs significant expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose definitely not a stub, and beside the dreadful "Summary" section, the article is alright, but it's just not notable enough for me, a country enforcing Sharia law? It's not a first is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First in the region to apply Sharia like this according to sources. Nice4What (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a "first in the region" isn't all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I have to support this. Newsworthy and dreadful of course.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Predictable, given the source. Sca (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, although the article does need to be cleaned up and properly updated first. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Extreme hostility to homosexuality is hardly unusual in majority Muslim countries and is frequently codified in the law. It might be worth looking at DYK, but it's not really major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that this is in the news, but our article (along with much press coverage in general) is extremely misleading and shouldn't go on the main page in such an inaccurate state. As the BBC source makes clear, this is a symbolic gesture that the Brunei authorities have no intention of enforcing (there hasn't been an execution there in over 60 years), and the legislation has been expressly worded to make it unenforceable, as it includes a requirement that four independent Muslims witness the accused parties having sex for a prosecution to take place. &#8209; Iridescent 18:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - Notable human rights story. They're the only country east of West Asia to have punishments this harsh, it's not just a muslim country being a muslim country as Ad Orientem's comment would suggest. Even local news outlets here in the middle of America are covering this. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the target article requires a significant update. It fails to offer enough detail about the recent event to be useful to our readers. ITN is not a news ticker.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Iran floods

 * Comment Per discussion at Talk:2019 Shiraz flood, should we not merge the two smaller articles into this one. Courtesy ping and . Since a merge seems non-controversial, just go ahead and do it unless either of them oppose. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  00:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merged them in, content easily fits. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article should be more neutral as I have explained in its talk page. -- Seyyed(t-c) 01:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree However, page info must be completed~ Standardwhale (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be a very good start, well referenced, and news organizations are covering the story. Check and check.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron Hello it's Jack 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockinJack18 (talk • contribs)
 * Support satisfactory article and notable enough story. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment could use an image switch. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've switched to a cropped version of the photograph used in the article's infobox. —David Levy 19:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Splendid, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Chicago mayoral election

 * Support - For the reasons above, seems like a historical moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.0.199 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I'll see if I can find an appropriate photo. EDIT: Found Now neutral per below. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Historic election, articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Euros would be pissed to know this is going on while they're asleep. It's nice and all, yay for electing a black lesbian, but it's still a subnational election. We didn't post when Sadiq Khan was elected mayor of London and that seems to be the most comparable election to this that I can remember. Also, Houston has had an LGBT mayor (Annise Parker) and New York (David Dinkins), Houston (Sylvester Turner), and Philadelphia (Michael Nutter) have had black mayors, so these are firsts for Chicago, not nationwide. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and Sadiq Khan's election got considerably more press. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, Chicago has also had two black mayors (Harold Washington and Eugene Sawyer), Lightfoot's the first black woman. Though that's probably proving the point even more. -John M Wolfson (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Come on, folks. It's a remarkable moment in Chicago's history, but how many mayoral elections for the (far larger) cities of east and south Asia have we posted? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per this previous discussion; asked and answered.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a nice result but don't see any particular reason to give extra importance to Chicago's municipal politics over other cities. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively insignificant election, and the additional details about the mayor-elect are not earth-shattering. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abdelaziz Bouteflika

 * Oppose target article maintenance tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: You could try incorporating something about the "Smile Revolution". Smiles usually aren't too hard to maintain.  Good luck! :)   SashiRolls t ·  c 23:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. I suggested a new blurb centered on the protests. It is a race now to see which one meets our standards of a good update. The protest page needs more details about his resignation. The president's page needs a referencing make-over--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, if you stopped removing all those extra spaces, the article would be 20 bytes longer. :)   I've added an alternate blurb with the term "Smile Revolution" attested in both French & English coverage. e.g.   I agree that the people should be the subject/focus of the post, not the ailing ruler.  But I've said that before.  Perhaps en.wp would be wiser to continue missing the story entirely in order to get better press coverage of its Western bias problem.   SashiRolls t ·  c 07:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will bet my mother's house we will not put the words Smile Revolution in ITN. If I am proved wrong I will celebrate.--- Coffee  and crumbs  08:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't risk your Mom's house for a smile: here's a free one! ;)  I've opened a  TP section for any concrete suggestions ITN people may have for improvements to the page.  I've suggested that this reticence may be due to the fact that the best sources are not in English and that there are redlinks in the article. Do you think that is correct?  SashiRolls t ·  c 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is how proper smiles are done round here: Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This should become ITNR if and when his permanent successor is elected, supposedly in the next 90 days. The new interim President doesn't count as ITNR, as the position is elective and in that case only the election of head of state is ITNR. TASS says that under Article 102 of the country’s constitution, Abdelkader Bensalah, the current President of the Council of the Nation, has become Algeria’s interim president,  who will not be able to run for president. Under Algerian laws, he will be able to serve as interim president for no longer than 90 days. A presidential election needs to be held within that period. The fact that we can expect an ITNR in the next 90 days (even tho it will probably be a lot less newsworthy than the current story) may be relevant to whether people want to support this story or not. Meanwhile it might be helpful if those opposing on quality would indicate whether they are also opposing on notability (quality is more likely to get fixed if people support on notability). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely support on notability. Protests led to a resignation of a president who served for 20 years! This is clearly ITN worthy. The quality has not improved much since I last poked around.--- Coffee  and crumbs  11:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on notability (I leave quality to be judged by others). One of the most significant political events in the world at the moment, and probably far more newsworthy than the ITNR election of his successor (supposedly in the next 90 days) seems likely to be. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Unless an Islamist gets elected - the last time that happened the army cancelled the election, and hundreds of thousands died in the years of civil war that ensued, but I assume the system has now been 'fixed' to prevent such an election).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support either alt blurb that's a better target anyway, and is virtually MP ready (personally, I think it's fine now). This allows somewhat mitigates the duplicate story concern Tlhslobus brings up by focusing on the protests rather than the man himself.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose shouldn't be linking (either target or associated link) a tagged BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, you've voted twice, but have not yet lent a hand on either article, TRM. ; .  While I understand where you are coming from, it seems pretty lazy, given the nature of nooz. Could you please find a couple sources for the article C&C tag-bombed? (it's true that there are sourcing problems, so I'm not meaning to say anything mean, that's just the name on en.wp for adding umpteen  templates in a single edit).  SashiRolls t ·  c 19:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I opposed the initial blurb, and now I oppose the other two blurbs for the same reason. You can continue to call me lazy, but I have no interest in this article at all, so I won't be updating it asI have plenty of other things that I am interested in.  One of them is keeping the main page free of BLPs and crap articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking your extra vote. :) SashiRolls t ·  c 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. A head of state resigning is not unimportant. If this isn't posted now, it should be posted once a successor is known. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also speak to the quality of the suggested articles. A blind support means little at ITN. At least note that you have not assessed the quality of the articles and related BLP issues.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The smile revolution article (which should be bolded) is in fine shape at this time, while the article for Bouteflika himself - though it absolutely needs work - shouldn't be too difficult to improve (most sections have at least some sources; his foreign policy section is in the worst shape). The subsection about his stroke can be merged into the broader section about his third term. I tend to reserve outright opposition for when I believe the article's shape is too bad to fix in a timely manner, but while the article needs improvements, it's fixable. My apologies for not clarifying my thoughts on the quality in my original !vote. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can pitch in, feel free. TRM & C&C have legitimate concerns, which I've been trying to address (without too much help, for the moment). SashiRolls t ·  c 21:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support important and widely-covered in the news p  b  p  01:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth-Margret Pütz

 * Support – No visible issues. Everything appears cited. AGF on German sources. Ready to post.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support quality good enough for main page --DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you wait for a better ref for her death: the family's announcement was in today's paper --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tania Mallet

 * Comment. It's a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No it isn't ;-) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - little short, not a stub, good enough for posting. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 12:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not calling for any pull or the like, but an RD in the news only 2 days after the actual death should be put on the day of death, not the day the news broke. It's around five or more days where the "when reported" should be used. --M asem (t) 18:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me to do the exact thing that I did. I posted it with the hidden date of March 30, which was the exact date of her death, and NOT the date the news broke.  Unless, you wanted something different.  Can you explain  what you wanted me to do if that wasn't it?  I'd be glad to correct my mistake.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as I can tell, it was broken on March 31. Which is only a day. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also, Valery Bykovsky was only up for less than six hours. Can you replace Jon Skolmen instead who was posted days ago.---  Coffee  and crumbs  18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've swapped Valery Bykovsky back in, IAR. Stephen 22:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But unfortunately he's had to go now. Stephen 22:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)