Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 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.

(Closed) RD: Roky Erickson

 * Oppose Very sparsely referenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a long way to go with the refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article sadly is ~80% unreferenced, and the structure needs improvement. I might try to work on it but the RD likely will be stale by that time. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claus von Bülow

 * Comment Looks like he died on the 25th but the death was not reported until the 30th.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - decent shape.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

African Continental Free Trade Agreement comes into effect
My fault - I was quoting something out of context: In terms of numbers of participating countries, the AfCFTA will be the world’s largest free trade area since the formation of the World Trade Organization. I have updated the blurb in that way. LennBr (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Query Have you a source for "world's largest free trade zone"? The ASEAN–China Free Trade Area has about twice the population of every African country combined, and as I understand it Nigeria—the largest country in Africa in terms of both population and economy—is still refusing to sign up to AFCFTA. &#8209; Iridescent 23:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Big on paper, largely inconsequential in reality. The trivia of becoming "largest," "strongest," and "smallest" belongs to WP:DYK. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Brigitte Bierlein named Austrian chancellor

 * Support – Not exactly a milestone as it's temporary, but significant in traditionally conservative Austria. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the nom, she's the first interim chancellor so the fact she's a woman is irrelevant. Local transient politics, unlikely to make any impact at all, good trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've thrown the word "local" around quite a lot recently; how do you define it? This is clearly a national story, as the Chancellor of Austria is the head of the national government. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'm willing to be swayed by other editors to support as I'm personally ignorant of Austrian politics. My understanding is that, as an interim, her tenure will be brief. I'd be willing to support posting her long-term replacement, though. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck my above !vote as I have nothing against using this blurb as an update to an already posted blurb Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted as a reasonable update to the Sebastian Kurz blurb below. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would strike the "interim" from the post, and maybe replace it by "non-partisan". While it is commonly expected that she will only govern for a few months until the general elections in autumn, she is legally a "full" chancellor just like Kurz was before her, with no more limitations to her powers or her term in office. She's not just an "acting chancellor". Actually, it's not completely inconceivable that if she does a good job, she might be asked to keep the position after the elections as head of a "political" coalition, or start a party of her own (like previosuly non-partisan Monti tried in Italy).--141.100.184.38 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources seem to be using "interim", so that's what we use. "Interim"(the person is actually holding the office, but for a short time) is not the same as "acting"(a person in a lower ranked office carrying out the duties of the higher ranked position temporarily). 331dot (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leon Redbone

 * Comment the discography is almost entirely unsourced. I've added the citations that were missing from the prose, so when this is fixed it will be good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have now added this source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks good. Jusdafax (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Pretty decent article about an unusual performer. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose discography is cited to a primary source (i.e. the artist's own website), insufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Better source now provided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support thanks for working within policies and guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding allmusic.com instead. No material difference, of course. I wonder which source might be expected to be more accurate. Not sure why this has not been posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Avoid primary sources, especially if reliable third party sources are available. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting, per the objection being dealt with. Jusdafax (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Already Saturday. But I guess he'll get there before too long. 18:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Black Kite. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 92nd Scripps National Spelling Bee

 * Supprot on noatbility, thuogh the artcile body needs to be upadted with a prose sumamry of the final event. Davey2116 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks live Davey wouldn't win the spelling bee. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sca wouldn't win the spelling bee either ;) Andise1 (talk)
 * Come on you guys, don't bee like that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. The competition section has not been updated with a prose description of the final rounds, and much of the article is poorly written.  Sounder Bruce  06:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the blurb and the article fail to mention the country in which this took place. Chrisclear (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator's claim that this is the "highest competition in the sport" is dubious, given that it relates to only one country. Second, it's highly unlikely that there would be an ITN article about national spelling bees of many other countries, and I don't think a special case should be made for this one particular event. Furthermore, as mentioned in my earlier comment, the article fails to mention the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Competitive spelling bees, especially at national level, (and more importantly, that the citizens give a crap about) only happen in the USA. Of course, that’s an easy reason to oppose: only Americans (and spelling bee enthusiasts, I guess? Do they exist?) know or care what is happening here. Kingsif (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support an annual highlight for apiarists everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the buzz among them about this year's event? – Sca (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, having read the article, I now realise it's actually nothing to do with apes after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not seeing wider significance of this type of contest. It was nominated before, from what I recall, and didn't pass. Brandmeistertalk  13:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Brandmeister and Chrisclear. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I have admiration for the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee having been a contestant myself many years ago (never made it on TV, sadly), but the wider significance of this is not present. Still, 8 co-champions is truly a first.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose best shout for a trivia section of the main page that I've seen for at least a week. Not newsworthy in the slightest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support significant annual event, and an unprecedented number of co-champs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you enlighten me as to why a spelling competition is encyclopedically significant please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment also looks like not one of the supporters read the article they were supporting. Oops. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article needs improvement and, come on, spelling bees do not happen anywhere but the US - glorified way of getting provenance based on forcing your kid to memorize typically useless words. (Before we have a Bost Race argument, people do row competitively all around the world, this isn’t just a competition in only one country, it’s a phenomenon restricted to one group within one country) Kingsif (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they really row all over the world? Well I'll be snookered! – Sca (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Scripps National Bee has participants from other countires who qualify through regional tournaments, so no it is not an exclusively American activity. The participants are also more likely to be from underrepresented minority groups (East and Southeast Asians), so it's not "one group within one country".  Sounder Bruce  18:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As niche as it gets, and because this is an activity which nobody outside the US has heard of and nowhere in the article does it explain (or even link to) what a spelling bee is and it's not easily guessable, any blurb would be unreasonably long. &#8209; Iridescent 18:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enought of a buzz around this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Thad Cochran

 * It has been duly tagged as "being heavily edited" because of his death, but I think that if it were, I wouldn't have just found so many places that I have tagged as needing cites, including the entire section on his House career. Those can be very easily remedied. Once they are, I support. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor quality BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not "L" as of this morning. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you not aware that WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased? Stephen 01:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (The undead, so to speak.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is, an admin and oversighter &c., trying to tell me he doesn't know the BLP policy? Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am certainly aware that BLP applies to the recently deceased; I was just amused at its usage in that context (it is relevant in the policy sense, yes, but as a descriptor for the article itself, not at that point). Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy applies, even if the subject of the article has only recently died. So while the article is technically no longer a biography of a living person, it is still covered by the policy ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Applause! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) James Marape

 * Support, although I think Peter O'Neill's resignation should be mentioned in the blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per Zanhe. I've provided my own altblurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 09:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per friends Zanhe and BrendonTheWizard. I prefer the blurb which mentions Peter O'Neill, but that's my opinion. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted alt-blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is not ITNR; PM is not head of state and this did not involve a general election. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Sinking of Hableány

 * Oppose - For now. Article is a stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear support pending article improvements I'll just say that beside the nine dead there are more than 20 people still missing. And given the circumstances, it's all but guaranteed they'll all wind up dead too. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: According to BBC: 7 dead, 21 missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Wait  – Developing. With 20-some missing in this boat collision, police begin criminal investigation. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - fatal and unusual disaster involving international tourists. Article has been greatly improved since nomination. -Zanhe (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but unsure of the most appropriate blurb. It seems very likely that the death toll will be 28, but only seven have so far confirmed. I guess the Alt blurb is the best at the moment, but have suggested a possible Alt 2. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 4. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Prefer Alt1. Adequate for now – but many reports say "hopes fading" for the 21 missing. – Sca (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Captain of Viking Sigyn arrested. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have added. Also now Alt 3. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is OK as it stands and will no doubt improve as more becomes known. I think I prefer the first alt-blurb but none of the proposals are excellent. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It didn't just "capsize". It seems to have been sunk, by a much larger vessel, after a collision caused by negligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt 4. Article quality is adequate and the incident meets our customary criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * – Marked ready. Sca (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Apolo Nsibambi

 * Support - Decent shape. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Boris Johnson

 * I'm surprised this was slapped down quite so promptly (6 minutes), given that it's a legal first in England and Wales and given the prominence of BoJo in the Tory leadership contest. Perhaps the Brexit Bus wil be driven into court as evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't mind this being closed if there are a rapid number of opposes, but not on zero. With that in mind, I'm going to Oppose as a) it's not worldwide news and b) Boris Johnson lying isn't exactly news anymore either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Oooh, worra bitch." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose and the close was an appropriate snow-close since this has zero chance of posting so reopening is just wasting everyone's time. If he becomes PM and is subsequently imprisoned whilst in office, then we'll talk. All that's happened today is that a junior judge has ruled that the case isn't wholly vexatious and consequently is outside her competence and needs to be heard by a higher court; specifically noting in so doing that "the allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any finding of fact". There's a dangerous precedent in private prosecutions of politicians for campaign promises, as it theoretically sets a precedent for those with the biggest pockets to tie political opponents up in litigation, but we're nowhere near that stage yet. &#8209; Iridescent 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, "an enormous waste of everyone's time that has zero chance of success." Sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * TWICE. Oppose - Besides the laughably egregious WP:BLP-violating allegations within the blurbs, we post convictions, not arrests.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor local politics, not worthy of really any kind of headline, let alone inclusion in Wikipedia's news section. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Just the latest in the never ending soap opera of Brexit. Internal political scandals, bickering and so on do not get posted on ITN. This is a waste of time. Strongly Support Re-Close per WP:SNOW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-close Oppose. I agree entirely with the opposes, except the last. It’s trite and idiotic to call it a waste of time: a former Foreign Secretary has been ordered to court for lying. This is unusual in most democracies and it’s a decent question to raise, even if you disagree with the politics behind it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual it all. In fact, the very existence of such a system is proof that the democracy is working. See also John Edwards, Jesse Jackson Jr, Scooter Libby, etc.--WaltCip (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This time I can't agree with my friend Walt. The notion that a prominent UK politician would actually lie to the public raises serious questions about the stability of British democracy. Such a thing would never happen in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely, the reason why such a story, from UK or US, could never be posted on the Main page is Presumption of innocence? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, the interaction of this and WP:BLP is why we almost never post stories about (alleged) crimes before the verdict, regardless of politics. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural Question: Is this 'the appropriate discussion page', and, if not, where is 'the appropriate discussion page'? I'm referring to the above The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm NOT interested in continuing the above discussion about the pros and cons of not posting, but I'm a bit concerned that the continuation of that discussion here may have made a mockery of the above closure, and perhaps sets an undesirable precedent (though maybe it's no new precedent, and it's just my failure to notice previous instances of this). On the other hand I'm unclear where 'the appropriate discussion page' is, if it isn't here. So if it's not too much hassle, I'd appreciate some clarification on the subject (either here, or wherever else is deemed more appropriate). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For general discussion unrelated to specific nominations the appropriate formum is Wikipedia talk:In the news. Discussion of specific nominations should be with the nomination. This discussion shouldn't really have continued after being closed, but it isn't unrelated to this specific nomination but does have some more general aspects (particularly the later points) so it doesn't fall cleanly into being in the right or wrong place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Record-breaking May tornado outbreak

 * Comment: I did not create the article, and there are too many significant updaters to single anyone out. I hope I got the creator right -- please correct me if I erred. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update We are now into nation-wide record territory, reflected in a new alt-blurb and sources. The 12th day of this activity has set a U.S. record for successive days with more than 8 tornadoes a day. (The previous record was set in 1980.) The total number of confirmed tornadoes has exceeded 220. As noted below, the NYT reports more than 500 preliminary tornado reports in a month -- which, even for the U.S., is (quoting) "approaching uncharted territory". Several states have already surpassed their typical annual total number of tornadoes. Updated death toll is well into double figures for the period (thanks largely to improved forecasting and access to shelters). For context, the 2011 Super Outbreak, the largest ever of its kind, recorded a total of 360 confirmed tornadoes in three days -- but its deaths were limited to just six states, the vast majority of them in Alabama. Only three previous U.S. tornado outbreaks have ever been recorded with 100+ tornadoes. Leaving this now to update the article and start working on the flooding section. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update I updated all three blurbs with current information. - Tenebris
 * Update I updated all blurbs with current information. For those who are not familiar with tornado statistics, this is at least the second largest tornado outbreak in the world since record-keeping began; and is definitely the most widespread outbreak on record. (Previous 100+ outbreaks were in 1974 (148 total tornadoes, 66 strong, 30 violent), 2007 (129 tornadoes, 20 strong, 1 violent), 2011 (260 total tornadoes, 71 strong, 15 violent), and the UK outbreak of 1981 (104 total tornadoes, one strong, none violent.) Investigation is ongoing, but at this time, the current outbreak is at 362 tornadoes, with 48 strong tornadoes and 2 violent tornadoes. I also changed the linked picture to better reflect the outbreak as a whole. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nine dead is not quite at the threshold expected to post regional weather-related catastrophes on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose old and unremarkable news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How is this old? I just got a tornado watch alert in my area. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "outbreak" started about 11 days ago. If you want an "ongoing" nomination, say so.  But to blurb this completely unremarkable "outbreak' which "broke out" 11 days ago would somewhat defeat the point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, reporting the results of most season-cumulative sporting events would be "old news". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?! Season-long sports events aren't decided until usually the very end or at least very very close to the very end of the season. Good try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And neither was the full severity of this situation fully defined until close to its ending. In the way that I nominated it, it was opposed as "old", even though it is still making headlines around the world (including in the UK). Yet were I to nominate it as "ongoing", the nomination would be opposed on the basis that it is nearly over. Good try, though. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well since you're clearly in a tiny minority here, I think you'll learn a lot from this misguided nomination. Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Misguided? Tiny minority? Hurricane Earl (2010) had fewer than 10 deaths and affected roughly a million people, with $45 million damage, yet it was posted in ITN. Other similar weather-related examples which were posted in ITN are easy enough to find. This series of storms is exponentially higher in all respects than Hurricane Earl (death toll continues to rise, as are the flood-related evacuations), but is opposed. I can't help but think that most people are not taking the new news search algorithms (which adapt the kind of news you see to the kind of news you are interested in -- ie. if you are not interested, you will never see it at the top of your feed) fully into account. In that respect, I agree, I am an increasingly tiny minority -- especially since I don't have a personal cheering section to create an echo chamber. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll dig out that violin! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Torandos are common this time of year, and its not all coming from the same storm/weather system. That they all fell within a certain week is unfortunate, but this is a fact of life living in the midwest/tornado alley in the US. I would be more "forgiving", I guess, if there was significantly more singular damage and death from the same common storm system than from one. --M asem (t) 19:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support top of my news feed today says "11 straight days of tornadoes have US approaching 'uncharted territory'". We post typhoons during typhoon season and floods during flood season -- no reason to oppose tornadoes during tornado season unless you're also going to oppose the next time routine seasonal floods kill a handful of people in an under developed country with poor infrastructure and emergence response. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I seem to recall the front page posting some sort of UK related weather posting as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't post all floods. Thousands of people in India and China die each year from flooding and typhoons - but their deaths collectively do not come from a single storm but the overall rainy season. So we aren't posting those "routine" deaths. But when a single system makes that much of a death toll, that becomes notable on its own. --M asem (t) 04:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Tornado outbreaks this time of year are not uncommon. So far we have (thankfully) not had a really serious mass casualty event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose making hay of a coincidence (more or less per Masem).  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Essentially a car crash in slow motion. Collectively, this prolonged outbreak is impressive but aside from May 27, no one day is particularly impressive. It's not nationally record-breaking as far as I can tell, and claims of such are largely sensationalism. The event is certainly unusually prolonged with consistently damaging events. However, it pales in comparison to the 2011 Super Outbreak (catastrophic singular event) and the May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence (closest comparable prolonged event). As of this comment, 218 tornadoes have been confirmed nationwide from May 17–28, the number of reports is far less useful/notable as those include duplicates of long-track tornadoes and events that didn't turn out to be tornadoes. This falls way short of the 10-day tornado record of roughly 500 confirmed tornadoes set in April 2011. The flood aspect has been building since February and will continue to expand through June. The floods can't be attributed to this event alone. My comments may need adjustments pending further details of yesterday's tornadoes in Kansas and Missouri, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True that the total number of tornadoes falls short of the all-time record (thankfully). However, this is only the fourth ever tornado event with these kinds of numbers since records were kept. Also, unlike the record-breaker, the other aspects of these storms have additionally caused significant damage, injury, and some loss of life. In that respect, this event is in a class by itself. Again, true that the flooding had begun prior to these storms, but that flooding was largely limited to spring riverine flooding and had been dropping when this cycle hit. The severe flash flooding is, by its nature, tightly associated with specific storm systems. To put the amount of rainfall into context, May records are being broken by as much as 50%; and multiple all-time monthly records are at risk. Finally, every single county in the state of Oklahoma is currently in a state of emergency, and has been since May 24. Similar far-reaching weather-related states of emergency are only seen for the strongest hurricanes. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Significant for those affected, but without broader import. (Might make a good movie, though.) – Sca (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two hundred million people are affected by the storms. Roughly 100 million people have been under the tornado alerts at one time. (NYC last night (the tornado hit New Jersey); Chicago at least three times, and you must have seen the feeds about the kilometre-wide tornado that hit near Kansas City last night.) Even without taking into account the flash flooding, the impact is not limited to those who were hit -- Kansas City Airport had to close for hours to pick up the debris from a tornado which never came closer than 35 miles. How many impacted people are required to be significant? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was one of those 100MM. Went down to the basement for awhile when the sirens went off, came back up to find a few twigs off the trees. Make your case, then accept others opinion - once you start dropping "Two hundred million people are affected" you lose credibility.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As to credibility: "Severe weather threatened more than 100 million Americans from Texas to New Jersey, the National Weather Service said.". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/28/dayton-ohio-tornado-large-and-dangerous/1255956001/ . I am grateful that you and yours were unharmed and your home stayed undamaged. Many people have not been so fortunate. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand tornadoes. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you like. I could cite my professional credentials and personal experience, but then it would just turn into a pissing contest. So think of me what you will, and I will continue to hope that all those posting here from the affected regions have been spared personal injury and property damage. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not remotely a significant weather event. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is historic and the death toll is pretty high, so TRM can get his violin and start playing. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's still trivial in the big scheme of "BIG AMERICAN WEATHER EVENTS". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I said, it's still not trivial, 250 tornadoes across much of the US causing almost 20 deaths and millions in damages that is newsworthy. I know it's not in Europe so you won't allow it because it doesn't put the US in a negative light, but sometimes there is news in the US that is notable and newsworthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, even from the US, this is neither. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll (and especially the injury toll) has gone up noticeably since this was originally nominated (we've posted weather events with less deaths and injuries, so the loss of life is clearly significant), and the weather event itself is remarkable from a historical and meteorological perspective (as this was a record-breaking outbreak). I don't think "tornadoes are common this time of year" is a convincing reason to !vote oppose here; had a tropical cyclone in September caused as many deaths and injuries, I doubt "it's that time of year" would be a good reason to oppose such a blurb. As for the article's quality, it appears to be in a perfectly good shape for an ITN blurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 09:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nobody outside of the US cares or even knows there's tornadoes right now, without looking for it, so it's not ITN for most, and if the 'outbreak' were even a bit significant international US-centric news would have put it in the headlines. But it's not. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is now at least the second largest outbreak ever recorded, and possibly the highest. (Previous outbreaks of 100+ tornadoes were in 1974, 2007, and 2011 -- see updates for details.) Interesting that anyone would consider that trivial ... although, true (thankfully), death tolls have been going down (thanks to better codes/shelter/education/forecasting -- which, ironically, is why half of the deaths in this event are due to connected flash flooding, not usually the case in tornado outbreaks). As to being in headlines outside the U.S., check out the Guardian and Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and the Times of India. (I listed only English-language newspapers, but several other major European newspapers also headline this outbreak.) Also bear in mind that your feed may vary because news algorithms show you only what you search for, unless you constantly clear cookies/caches/preferences. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose most of the storm systems have already or are beginning to dissipate; in addition, media outlets are already starting to move away from this story in favor of more recent ones about Trump’s rants and the NBA finals. 184.216.174.71 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing my oppose to support based on the updated death toll and statistics.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Sir Joseph. Lepricavark (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kawasaki stabbings

 * Creator comment: I added an alt blurb, mentioning the city where the incident occurred.
 * Comment: One, not two, school children have been reported dead, per BBC news. — Ruyter (talk • edits)  06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment updated blurbs for numbers.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is marginally over the stub line. Would like to see some expansion.  Prefer Alt3, would leave out "by a man" though.  -- Jayron 32 13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly unusual news.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mass murders are routine now, this is nothing new or unusual. We don't usually post even the US ones with guns and a higher death toll, or do we?  Sandstein   17:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support mass murders are only really routine in the United States. This one (in Japan) has received particularly large amounts of news coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know there's little details about the suspect, but this sounds like a guy that was mentally unhinnged, and the stabbing was part of domestic violence rather than anything else. With only one dead, it's not quite as significant as other attacks. --M asem (t) 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Unusual event. Seems ITN ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Question nearly 1000 homicides in 2016, more violations for "firearms and swords" than for youth smoking, 10's of thousands of violent crimes could someone tell me (without the usual unnecessary America-bashing horse shit) what makes this unique? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Children were involved. WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So? Dead kids in the states get sneers and jeers. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Japan has a population of over 126 million. The per capita homicide rate is 0.28 per 100,000 making it one of the safest countries in the world. This is unusual to the point of shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt 3 sans "by a man." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, it's unusual for Japan, but certainly not unprecedented. If the new wp:minimumdeaths is "it's been a little while since it's happened HERE" then we'll be posting these things left and right, for every country other than the U.S. The usual barrier to entry is quality of the article, but this one is roughly 300 words. I fail to see how this benefits our readers.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per GreatCaesarsGhost (and others). Unfortunately, as it stands, these types of events are common, so I don't think a typical person reading the news would be very concerned about this, even though it happened in an unusual place. Pie3141527182 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Shocking in that it involved children, but otherwise a parochial event without broader significance. Article at 300 words doesn't merit Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Partly per GreatCaesarsGhost (and others), but also (per WP:IAR and WP:5P5 if necessary), because I think this kind of posting can harm our reputation, and perhaps do worse kinds of harm as well, thru being seen (rightly or wrongly) to be unnecessarily giving murderous lunatics more of the rewards of the oxygen of publicity than seems strictly necessary. ITN is not here to Right Great Wrongs, but neither should it be here to help cause Great Wrongs, nor even to unnecessarily risk being perhaps mistakenly seen to do so. Of course we can't always refrain from posting such stories, but that should be as rare as possible, and 1 or 2 deaths is simply not rare enough. And of course other media also give that oxygen of publicity too, but that is no reason for us to risk being seen to do so, all the more so when our often delayed posting, and our headlines often lasting for several days, means that our front page can often continue to give international publicity to a story long after most other media have lost interest in it. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly where do we draw the line with this sort of righteous indignation though? As much as we'd all like to bury our heads in the sand, at some point a mass casualty event will become large enough that it will be a disservice to ignore it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't oppose on quality as the article is in a decent shape, and I certainly see the argument that this is exceptionally shocking for multiple reasons (Japan being a country with a low murder rate, the fact that children were involved, etc), but have we posted similar stories in the past? This is a story where, thankfully, only two were killed. The shortcut to MINIMUMDEATHS was rightfully deleted, but it is still true that ITN tends not to post blurbs of killing sprees with low death counts. I'll gladly support posting if there's any precedent for a story like this, I'm just not sure that there is. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 07:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Bill Buckner

 * Support In principle. Pending improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per the usual referencing gaps. On a side note and as a long time Mets fan, I can remember watching that gaf in the 86 World Series on TV. I almost fell out of my chair. Very sad to hear of his illness and passing. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sections of the article are unreferenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How did this possibly get past our crack crew of editors? Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Sebastian Kurz

 * Support. Note that this separate from Kurz calling 2019 Austrian legislative election - while that is scheduled for September, this happens effectively immediately. Have rewritten the blurb a bit and added a link to Ibiza affair. Smurrayinchester 15:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending upgrading of article. (Five sources added.) Alt2 offered above. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality, the "Chancellorship" of Kurz's article is absent. It needs some 3-4 sentence summary since its linked to two other articles. Support Altblurb when ready, since it linked to an article we already had included at ITN as a bolded topic. --M asem  (t) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Kurz BLP article needs some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is essentially the same thing we had on May 18: "The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election." So we already knew the goverment would fall, but we weren't 100 % sure if the caretaker government would fall this fast as well. The fall of the caretaker government isn't that much of a big deal. --Pudeo (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the caretaker gov't, this is the same person that was there when certain ministers were outsted from fallout from the affair. There was going to be a vote of no confidence today, that vote affirmed no confidence, so now the Chancellor (head of Austrian's govt') is out. --M asem (t) 16:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a caretaker government in the Austrian way. Deutsche Welle 5 days ago: Austria's caretaker government assumes power after video scandal. Basically, Kurz notified the President that the government fell and the president acknowledged that the current ÖVP ministers can perform in the caretaker role until the elections are held. FPÖ ministers were replaced with civil servants. But now the parliament voted no confidence for that arrangement. The caretaker government wasn't allowed to bring any new legislation, just run everyday administration and diplomacy. So I don't think no confidence for Kurz's caretaker government is that notable. --Pudeo (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Ibiza affair did not necessarily mean the end of the whole cabinet. And it is the first time in Austria a parliamentary motion of no confidence was successful and the head of government along with their cabinet were removed. And if it wasn't noteworthy, the media wouldn't report about it so excessively. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per Smurrayinchester The removal of Kurz, just 17 months after he became chancellor and a bit added a link to Ibiza affair, this happens effectively immediately. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the collapse of the government is the story here, not Kurz (unlike the UK story where Mays handling of Brexit was the story) so really, Ibiza affair ought be the target again. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - in principal. Pending updates.BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - big story here in Europe. Even overshadows the elections. --5.44.170.9 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Smurray notes at the top that this no-confidence vote will have a more immediate effect than the breakup of the coalition with the Strache's FPÖ. – Sca (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, as I mentioned before the caretaker or interim government had limited powers. "With the swearing-in of an interim government, there is the possibility of conducting the affairs of state calmly and in an orderly way until election day," said Kurz. "President Van der Bellen told a press conference on Tuesday, emphasising that the caretaker administration would be expected not to implement major new legislation or government spending." They just finished off the lame duck before the elections. --Pudeo (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Yeah, I see from Spiegel that the new elections still are scheduled for September. Sca (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On May 28 Vice Chancellor Hartwig Löger was sworn in as acting chancellor. – Sca (talk)


 * Oppose poor quality target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this kind of event should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article now meets standards to publish. MarvellingLiked (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the collapse of a national government after a major scandal is certainly ITN worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Update – Brigitte Bierlein, president of the Constitutional Court, is named interim chancellor of Austria. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted with update on Brigitte Bierlein. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 European Parliament election

 * Oppose for now. Article needs expanded discussion of the results. Also the proposed blurb would be described in the news business as "burying the lead." The real story here is that parties representing both the hard left and right made substantial gains in the election at the expense of the more traditionally centrist parties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a alternative blurb. We usually only announce the winner of the most seats. The rest is best left for the article to handle. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not really accurate. Basically all groups that weren't the socialists or the conservatives made gains (although the far-left group, the NGL, also lost seats), with the biggest gains being the traditionally very centrist ALDE! Smurrayinchester 07:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion: It think it is out of question, that this topic needs to be news on the main page. The article isnt ready yet, as it seems. However, when it is, I suggest a blurb, that shows the results of the fractions and behind that in brackets the difference of seats they lost or gained. LennBr (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb is going to be very difficult here - EU parliament group leader is not really the same thing as a party leader, and the EPP (and all other party groups) are a very long way from any kind of majority (the EU Parliament isn't really a majoritarian system anyway - the EU "government" is primarily made up of the heads of government of member states and the commissioners they appoint). I'd suggest deleting "led by Manfred Weber" - we* '' can have a separate blurb when either Weber or his S&D rival Timmermans (or someone else entirely!) gets elected President of the European Commission when the EU parliament convenes in July. I've added a couple of alt-blurbs that hopefully better reflect how EU politics works. Smurrayinchester 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb III once the preliminary results for all countries are in and documented in the article. This is the most decent summary that can be made.  Replace the photo with one of the European Parliament chamber or a similar neutral image.  A full listing of numbers does not make for a good blurb.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 08:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt III per Gerrit. It's the most concise and neutral way to summarize the results. But of course we need to wait until all preliminary results are in, the article currently has no data for France and Poland. Regards So  Why  09:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt III - and pending updates of latest results.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 – when content is ready. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 – a difficult one to properly describe because these are unlike national elections where a party could win a plurality or a majority and form a government. This one is the best of the choice available though. This is Paul (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is a kind of equivalent to forming a government, in that Manfred Weber has at least arguably been 'elected' as the next President of the European Commission. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support any blurb that mentions Weber - assuming the Heads of Government stick to the precedent set last time, which is not entirely certain (especially given that his party lost a lot of seats and has less than a quarter of the seats in Parliament) but is supposedly 'agreed' and 'an election commitment', this sort-of-means that Weber has at least arguably been 'elected' as the next President of the European Commission, and is at least a strong candidate for the job. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the original blurb is fine, there is way too much going on here to try and summarize fairly, so just let the article do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ad Orientem that many of the current blurbs "bury the lead". Another point no one seems to have brought up is that the EPP and the S&D, which until this election have held a combined majority in the European Parliament, are looking to lose their majority. I would propose an "alternative blurb V", going: "In the European Parliament election, the EPP-S&D coalition lose their majority as ALDE, the ENF, and the Greens make gains". If this isn't approved, I support alt-III. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the election is truly too nuanced to accurately cover in a blurb, you could always pull a Mueller Report and just say in the blurb that the European Parliament election has concluded. WaltCip (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^^ that is actually a solid suggestion. In fact, we should enshrine it in WP:ITN/MUELLERTIME --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with MUELLERTIME but the article is still far from ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 - gives concise summary of outcomes. User:WoodElf 02:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted based on alt 3, which has the most support. It seems that the results are now all present.  Sandstein   10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Really, I'm just not comfortable with alt 3. Besides the fact that every political party in the blurb is hidden behind an Easter egg, are we allowed to use Wikipedia's voice to categorically state that, for instance, the European People's Party is centre-right across the board? If we are, that's fine, but it's just something that rests rather uneasily with me.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support to alt4: the current one is too vague on the parties.--MaoGo (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Blurb needs rewrite. Zero clue as to what the news peg is in this. Who's the boss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.232.59 (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 IIHF World Championship

 * Support, notable sporting event. Besides, the article is extensive. :) --LLcentury (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  I Need Support  :3 22:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Although it is notable (and there were other IIHF World Championships that were posted to ITN), the article is currently lacking any summary compared to the posted ones. I will probably start making a summary if I can find some sources about it.  I Need Support  :3 02:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs a prose update some kind of summary of the tournament, though I'd settle for a detailed summary of the final. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is a list lacking any description of any of the matches, and far from the quality required. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a summary of the final in 2019 IIHF World Championship Final, since the main article doesn't usually have a summary for the final match. If a summary is needed for that article, then I'll move it to there.  I Need Support  :3 03:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if both are target articles (the final should be included in the nom), then they both need prose updates; less in the main page for each match than those match pages will get. Kingsif (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose target article is basically prose-free. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article still needs a prose update.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Bart Starr

 * Oppose several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now. Ping me when improvements made.BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article appears ready. Marked as such.  Calidum   05:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs lacking a single reference. Clearly not ready. Stephen 06:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Former Thai PM Prem Tinsulanonda dies

 * Strong oppose article is horrorshow. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT please. 70.171.32.188 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, not interested in the slightest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose article needs a lot of working, sourcing and clean up. --LLcentury (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if it's improved, oppose blurb until someone demonstrates a reason we should have a blurb. Not every former head of state gets a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely worthy of a blurb, he was leader of the 20th largest country in the world for over 8 transformative years in Thai history and served as prince regent of Thailand in 2016. It would be a travesty if this man did not get at least RD, I have little experience in fixing citations so I'm going to need my fellow Wikipedians to step up to the plate and help make the changes needed to make this RD and/or blurb worthy. 1779Days (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support for RD at least, not opposed to blurb. --Varavour (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by Strong support for RD at least? Per ITNR, he will get his RD if article quality is brought up to scratch. So are you saying the article quality is now good enough, or that we should post RD regardless of quality (per WP:IAR or similar), or are you just exhorting others to improve the article, or do you have some other meaning entirely? Tlhslobus (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article currently lacking sufficient citations.—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it may not be a perfect article, but it is C-Class, long and well-detailed, and this is a level 5 Vital Article. If it were a terrible article, I'd oppose, but it's a decent if not great article for someone who was, as mentioned earlier, leader of a very large country for a very long time and held tremendous power for decades. WP:IAR here. 1779Days (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Resignation of Peter O'Neill

 * Support in principle but oppose due to state of article. Sections are poorly organized and inline citations are lacking. Need quite a bit of work for main page. Juxlos (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Shouldn't Julius Chan be the target of the blurb. It doesn't look like we have to wait long. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Julus Chan currently seems unlikely to be the successor, as he's O'Neill's choice, but the Opposition now has a majority in Parliament.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:ITNR a change in head of government is discussed on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we sure the word "defection" is properly used here? Not a native speakers but it feels quite a bit POV 5.44.170.9 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, not only he's resigning because of defections but also accusations he holds dual citizenship. --LLcentury (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - in principle. But Oppose because of current article quality. When fixed, Ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This BLP needs more development and scrutiny for NPOV and verification. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait He has now put his official resignation on hold while seeking Supreme Court clarification regarding the rules for votes of no confidence. Meanwhile the Opposition is expected to have and win such a vote tomorrow. All of which makes it unclear what our blurb should be, including whether he is really resigning or not.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As well as citations needed for his early life, there is nothing about the stalled resignation in the body of the article. Stephen 01:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Palme d'Or

 * Oppose on quality. I know its a foreign language film so that means things like detailed plot and production is going to be hard to find, but there is definitely no shortage of reviews from English sources reporting from Cannes. --M asem (t) 23:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Semi-stub. Needs expansion. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Expansion needed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been expanded. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Murray Gell-Mann

 * Weak oppose: Article's career and scientific contributions sections has unsourced statements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Should get a blurb and so I'm adding a suggestion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when sourcing issues are fixed. Transformative figure in modern physics. Davey2116 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, great figure maybe as important in the development of physics as Stephen Hawking. A bit of highlight could also help to repair and expand the article. --MaoGo (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have specific lines that should be sourced, please give details here: Talk:Murray Gell-Mann--MaoGo (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb once a few more footnotes are dug up and the paragraph flow smoothed out a bit. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 19 [citation needed] means I'll wait on any kind of blurb/RD judgement until the article reaches a satisfactory quality. A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All but 2 of those are fixed now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now the "Honors and awards" section please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once those last two [citation needed] are fixed, I'm supporting. Good work by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the last [citation needed]s are fixed now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. All [cn] seem to be fixed now. —  Wasell ( T ) 22:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It seems that his discovery of the quark would place him in the same league as other well-known scientists such as J. J. Thomson. EternalNomad (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb hopelessly, as usual -- RD's aren't for "lesser people" they're for "lesser stories" and, lets face it, old man in scientific field dies is not making headlines. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Old man dies of old age is why we have RD. The exceptions to this are when the death itself, rather than the person's life, is a huge story and I'm just not seeing that here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs significant improvements in referencing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to point out some of the lines lacking refs?--MaoGo (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have placed CN tags and the second paragraph of the Early life and education section is very badly sourced.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Well, the BBC haven't given him an obituary yet. Kingsif (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why specifically BBC? I think WaPo and NYT have released obituaries.--MaoGo (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WaPo, NYT (also Science News, which one would expect; and NY Daily News, the Santa Fe New Mexican, Axios and Daily Kos, which I did not). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb he's a legendary figure in physics, with contributions not inferior to Stephen Hawking's (who we also posted as blurb). Banedon (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Very prominent figure in a narrow, highly specialized field, but at age 90 there's nothing surprising about his passing, and RD seems more appropriate. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Old man dies of old age. Yes, Nobel prize winner and something important, but his article doesn't show much more that than. It's not necessarily a quality issue but given how many death blurbs we have had lately (and yet another very strong blurb RD candicate above), we have to keep the line drawn. It is not like his passaging causes the world to stop and respect him. --M asem (t) 14:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb pet above. Transformative in physics, no doubt. Requiring a blurb? Absolutely not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. I'm not seeing consensus for a blurb yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Portuguesa prison uprising

 * Oppose "reported that the uprising in fact began on May 14" strange grammar. "with fighting breaking out when they refused to let police enter the prison in fear of being robbed." prisoners were afraid of being robbed? "Prisons in Venezuela are largely overpopulated" this may or may not be true, but unless this specific prison was overcrowded, it's irrelevant. Far too much of the content is attributed to Humberto Prado of the Venezuelan Prison Observatory -- which is an activist group that called it a "massacre" .. needs official sources for NPOV. If you can write an article that's got official sources or better yet eyewitness accounts from the WP:RS then fine, otherwise I'll pass. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest re-reading now. Initial effort was to get some content on there, more sources now. RS, local, official, BBC, etc. Looks to be more a dispute over visitors and maybe some overcrowding. And we know what you think of Venezuela, but some would argue NGOs are more reliable over there than the official story; everything in the article now, though, is attributed and treated fairly. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look in the AM if this isn't speedy posted to the MP by then. What some people call NGOs, others call activists in the employ of hard right Christofascists determined to punish the Venezuelan people for believing in economic equality for all --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-affirm my oppose. I went looking for WP:RS to see if the title should be "uprising" or "riot" and didn't see this in headlines anywhere, either on the aggregators or on major pub (even hard right sites like Fox Noise or the WSJ) -- this item simply isn't "in the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the BBC] not good enough for you? A lot of the world is sleeping and RS will wait until it has a solid story, we all accept news coming out of Venezuela takes time. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC putting a story on their website isn't the same as that story being in the news. You are capable of noticing the difference right? Between a story being featured on top tier aggregators like Google or Bing, or being a lead story on print or broadcast, or being featured on the main page of a major media outlet -- and printing some news copy in the hopes of being picked up by a search engine? The obvious difference between those things isn't completely lost on you, is it? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not lost on me, I’ll assume the condescension I read isn’t intentional because I respect you, Laser: I was responding to the assertion there weren’t RS for terminology, no comment on the level of feature, simply noting there are definitely RS to review (and now more articles now it’s got some clarity). Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have left more RSs in the Talk page. --MaoGo (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Considerable number of deaths. We have the precedent of the Valencia prison fire during the last year, which was posted. The article is thoroughly developed, and the alleged NPOV or references questions have not been raised in the article's talk page, not to mention that there aren't any maintenance tags either. Significant coverage by reliable sources as well, Reuters and Aljazeera count 29 deaths as well, so this should be posted. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * comment the article should probably be called Portuguesa prison riot per NPOV 5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Acarigua prison riot?--MaoGo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just opened a discussion on the name in Talk:2019 Portuguesa, Venezuela prison uprising.--MaoGo (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Jamez42 --MaoGo (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the blurb to use "riot" instead of "uprising". --MaoGo (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment we're missing commas on the article title and each of these blurbs, after the country name. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so; the place name is identified as "Acarigua, Venezuela" as a unit. It would only require the comma after the country name if there absolutely should be an "in" after the comma between city and country names (so if the sentence needed to say "...Acarigua, in Venezuela,..." to be structurally sound). This works fine without. Kingsif (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs a comma after Venezuela. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Name updated. --MaoGo (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Surat fire

 * Comment nolo on this disaster stub, but strong oppose blurbs that highlight child deaths as being somehow more tragic than anyone elses. All death is a tragedy. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * However, if only children have died, there's something to be said for including that in the blurb. If it's 20 children and 20 adults, go with "40 people", otherwise it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. If children are the target of some attack like Boko Haram or that Saudi bus bombing then maybe, but a random tragedy, the victims age is trivia, just like their gender, height, whatever else. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't be shocked following a link saying "20 people" to then learn they were all children? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * and, I have struck down the blurb as I found that the most students died in the accident were aged between 17 and 22. So children would be inappropriate term. You may change it to students if seem appropriate. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Students =/= children, I wonder where the reporting came from. Kingsif (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good, short article but all referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded/updated the article. Thanks.-Nizil (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - The accident also covered by The New York Times, Al Jazeera, Dawn. Here, 1, 2, 3 & 4. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced and adequate article length. Invisible Lad (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT 2 as preferred blurb. Rationale for blurb per Elton-Rodrigues and Invisible Lad.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt2, but suggest change to "in an accidental fire" (per article) or "in a fire sparked by an electrical short circuit" – "a fire accident" isn't normal English syntax. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Students are people. Can we break down the victims by gender, favorite cricket team, zodiac sign ("...including THREE Capricorns") or please just stick with the neutral, factual, hyperbole free "people"? I hope it's the latter. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 'students' is one word. 'people' is one word. Are we wasting words? No. 'students' is a subset of 'people', and is thus more descriptive. Is 'students' neutral? Yes. Is 'students' factual? Yes. Is 'students' hyperbole free? Yes. So why not 'students'?  starship .paint  (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say be careful with 'students', because it suggests that the fire was in a school. If it was in a school, great, if not, maybe stick with 'people'. Kingsif (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was at a school. Students is more descriptive. All the coverage and the government reaction is focused on private schools, colleges, and other quasi-educational institutions. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles I've read call the building a commercial one that happened to have schooling facilities on the floors where the fire occurred. As such, calling out that the victims were only children and/or students is fine in this case. --M asem (t) 20:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment is a "fire accident" the same as an "accidental fire"? Only where I'm from, I've never heard  of a "fire accident".  Also, RS have now put the death toll at 22, so the article and blurb are out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My people have a long history of intentionally setting fires with good intentions, then getting drunk (sometimes that is the intention). A lot can go wrong. When it's the mere scalding of orphans or browning of carpets, it's a fire accident. When it sets the forest/house/arcade on fire, that new fire is an accidental fire. In this case, it's the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that I've never heard of a "fire accident", but an "accidental fire", yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm just trying (maybe failing) to be the first to tell you of the former. Accidents resulting from fire, as opposed to fires resulting from accidents. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading this, I have proposed alt3 and struck alt. Thanks.-Nizil (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Theresa May

 * Wait She's stepping down as Tory leader on the 7th of June, which will only then start a new leadership contest. Worth posting, but not until something actually happens. --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the party in control is not changing, I might oppose this, but given the intertwining of her PM-ship with Brexit, I think I would support. I could see posting it now, but no problem waiting, either. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, 7th June is the party leader resignation date, but it won't be in the news then (she will likely stay on as prime minister until the new party leader is elected). The best times for this to be on ITN is both now and when the new party leader takes office (which will be ITN/R as a new prime minister). Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * New PMs are not ITNR unless as the result of a general election,("Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits."); this is simply the party changing its leader. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically the new PM won't be ITNR (assuming there is one, which just may be problematic if by then s/he will clearly be unable to command a Commons majority due to the possible public departure by then of enough pro-Remain Tories to try to make it harder to bring about the no-deal Brexit that any Tory will probably have to promise to be prepared to do in order to get elected by party members). However if there is a new PM it is almost inconceivable that they would not be posted despite not being technically ITNR. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support now as another step in the Brexit debacle if the blurb and target article were updated accordingly. She'll remain PM until the sitting head of state appoints a new one, after the leadership election. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR seems to deal with normal successions. The UK Prime Minister resigning in defeat over what is being called mismanagement of Brexit seems like a bigger deal than that. --valereee (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I know politicians are prone to U-turns but saying "I will resign on this date because I have failed to do X" is pretty concrete.  Unconcerned about being followed up by another Brexit story, ITN is about the news and Brexit seems to be half of the news these days (although international coverage will only focus on the key details).    SITH   (talk)   11:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - tried to do an altblurb that mentions Brexit, but it is really difficult. She has clearly resigned over Brexit, but how can that be phrased neutrally? Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to mention the reason in the blurb, that's what the news stories and article are for. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is precedent: "The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election." If you want to focus on her government, the target article would be Second May ministry. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, the focus of the blurb was the scandal itself, which is easier to word neutrally. This is a blurb about Theresa May, not Brexit. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. The blurb should be about Brexit and how it has resulted in this resignation. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The news here is not Brexit, but May resigning while citing Brexit as a reason. That can be explained in the article. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very much part of the ongoing Brexit news saga. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's part of it, but not the whole story(unlike the Austria example you give). I think we will just need to agree to disagree; the chips will fall where they may. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait - we should post this story as and when a new leader takes over as PM. At the moment it's a little bit WP:CRYSTAL, because who knows what might happen next. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That will be early July. No need to wait until then. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. If the remain-leaning Tories decide they can't support the new leader then they won't become PM, there'd probably be a general election instead. Either way, today's announcement is just the beginning of a process (or somewhere in the middle if you count it as part of the whole Brexit debacle). We've already established that individual milestones in the process, including the meaningful votes, are not worthy of ITN and it's the change of leader itself that will be the newsworthy thing, not this announcement. Because if we post this now, then it's likely people will oppose a future "Foo Bar succeeds Theresa May as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" story, and I think the latter is the one that is more ITN-worthy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is ironic that you are quoting WP:CRYSTAL, while speculating about what might happen. Sometimes I think we just need to accept something is in the news and not try too hard to predict what may be newsworthy next month. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but with a preference of mentioning Brexit in the blurb, as that's the thing which makes this resignation exceptional. 49 TL   12:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb now because it's currently in the news and derivative stories will likely be in the news for a while longer (that's even though historically we've waited till the replacement takes office. Embrace the bias I suppose.). Banedon (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is in the news now; no sense in waiting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment alt 2 looks fine, but the update, buried half way down the article, is one sentence. I won't read this very long article, I hope the supporters have scrutinized it for BLP vios (as so often happens people support things they do not fully understand) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Not a traditional changing of the guard as far as ITN is concerned, but still exceedingly newsworthy given the context.--WaltCip (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait We shouldn't be posting this story twice, which is effectively what we'll do when we put up the inevitable blurb saying who the new Prime Minister is. Just leave this story until we know the result of the leadership election. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment... Oppose ... because I didn't want to cast the only outright oppose vote. It's in the news all right, but a) it was certainly not unexpected, b) the announcement has no immediate official effect, and c) it would be more meaningful to readers to blurb the eventual announcement of her successor, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone must have begged her to stay on those extra few days? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in the news now. Why wait until late July? You are right, it is most definitely in the news. It is the top news on all the major news sites I have been to so far. Do you think ITN would have failed to cover Margaret Thatcher's resignation? David Cameron's resignation was merged with the referendum result. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * David Who? – Sca (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no real comparison with Thatcher, who, for better or worse, was a significant transformative figure in the history of her country (and arguably elsewhere too), while May is a brief transitional figure who is resigning as expected precisely because of her inability to transform anything (arguments over who is to blame for that are not relevant to whether her departure belongs on our front page). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Question. What does the European Parliament election have to do with this? 331dot (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It means she can escape being pushed out by the predicted dismal Tory result on Monday. Strong and stable to the very end. But I agree, not sure why it has been included in the nomination as a relevant article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't post intentions to do things, we post when they actually happen. Even then I'm not sure that TM stepping down as party leader should be covered, we should wait until we get a new PM or a new election (whichever happens first). Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we do post intentions to do things: "'After the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron (pictured) announces he will resign by October.'" He actually went by mid-July, but this idea that intended resignations are not posted at ITN is false. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The main news there was the referendum result not the intention to resign. We didn't post the intentions to abdicate of the Dutch queen or Japanese emperor, we waited until they happened. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no other news today other than an intent to resign. Interesting, but we all knew it was going to happen: this is nothing more than a formalisation of something that hundreds of millions of people across Europe already knew. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I had general issues with putting the intent to resign as an item, but as I understand it, the process for the reelection of a new PM basically has started. May will stay on as PM until the election concludes, estimated to be mid-July, so a second ITN story there would be reasonable. MAy's article is generally okay, one section seems to have an unnecessary orange tag. --M asem (t) 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait - Look for it when you see it. CoatCheck (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose didnt happen yet. Plus this info is just meh type. Will anyone nominate if PM of Cambodia expresses his intentions to resign ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the PM of Cambodia trying and failing to negotiate an exit from the European Union? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot FYI, I am following this topic from the very beginning. This is a news specific to the British Politics. We should see how this one specific event (only the "intention") affects others. This should be enough hint to clarify my position. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't normally post "announcements of intention". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The extensive news coverage is about more than the intent to resign. The difficulty is coming up with a blurb that reflects headlines such as: "'Theresa May quits: UK set for new PM by end of July'; Brexit brings down May, Johnson stakes leadership claim; May quits amid Brexit impasse, will be gone in weeks; May standing down after failing to negotiate Brexit deal; Theresa May, Undone by Brexit, Will Step Down as Prime Minister; May to resign after failures on Brexit." Though actually, those headlines make clear that the nomination should have focused on the reasons for the resignation. There won't be this sort of coverage when the new leader takes over. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my response below. This is all about Brexit.  Nominate it for Ongoing and you'll get my support.  May's departure is simply overdue collateral damage. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How about a blurb along the lines of: "The ongoing Brexit impasse results in British Prime Minister Theresa May announcing her resignation, triggering a leadership contest to replace her."? Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the transition takes place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is there this focus on trying to decide which stage of a process should go on ITN? Surely the point to put something up is when it is in the news. This is major news, that has been leading the news pages of nearly all the major news sites in Europe and the USA and the rest of the Anglophone world for most of the day. It is getting far more coverage than the Austrian government collapse, yet there appears to be entrenched opposition to this because it is Brexit and no-one really knows how to handle the disjointed way the 'milestones' happen. I really don't get why the Austrian government thing (which didn't really feature much at all in the news) got posted and this event might not get posted. (Brythones said it much better than I did.) Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support Brexit going back into Ongoing. After all, this event, the next few weeks of leadership elections, possible general elections, and eventual Brexit (or not) are all related to the core event of Brexit.  May's departure is incidental.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is a major news topic. Brythones (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the resignation is official. This isn't even the first time that May herself has announced an intention to resign.  -- Jayron 32 15:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She made a statement in Downing Street to the nation, and was nearly in tears at the end. That was the key moment. This is the real deal. There will be very little coverage of this on 7 June. The news coverage is happening now. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not likely. This will be heavily covered for the next month or so while the new leadership is sorted out.  And then what angle they adopt on Brexit.  This story is about BREXIT not Terry May and her tears. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The ongoing coverage of the leadership election will be in UK news media. The worldwide coverage is of this moment. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes no difference at ITN. That this is simply a byproduct of Brexit is the overruling factor here.  Her resignation announcement is just meh.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) It IS official. She will officially resign on 7 June. She stood outside Downing Street behind a podium for goodness sake. This is not like her other vague announcements that she would step aside when Brexit was over (ha!).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what is news - I don't believe a sitting British Prime Minister has ever broke down in tears in public before. I watched the speech and was all for saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out" until the last three seconds, then I just sat there in silence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One may feel sorry for a person in such a predicament, but empathy does not make the event more newsworthy. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At least there was no fit of coughing, and the numbers on the door of No 10 didn't fall off. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would note that this is a good example of an event that gets more attention when it is announced than when it actually happens; since this is In the news, it should be posted when it is in the news, which is now. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb3 and altblurb4. I support blurbing this, as it seems to be sure-fire intent, this time. I prefer altblurb3 (100% biased) > original blurb/altblurb4 (50% biased) > others. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt4. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait the resignation is happening soon and the new Prime Minister will require a blurb. I think we should combine the blurbs regarding May's departure and the new person's appointment.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I understand the "intention" argument of the opposers, but this is "in the news" worldwide, regardless of predictable it was. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed with the above. I think we should post both the resignation now, and the succession of the new PM in late-July. Davey2116 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt IV. Knowing how ITN works, even if we 'wait' odds are people would still oppose its addition. Nice4What (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative ready lots of commentary on this one, consensus seems leaning towards posting now. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with several comments above that, yes, this is more newsworthy now than it will be in a few weeks. Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A universally expected event involving the universally expected person, who's been in the Brexit 'news' for nearly three years, is more newsworthy than the identity of her unknown successor – whose task it will be to achieve some degree of order in the interminable UK-EU brouhaha? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, no (and I pity the person who comes next), but this is sooner than expected and taking over the news. May resigning is, let's accept it, definitely news; if we wait for the successor (also news in itself) this will no longer be the story and we likely wouldn't condense them into one blurb (i.e. we'd veto '[X] becomes UK PM after May resigns because Brexit' because of squishing multiple stories and old news). Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Questions are being asked as to why this hasn't been run yet. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is page 1, above-the-fold news everywhere. If her "intention" to resign is newsworthy, then it's newsworthy. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 00:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Objectively this isn't really significant news, as distinct from an excuse for the media to make a fuss about it to try to sell more copies and more advertising (where the story sells largely for 'human interest' reasons, including all those pictures of her briefly in tears, which have a lot in common with similar showbiz celeb stories that we quite rightly don't post on our front page). Her resignation had been expected for a long time, if only because she had already announced she was going to resign. All we really have is a date for when the race to succeed her officially begins (unofficially it has been going on ever since she lost her Commons majority 2 years ago, and more intensely recently after her previous announcement that she would be resigning). We still don't know precisely when she will cease to be PM (because that depends on how long the succession race lasts, and just conceivably also on whether the new Tory leader can command a majority in the Commons), let alone who her successor will be and what that will or won't mean for whether or when Brexit happens and whether it's with or without a deal. In effect it's just another fairly minor and fully expected development in the ongoing Brexit saga (and arguably even less significant in that context in real terms than the supposedly 'meaningless' Euro election results expected on Sunday, when her party is expected to get humiliated). I think it unlikely that a similar story would be posted about most other countries. I expect to support posting any new PM, whenever there actually is one. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support although her departure has long been predicted, the actual announcement of her resignation is still significant and received worldwide coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   06:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose until it actually happens and when the Britishers have a new PM. --Invisible Lad (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting question was there really consensus to post here? I know I'm not a neutral observer in this, but I don't see any consensus either way given the variety of strong arguments against the significance of this versus the supports principally being "but it's in the news now" (which is not sufficient on it's own, otherwise we'd be posting daily about celebrities). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There is significant opposition, which was not dismissed. Pull immediately. What's the point in a discussion here if it's just going to be ignored? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a rough consensus. The supports were not just “this is in the news now”, they were “this is a Prime Minister resigning so it is significant and in the news now.” There is no point waiting to June 7 and I don’t attach much weight to those arguments. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Close - interpreted there to be a consensus and posted this. The discussion is done. We must get ourselves out of the habit of repeatedly posting and pulling items, as it only confuses our readers. Instead, we should focus on making sure that the blurb is accurate and the articles are sufficiently updated now that this has been posted. WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Walt, although I opposed posting this one. Please, no more dilettantish Pushmi-Pullyu episodes. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'd say, "Of course-e-ros, Can't you?" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the problem here? We have a link to a high quality article that's made headlines around the world, about a meaningful (though predicted) milestone in a major change to an economic union that affects millions of people. Satisfies WP:ITN brilliantly. It is basically the exact opposite of the completely irrelevant disaster stubs about to be whisked onto the main page. I suggest moving on. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem was that some people thought there was no consensus to post. I was in the Oppose camp, but I think the interpretation of consensus was reasonable. I made it about 18-12 for posting, which is well short of a 2 to 1 supermajority, but there was a heavy majority for posting among the later votes (about 8 out of the last 10 votes), which it seemed reasonable to interpret as the consensus having shifted from 'no consensus' to 'consensus to post'. So on that basis I'm now offering post-posting support. And I'm also inclined to agree with WaltCip's above call for Close.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too. I vehemently disagreed with cherry-picking this ceremonious moment of declaration of intent of something inconsequential, but there's a consensus.  Although, as always with so many stupid alt blurbs, it was impossible to know what people were actually voting for.  I guess it's an echo of the Brexit debacle, no-one really knowing what they were in favour of, yet being absolutely in favour of what it was, regardless, to their dying day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Zakir Rashid Bhat

 * Thanks in part to a slew of IP edits, the article is currently a mess and needs to be fixed first. At the moment oppose. Regards So  Why  10:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose once it's written in English prose, I'll take another look. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Arolsen Archives (13 Million Nazi Era Archives Made Available Online

 * Oppose probably a good candidate for one of the other sections of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't DYK require the article to be either new or significantly expanded that would prohibit this from being on the page? I also don't think I can find a picture that would make this a featured picture, nor one that would be appropriate for the page, perhaps a list but what do you suggest? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Make it GA quality and Bob's your uncle. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * is tomorrow night. Based on that outcome we'll see what I can do. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – No clear target article in the blurb. If we assume the Arolsen Archives is the target article, the article is in need of significant improvements in referencing; several paragraphs lack citations. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. This is very interesting but at the moment I'm not convinced ITN is the best place to promote this on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 European Parliament election

 * Oppose Lots of elections are "large" (for any given definition of large) and by convention we generally only post the results. I don't see any compelling reason to post an in-process election to "ongoing" in contravention of existing practice.  There's nothing inherently special about these elections over any other we normally post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Further to Jayron's points, EU elections don't equate to what we normally think of as elections; the European Parliament is a largely symbolic body with minimal actual influence. We also won't have a "result" on Sunday in the sense one normally thinks of it; each of the 28 participating nations is electing members of its own political parties (the current largest party in the parliament is the German CDU, with 29 of the 751 seats), so there won't be a result as such, as much as the prelude to weeks of coalition-building until we eventually end up with something that looks like this. In the unlikely event that there's a clear outcome (that is, the loose coalitions that make up the PES or EPP groupings manage to get a majority), I wouldn't object to our posting the result. (European elections are currently in ITNR, but probably shouldn't be. This was the alleged "consensus" that led to them being added.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that it is purely symbolic; the EU has a convoluted power-sharing structure, but the European Parliament does have a legislative role it shares with the Council and the Commission, and the legislation the EU passes (of which the Parliament has a role, though not the only role) is binding on member states. I also understand that it has a convoluted means of creating coalitions and forming the equivalent of a "government", which will not happen right when the election is complete.  However, under the "strike-while-the-iron-is-hot" principle (that is, posting articles to the main page when people are reading about those topics in the news), this should still be posted when the elections are complete (and the article is properly updated with enough well-referenced added) so that the posting coincides with the pre-eminence in news sources.  As to your third point, ITNR is largely irrelevant if consensus is to post it anyways.  The presence, or lack thereof, or dubiousness-of-being-on ITNR should have no bearing on discussions here at ITNC which may determine that an item is worth posting without regard to ITNR status.  The fact that something does or doesn't belong on ITNR because you call into question the process that put it there should have no bearing on whether or not this specific item has consensus to be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It does have veto powers, but it has no Right of initiative—they can block things from happening, and theoretically they can dismiss the Commission, but they can't propose their own laws. Whether something is legitimately ITNR is entirely valid; if it's ITNR then we're only concerned with the article quality, not with whether the topic is actually newsworthy, but if it's not then we're also judging whether this is actually something readers want to know. Except in those countries where the results are of domestic significance as a predictor of how forthcoming national elections will play out, the EU elections won't even be a main story when the results are published on Monday; people really don't care. (Can name your Euro-MP?) &#8209; Iridescent 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not being on ITNR (or not supposed to be on ITNR) has no bearing on whether or not the news is actually covering THIS specific event. News either is, or is not, covering it.  ITNR just means that those are events we EXPECT news to cover, but the actual evidence is in the actual news.  ITNR status cannot make the actual news coverage not be there.  And here is my full list of MEPs: ∅ -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wales has four: Jill, Glenys, Nathan and Kay. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia has an award for unflattering photography, that infobox will certainly win it; when Nigel Farage is the most normal looking person in the group, something is seriously wrong somewhere. &#8209; Iridescent 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Close until results are released. A consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. This item is explicitly listed as ITNR: In the news/Recurring items. The above discussion can continue at WT:ITNR and this can be re-nominated after May 26.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have proposed the removal of this item on ITNR. As long as the ITNR status of this item is in dispute, it cannot be assumed that there is an automatic consensus to post, and so ITNR should not apply here. Similar to when an article proposed for ITNC is nominated for deletion.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that - otherwise anyone could stall a nom they don't like by proposing its removal at ITNR.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't agree. I'm sure you're not doing this Walt, but it could easily be a way to game the system each and every time an ITNR we don't like (let's say .... oooooh... The Boat Race...??!) comes up.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beaton Tulk

 * Support No issues. Looks good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Indian general election
Wait till the complete result gets declared.
 * Support Article is being updated, major news outlets are all-but-calling it, and given the reason for Modi's surprise victory (recent tensions with Pakistan) and Pakistan's recent missile test this seems like major news --valereee (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The election results are halfway through and the BJP is leading by over 20 seats over the majority (295, as of now). In any case, the National Democratic Alliance will win since the next largest party is leading in 50 seats or so. Added a speculative blurb to reflect that. And obviously, wait till results are declared (will take 6 hours approximately). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until results section is expanded to similar quality as rest of article, and tenses (i.e. "will be") are changed to reflect completion of the election. If and when any of that is done, consider this a full support without having to ping me to change it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support subject to update and final result. Trends and leads show that result is unlikely to change so I am supporting the ALTBlurb. I proposed it according to the 2014 election ITN blurb.-Nizil (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The final results, i.e. leads -> won, are now being officially declared. Let us wait a few more hours, till enough "won" declarations are out to officially confirm Mr Modi's victory. The results section is now cleaner than when this nom was made. I agree, we need more prose in the results section. I am just waiting for multiple WP:RS to publish the text on the results, and then we can summarize them in our own words, thereby meet our WP:V and other content norms. Other than all that, I support the nom. The article was one of the top 25 high traffic en-wikipedia articles in April, and I suspect it will be in the top 25 or 100 again in May. Suggests that it is a notable subject. If we decide to put out a blurb and something needs a check, please leave me a message on my talk page. I have to take care of kids and do some RL chores, but will keep an eye and help if I can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. As soon as it is announced (a few hours). El_C 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's decide on the blurb. El_C 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alternate Blurb Original one has strange grammar. Rockin 13:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What's "strange grammar"? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Candidates with criminal allegations" has some staggering allegations "with 27 accused with serious allegations such as rape, murder or attempted murder." but has no details either in the article or the ref -- of which there is one. This is a no-go for me. Also "with 27 accused with serious allegations" is 'weird grammar' --LaserLegs (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken that phrase out. If you wish to retain it some other form, please see the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Added altblurb3, consecutive terms almost never occur in Indian politics. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but I'd like to add that our blurb should include Modi, since winning the most seats in a parliamentary system decides the person who holds the office of Prime Minister. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By what process will he be appointed PM? In Canada, the governor general does it after the legislative election is complete. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The president invites the leader of the majority party (here, Narendra Modi) to form a government at the centre. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments: [a] The final results can be seen here. Based on the 402 "wins" and 138 "leading-but-pending" officially declared, Modi and the BJP alliance have officially crossed the 272 "won" mark already, i.e. won the majority according to their Election Commission. (the first two blurbs are now supported by the official results) [b] the BJP with its alliance is leading on many more, confirming the landslide-victory call of all the international media I have checked so far (e.g. Australia, Canada, France, Japan, UK, US, etc) plus their domestic media. [c] I have added some more prose with sources to the results section after the table. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Chose to go with alt.2, for now. Special thanks goes Ms Sarah Welch, for all her efforts. El_C 19:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * the opposition parties have accused the NDA government is destroying democratic institutions and processes. is "strange grammar" --LaserLegs (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You realise my question was regarding the blurb right? Snark is fine, don't overdo it, just. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judith Kerr

 * I have fond memories of reading The Tiger Who Came to Tea to my kids (and equally fond memories of Sean Lock's somewhat vicious parody The Tiger Who Came For A Pint). I'll have a look for sources, and hopefully we'll fix this before the day is out. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - should all now be properly sourced. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Mohammad Mahar

 * Posted Stephen 01:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kami Rita

 * Oppose not wishing to diminish his amazing achievement in any way, he broke the record in May 2018 and plans to get to 25 ascents before he retires. Stephen 03:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose would make for good trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia in every respect. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not that groundbreaking in my opinion.  I Need Support  :3 01:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Piling on. It doesn't cut the mustard for ITN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Binyavanga Wainaina

 * Support: I agree with, Wainaina is prize-winning and the "Most Influential People in the World" mention is great. I added a reference two two lines that seemed unreferenced previously; the article looks good to me. If there are specific suggestions for improvements, I'd be happy to work on edits. = paul2520 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added several citations. No more cn tags. Pinging and . = paul2520 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The raw URLs on publications should be converted to proper citations then it's good to go. Stephen 23:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. = paul2520 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Man Booker International Prize 2019

 * Generally ITN worthy but the article contains no references for the winning entry, just shortlist and longlist. That needs to be fixed first. Also, that she is the first Arabic writer to win is not in the article. Regards So  Why  08:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - MBI prize is second biggest prize to Nobel for international literature. I have fixed the issues in the original article posted by commenter. 9:26, 22 May 2019


 * Support . Article is referenced and updated and Man Booker Prize is generally ITN worthy anyway. I proposed an altblurb that is more in line with the article. However, BBC says she is the first Arabic winner while The Guardian says she is the first winner to write in Arabic which is not the same since non-Arabic people can write in Arabic and Arabic people can write in other languages. If this cannot be resolved, I suggest altblurb2 be used which omits either. Regards So  Why  08:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. TRM is correct, I missed that part on ITNR. I'll support the nom once the article about al-Harthi is of sufficient quality. Regards So  Why  09:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've fixed the blurbs to match house style. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment please note, ITNR is clear about the target in this case: Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. i.e. the target article must be Jokha al-Harthi which is basically a stub, so oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * and - This last year entry shows the Man Booker article as bold. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the rules at ITNR then. Just because someone made a mistake, no need to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the reason that mistake was made last year was because even though there was consensus that the article on the author wasn't up to scratch and if it ran we'd need to bold either the prize or the book while leaving the author unbolded, some guy called "The Rambling Man" complained that it hadn't been posted. &#8209; Iridescent 17:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it seems that the consensus in that discussion was that "the winner of the prize" referred to the winning book, not the winning author.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody normally listens to me when I complain, I don't see why that time was any different. And just because I can assess consensus, it doesn't mean I agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose author article is basically a stub, book has no article, and prize article is not suitably referenced to be featured on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nan Winton

 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently things doesn't need votes in order to be posted. Interesting.  I Need Support  :3 17:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article is of sufficient quality an RD is presumed to be postable. Admins can use their discretion in such cases.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, absolutely no problem here unless you can see any issues with the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see any problems with the article. I just thought that votes are required in order to post things.  I Need Support   :3 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not if we assume that some of our admins are capable of assessing article quality of RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Niki Lauda

 * Oppose - Lots of referencing issues. Oppose blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sparsely referenced at the moment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose what a dismal article for such a champion. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret - in the words of Murray Walker .... "and here's Lauda, his article's coming into ITN and unless I'm very much mistaken ... I AM very much mistaken ... OH MY WORD AND LOOK AT THAT .... IT'S LARGELY UNSOURCED! Well this has blown it for Niki Lauda after he had such a promising time at qualifying, James, what do you think?" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Can support if edits are made to improve the article. Ping me when completed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weakly oppose blurb. In terms of Championship wins he's one of six drivers in join sixth place overall, and while some do regard him as one of the greatest, he's no Senna or Schumacher and didn't have the impact on the sport in other ways like Jackie Stewart has done. Sourcing is improving but there is still a long way to go. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to so much needing sourcing. I did a bit of work on the opening section, though. Can someone take a look at his helmet and give it a good polish? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Indonesian general election

 * Support Notable enough, assuming it's all true, sourced, and of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good. <font style="color:#eee;background:#d22;"> Kim Dong Kyu <font style=" color:#a55;background:#001;">Speaking  18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still orange tagged for updates in two sections -- either update the content or if it's adequate remove the tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Updates resolved (and tags removed). Juxlos (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – BBC says six dead in post-election riot. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose change of hook to: At least six people are killed in post-election riots in Jakarta, Indonesia after the 2019 Indonesian general election resulted in the reelection of Joko Widodo, with his party PDI-P winning the most parliamentary seats. Juxlos (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Game of Thrones

 * In the unlikely event this is a serious nomination, obviously oppose. Aside from anything else, it's not remotely "the most popular television series on the planet", given that in most markets it's only available on obscure cable or satellite channels. &#8209; Iridescent 02:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * >" in most markets it's only available on obscure cable or satellite channels" While I couldn't find data for worldwide popularity, as someone who myself lives in a third-world country I guarantee you it's about as popular as it is in the US. I.e. it's everywhere. --5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment for what it's worth, we did post both the last Harry Potter book and the last film, so there is some precedent here. That said, I think we would need some sort of viewership record broken to validate its posting, and we don't have those numbers yet. I would probably support if it ends up being the highest-rated cable episode of all time, but it will be hard to get reliable worldwide numbers. Teemu08 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * >"if it ends up being the highest-rated cable episode of all time" As a hardcore fan I guarantee you that's not happening. =5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb about the final Harry Potter film was about the audience record being broken, not just the fact that it was released. While we did briefly post the publication of the final book in the series, that was in the very early years of ITN when we didn't really have notability criteria and discussions looked like this. &#8209; Iridescent 12:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I think there are only a few television shows that have both international appeal and viewership as well as decades of episodes to suggest even a possible ITN, those being Doctor Who and The Simpsons. And even then, like with GoT here, there could be spinoff series which means the show really hasn't end. --M asem (t) 04:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - WHAT? As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold your damn horses! - Most of the Western hemisphere was asleep at the time that this was nominated and eventually closed. Two hours is hardly enough time to gauge a snow closure under those circumstances. As for where I stand on this, I'm no fan of the series, but I know enough about it to recognize that social media was practically deluged by this. It would be idiotic to assume that there was nothing newsworthy about this series. Support and I urge this nomination to be re-opened for a full 24 hours. WaltCip (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? It was nominated at 9.30pm Eastern/5.30pm Pacific time. The only significant English-language market where most of the population would be asleep at that time is UK/Ireland, where GoT is only shown on satellite channel Sky Atlantic and has only once reached the 5,000,000 viewer mark (to put it in perspective, the record UK viewership for GoT is less than half the current audience of the ailing I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!). If you really feel this needs further discussion I don't object to it being re-opened, but treating a programme this niche as "in the news" would really open the floodgates, since more popular shows either come to an end or have significant developments all the time (The Big Bang Theory ended a couple of weeks ago, for instance). &#8209; Iridescent 11:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's only shown on Sky Atlantic over here, and we don't even get HBO Go, it's become ridiculously pirated which makes viewing numbers inflated. I'm sure I've even seen it said that it's the most pirated show ever. Not sure that this makes it worthy of a blurb though. --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * GoT is #1 on the Nielsen ratings for cable network TV That's beating out all of the NBA playoff games by at least 2.0 rating points. Throughout the season it has destroyed viewer records posting viewership into the tens of millions. In terms of advertising and social media visibility, GoT is practically ubiquitous. Any advertiser that's able to latch onto the brand to help sell its product will do so. The impact of this series on popular culture is undeniable.--WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted a more accurate blurb but I oppose posting this. Most news coverage simply discusses the plot. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I understand the nom. But I have to oppose based on the fact that this belongs in some Entertainment mag, not on Wikipedia ITN. Also quite Americanized news.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this has no hope of notability in the current ITN landscape. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m not opposed to entertainment noms - the casting of the first female Doctor Who got a fair amount of support I recall, although it wasn’t posted - and GoT is a good example of “water cooler” TV that isn’t seen much anymore. I doubt there will be media companies live blogging of the last episode of Big Banc Theory. The target article is good quality but would need more of an update to cover reactions to the finale. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like GoT, but simply noting the (currently) last show airing is completely insignificant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What story can ITN post that would properly reflect the significance in this series in a way that is considered "in the news"?--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess record viewership of the final episode might cut it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't have a problem now if this nom is re-closed, but I do reserve the right to re-nom should those circumstances arise.--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'd expect it to fail as well. Back in the day, we had a third of our country's population watching a snooker match at 1 a.m.  I don't think 1/3 of the population of anywhere is going to be watching GoT. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Insignificant, grossly hyped. (And GoT article at 11,000 words is grossly overwritten.) Sca (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support in the grand scheme of things this is irrelevant; on the other hand the series had way more viewers than e.g. some of the entertainment things on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Banedon, what did you have in mind? The only TV show I can see at ITNR is the Eurovision Song Contest, which has an audience literally an order of magnitude higher than GoT (I don't think the figures are in for this year, but last year's got 186,000,000 viewers). &#8209; Iridescent 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * for example, the films that win the Berlin International Film Festival. Banedon (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, although I agree with User:WaltCip that the SNOW was a bit premature. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Question I have no comment on GoT (never watched it, don't care) but didn't we blurb the end of LOTSW? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No; it was TFA on the day the last episode aired which may be what you're remembering. &#8209; Iridescent 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And that had run for 47 years, not 4. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right-o, I remember the discussion. Guiding Light was posted I think. I'll nominate (or support) the Simpsons when it's time finally comes. Cheers! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - As stated before, I recognize that the consensus is probably trending against this nomination, but I do appreciate that it was re-opened for a proper discussion. We need to get out of the habit of having these pseudo-snow closes after just two !votes and a handful of hours.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 to that. Noms are alive for 7 days, not 7 hours, and the "regulars said no so close" behavior needs to stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above and strongly support SNOW CLOSE. There is no realistic likelihood that consensus to post will develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment should this be a "JON SNOW CLOSE"????!!!! ROFLMAO. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It used to be a JON SNOW close but I got reverted ;) --Tone 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone named John commented about the SNOW close. Does that count? ;) --WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is what happens when Peter Stringfellow directs Lord of the Rings.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Signe Marie Stray Ryssdal

 * Weak support sparse but satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Austin Eubanks

 * Oppose This is a perfect match of the Bartman clause in WP:1E. Every report referenced in the article is centered on Columbine and it's lasting impact (just as every "where are they now" story treats Bartman).  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be adequately referenced. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few unreferenced claims, and I'm inclined to agree with GCG re 1E but this is ITN not AFD, so while the article exists and if it gets to be in okay shape, there's not much we can do here about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IAR says we can do whatever we want - if enough editors agree with me, it will not be posted. But others are free to support because they feel the target does not fail 1E OR they agree with you that WP:N should not be argued at ITNC. My argument against entering an AFD in response to a nom is a) it is pointy, & b) it allows a single user to sidetrack the nom, even if it's ultimately kept.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the one unreferenced claim I saw. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ibiza affair

 * A better blurb is needed and the article needs better referencing, otherwise this is a big story that is fit for ITN. --Tone 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Russians are funding and supporting ultra-rightwing nationalists? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. The article is missing refs, not MP ready. --LaserLegs (talk)
 * Comment I added some more refs, I hope it's sufficient now. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I changed the blurb. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment since the election will presumably be ITNR, this can be covered then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A scandal, which is widely considered the biggest one of the second republic, and the sudden end of a government (an extraordinary controversial one in addition), is, in my opinion, more interesting than a normal election. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, which is presumably why you proposed the nomination. Thanks for reiterating your interest in getting the story posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Alt2 , which I hope is a bit clearer. (For any users who understand German, here's the video.) – Sca (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: "Ibiza affair" may not ring a bell with most Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest some generic title, such as "2019 Austrian political controversy." ("Affair" may be associated with sexual peccadillos; "scandal" may strike some as overwrought.) Sca (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with that. Right now, proposals look like the worst kind of tabloid journalism ("affair", "showcasing", "revelation", etc etc).  Let's not forget this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I decline to debate your comment (expected), and you seem to be ignoring my disapproval of "affair" and "scandal," but IMO "revelations" (linked to the article) is a perfectly NPOV use of the word for the contents of the video, which is all over the Net. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Would you care to comment on the aforementioned title of the article? Sca (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's crappy, non-intuitive, non-encyclopedic, might be a worthy redirect but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline away. I was agreeing with your general point. But I embellished it with a refusal to dip into tabloidism with garbage like "revelations".  Encyclopedias don't use those terms.  The press who want to sell newspapers might do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of accuracy, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nike-Inc - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, well I don't like the newly extant use of "published" to mean posted on a website, but I suppose "reports" could be substituted for "revelations" in this instance. Sca (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we've generally accepted "published" to include "published on the internet" for about ... 20 years. Time moves on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Who's we? Not usual in U.S. English, in my experience. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I guess that's symptomatic of the US who currently seem determined to return their own universe to the 1970s. Disgraceful really.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Determined to return their own universe to the 1970s." – WP:NAT – Speaking of which, how's that Brexit project of yours going? – Sca (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean, it's nothing to do with me. And it's not nationalist editing, that's simply a statement of fact.  But good try!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "a key Freedom Party (FPÖ) colleague" – Gudenus is not important enough to deserve 5 words. You mentioned the FPÖ twice, considering that most people don't know what the FPÖ is, that is a bit superfluous in my opinion. "...Colleague resign following revelations..." – to mention individual resignations is redundant since the whole government is gone after all. "...revelations of unethical politics..." – some say it's unethical others say it's immoral, illegal, corrupt... what we can all agree on is that it is "highly controversial" .Colonestarrice (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree allusion to Gudenus can be dropped. FYI, since you apparently understand German, here's German Wiki's version:
 * ''Nach dem Rücktritt Heinz-Christian Straches als Vizekanzler und FPÖ-Parteiobmann im Zuge der "Ibiza-Affäre" hat Bundeskanzler Sebastian Kurz vorgezogene Neuwahlen in Österreich vorgeschlagen."
 * Parteiobmann was a new one to me. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I orange-tagged the reactions proseline. Needs to be fixed. I don't speak German. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt3 – short and concise. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Alt3 – Yes it is (if possibly a bit thin?) – although I suggest "scandal" be replaced by "controversy" or "imbroglio." This topic remains prominently in the news. Sca (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Imbroglio? How about "pecadillo" or "hullabaloo"?WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Peccadillo is subliminally raunchy. Hullabaloo his a nice ring to it but makes me think of Cat Ballou. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt3/4 Easy to understand, and general support for government-ending political scandal Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt3 can be simplified a bit more "The Ibiza affair, an Austrian political scandal, has resulted in the end of the current government and a snap election." --M asem (t) 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PT: "results in." – Sca (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added alt 4 Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt4 – changed "Kurz government" to "current government" and "dissolution" to "end", otherwise it's fine, but you really need to post it now before it becomes completely redundant. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support –definitely for ITN. Which blurb is used I leave for others to decide.BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, slightly modified blurb. --Tone 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Thanks to all for getting this complex topic boiled down a succinct, readable blurb. Suggest minor revision to read: "The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election." (current is redundant). – Sca (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2019

 * Oppose not updated, no winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously can't post yet, but everything else around it seems reasonably well documented and sourced for the event. Basically just looks like once the final vote tally is there, it will be "complete" to post, barring any oddities. --M asem (t) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're about four hours early, the final hasn't even started yet and voting takes several hours. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a semi-standard practice of nominating ITNR items earlier for prepping them. Brandmeistertalk  18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment was more about the fact that a lot of the main article content should come from the final, so it was drastically under-developed, i.e. that ESC is one ITN/R that can't be prepped much in advance, and also has very generic blurb wording (little ITN prep) but needs that article coverage from after the event. Kingsif (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Contest is now over. Duncan has won. Congrats! We should use an image of him, probably his image on his page. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The scoreboard section is missing data and is awkwardly formatted. Also some references missing at lower-level awards. --Tone 08:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support UK amassed 16 more points than Jemini did in 2003. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, looks fine now. --Tone 18:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Double quote marks on song titles? --  AxG /  ✉  18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and not in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Australia general election

 * Strongly support This is a big day for Australia. Chongkian (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. El_C 18:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support very good article, updated Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 ITNR stuffs. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but we don't need to include the year of the election, it's hardly ITN if it's 2018 (or 2020 for that matter). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to pipe it. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Support - Good article. Referenced. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Once all the votes are counted, I would suggest changing the blurb to reference whether Morrison has won a majority government or a minority government. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but Change the blurb - the fact that the Coalition won the most seats is not directly relevant; there were scenarios where they could have won the most seats but lost government. More importantly, I haven't seen any RS describe the win in those words. Blurb should replace "wins the most seats in the Australian federal election" with something like "retains government at the Australian federal election". Adpete (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I chose to go with the original blurb since it seemed more cogent and since PM already implies the position was retained. Also, "retains government" just sounds a bit awkward. El_C 05:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. El_C 05:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 redefinition of SI base units

 * Comment The decision was posted last year. This is the same coming into effect stuff (laws, bills, inaugurations, etc) that is not typically posted. Brandmeistertalk  15:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because we posted when the body passed the change last year. Important change but had its time at ITN. --M asem (t) 15:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posted when it was hot off the press, it's done and dusted now. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure, been here, done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Brandmeister. Banedon (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herman Wouk

 * Oppose for now. The usual gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb Carry on Once the referencing is fixed, I mean. Absolutely no reason not to now that the floodgates have opened, except the "Rule of Three". What are we, superstitious? The man was "transformative" back in the day, can't deny it. Just like Ashley Massaro and Grumpy Cat (and has seniority over the last three pictured ripe old folks). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Massaro or Cat blurbed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should have. Grumpy Cat, especially, was still bigger than anyone in her field, and her death greatly impacts her empire's earning potential from here on. Not like Hollywood changed in the slightest for lack of formerly transformative Doris Day. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the point remains they didn't blurb, and Day did, and it appears you're now trying to suggest that people who are not transformative at the time of death shouldn't be eligible for a blurb? Is that what you're trying to say?  Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying he was transformative back in the day like the other five were, doing things that many news sources remembered when they died, and for which three of the six got blurbs (rightly or wrongly). I've long said people should die while still transformative to matter here; if I ran this zoo, Wouk and Grumpy Cat would come closest to my ideal (but nonexistent) main page. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This BLP contains many unsourced claims. Neutral on blurb or not. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I found sources for everything (someone can fix the ref format if they want, I can't wrangle that template). For the list of works, can we just use Amazon or isbnsearch or do I need to find an RS for every one of them? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once referencing is fixed. He was a centenarian with change, and we just have had a couple of other ones who might not have gotten there but for having three-digit ages. (Also, one wonders: Will Stephen King retroactively change the name of that story? Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, and even when it's up to scratch, RD only. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD some good work on the article means it's good to go for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready missing refs fixed, thanks to for fixing my bare refs. Blurb has not been ruled out so such a discussion should stay open. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For blurb supporters - is this international news? Not sure how transformative in the world he was if the BBC doesn’t even pick up his death? How do non-American / non-Israel sources (since he’s Jewish) report him?  starship  .paint  (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My post was half in jest since we just had a batch of centenarians or near-centenarians we blurbed for, partially, that it seems. I honestly didn't expect it would come close to passing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was completely serious infosfar as the standards have become an absolute joke, so the entire situation is half in jest (from my vantage point). The North rmembers him as "a consummate writer until the end." For as much transformation as the other three brought most of our parents and grandparents back in the day, I don't recall any international news praising them for sticking to it well into everyone's current millenium. But yeah, more sincerely than anything, these things do come in threes; I'll strike my suggestion for that alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 09:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can I get ITN credit for finding missing refs? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Same-sex marriage in Taiwan

 * Oppose just about catching up with civilisation in general. Good trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Around 30/190+ countries recognize same sex marriage. Taiwan will be the first in Asia, the most populous continent. Civilisation has a long way to go.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, so they're about the 30th country to do so. We've rejected plenty of others, the "first in Asia" is arbitrary, and "the most populous continent" is really irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Countries are most commonly grouped via their continents, so that’s not arbitrary. If you have a more obvious way of grouping countries, let me know. Plus, it’s not just me, it’s the reliable sources note that being first in Asia is exactly why it’s so notable. AP / Reuters / Guardian / NYT. This is commonly mentioned in the first sentence, and if you can’t recognise it’s importance, it’s you that is disagreeing with the reliable sources.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an arbitrary intersection.  It is a VERY slow news period right now, and I'm still not interested that this is the 26th country  to (almost but not yet) legalise it.  It's great for those concerned, but it's just a sign of the times.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Overwhelmingly notable but wait - Thanks for giving me credit — even if I happened to somewhat jump the gun on including it as legal. I support including it... but I think we should wait until May 24, 2019 to include it on the frontpage. It's the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage.MarvellingLiked (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Try again when it comes into effect.BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support This is historic and same-sex marriage will be/is on every continent now. If you would prefer to wait until it goes into effect or is signed, feel free. Taiwan will be the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage! -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And, what, the 25th country in the world? As noted, just catching up... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the first in Asia. That's pretty notable to say the least. MarvellingLiked (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty arbitrary to say the least. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The first in Asia" may arbitrary, but it stands in for a cluster of very significant metrics. It's the first Chinese-speaking country to legalize ssm, which makes it an inroad into a tremendous culture with a history of conservative familial attitudes. It's the first country to legalize which is neither European nor a former European colony, which is significant as the modern gay-rights movement, worldwide, is associated with the West. theBOBbobato (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with saying it's an "inroad", since it implies that legalizing same-sex marriages is a good thing. For a large fraction of the world's population (ironically including a majority of Taiwan's population), it isn't . Banedon (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be careful at all with saying "inroads". Bigotry is still bigotry even if a large number of people are bigoted.  There's no reason to suppose a false equivalency in cases where we are comparing two positions where one position is based on bigotry and another is not.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The word 'bigot' carries negative connotations, so the same argument applies to that too. Banedon (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say "bigotry" is apt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment But is this even going to stay? I am aware that there was a 2018 referendum on exactly this issue that actually failed. Can somebody clear this up? (as I don't know the exact details of it) Syopsis (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the article. Basically, the referendum was not binding and it didn't supercede the Supreme Court ruling that the government had to introduce same-sex marriage. Smurrayinchester 09:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the same reason for my last 12 or so opposes on similar nominations. Just the latest in the endless succession of countries legalizing SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia decide to join the parade I would likely support. Otherwise we have posted more than enough of these. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support That's a really good article, and I'm not sure why anyone would feel as though it wasn't good enough quality for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has felt that way. Nor has this actually happened in reality, so a really odd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, it seems odd to me that decisions about what to post on the main page should be based on my personal interest in the topic. I'm just one person, and the things I am interested in should have little bearing on what appears on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep banging that drum. Last time I looked, this worked on consensus, which involves opinion, not simply on article quality.  That works nicely for RD but not for news stories, otherwise we'd be inundated and drowning in Trump factoids.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has yet nominated a Trump factoid. But keep pretending that they do if it makes you feel better about placing your own personal interests above article quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Where were you in 2018?? Trump factoid nominations were a nonstop deluge for a while, even into early 2019.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll notice none of those got posted. The system works.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, some did get posted, but if your approach had been applied, most all of them would have been posted. Hence you need to stop pretending that ITN rules are aligned to your own belief system, they are not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Jayron, I respect most of what you post, but "Trump ticker" was a theme for a year. Honestly, you're having one of those days!!  (And when you get ITN rules changed to meet your personal version, let me know, in the meantime I'll keep !voting per the status quo.  I would have thought an admin should be aware of that....) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't respect me. You never have.  You've made that clear in almost every interaction you've had with me for almost a decade.  It's been a rare comment you've left in response to something I have said that I would call respectful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully, something an admin must do. I respect what you post (mostly).  That is what I said.  You're off the mark several times in several places lately, but that's just human nature.  What you shouldn't be doing as an admin is pretending that ITN has some kind of different ruleset to that written, because you're in a position where others may believe what you say, and it simply isn't correct I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have I ever, even once, used my admin tool set to override a consensus established via a discussion here, or anywhere else? Have I ever promoted an item against consensus?  If not, then my admin status has nothing to do with it.  Admins (in situations where they have no intention of using their admin tools) do not have less rights to their own opinions than non-admins do.  As long as I have no intention of using my admin tools, I am free to express my opinions, even if it later turns out that other people have different opinions.  I'm quite capable of accepting that, sometimes, consensus ends up going differently than how I feel that it should.  It happens.  It's never bothered me that it does sometimes, because I don't expect that everyone is always going to agree with me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're seeing things which simply aren't there, about the fourth time today. I've never accused you of abusing any admin tools (much like myself, we both respect those 100%) but admins should not be promoting a perceived version of the ITN rules which is not reflected in the reality of the ITN rules.  Arguing that individuals are not entitled to make representation based on their opinion is wholesale inaccuracy and you should desist from this immediately (in fact, you should have stopped doing it years back).  That's the part of being an admin you need to address.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up rules. Where in this discussion did I mention rules?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did anyone say you brought up rules? No, you keep promoting a position which is contrary to the current ruleset at ITN.  You know that and it's not admin-worthy.  You probably know that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Mainly because it's the first in Asia, where draconian legal prohibitions remain common. Sca (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to contradict my good friend TRM here and go with a support. The article quality is the tipping point for me in my opinion. Very well-written and comprehensive. "First in Asia" is also no small potatoes.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem and potential POV endorsing which is discouraged. Brandmeistertalk  14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What would be a NPOV way to write it then?  starship .paint  (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply not blurbing it. Picking this up because it's "first in Asia" has WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS implications, particularly amid wide array of readers' beliefs and stances. Brandmeistertalk  15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". Equal marriage is controversial to some, but it's happening and is worthy of attention. It directly improves millions of people's lives by allowing them to marry who they choose. First in Asia is notable because cultures tend to correlate with continents, so it indicates that equal marriage isn't a Western-only phenomenon. User:GKFXtalk 23:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Taiwan is 23 million people, plus first in Asia. Kaldari (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I would rather wait until the day it will be in effect. Anything can change between now and that day.  I Need Support  :3 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the merits of this nomination, I would say that notable laws almost always get more attention the day they are passed and not the day they go into effect. If this is to be posted, the right time would be now. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support first in Asia is a significant milestone. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would avoid the word "country". Perhaps State (which is what our article on Taiwan refers to it as), or place or location, or just "first in Asia". ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources seem to avoid use of 'country' while some use it(HuffPost above). I will put the choice as a potential blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that so much trouble is going into trying to create a notable intersection probably demonstrates that it's not such a notable intersection after all. Why not just "26th country in the world", that's absolute and underlines the true notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I added an alternative blurb (III), which I would support if it is in fact cited that Taiwan is the first non-Western location to legalize SSM. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Nevermind, South Africa already does it, but I have c/e'd some of the other blurbs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Gay rights are infrequently recognized outside the west; that a non-western culture has taken this step is a big deal, and that's not because I think so, but because the sources do; most major news outlets are giving prominence to the fact that Taiwan is the first Asian country to legalize SSM. It's being reported widely not just in the west and in Taiwan, but by news organizations in Hong Kong, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Qatar; in short, it's global news, and we ought to post it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm seeing a lot of coverage of this and the article quality is good.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the fact that this is global news (see the sources from Vanamonde above) and we have a good quality article on the topic. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like 9:4 in favor with one wait. Suggest post. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until 24 May How about we wait until the actual day it happens? Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted There's a consensus here to do so, and waiting until 24 May doesn't appear relevant from those sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose This has been happening all the time recently, so it's honestly not surprising to me. Yes, it's the first Asian country, but we can essentially categorize the countries however we want and likely be able to create a "first" somewhere else (as in, any country can really be the "first" country to do something). I'm not saying that it's unimportant, just that in the relative scheme of the movement it's not. (Edit: Basically per The Rambling Man, as my reasoning on not posting is basically the same.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * in the relative scheme of the movement it's not - now gay rights supporters in Asia have an example in Asia to point to. Instead of gay rights opponents just pointing to gay rights being Western values.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this a bit, but in the end that's sort of a PoV argument. If I were going based off my opinions, I'd probably support this, but the average person is not a gay rights activist nor a gay rights opponent - it doesn't concern them much. Yes, it's a good support for the movement, but by "in the relative scheme of the movement it's not" I'm referring to if a typical person were asked to make a timeline, this would be one of the harder things to find. (And I might have missed the mark, but it's not coming up on the news for me unless I specifically search "Asia" or "Taiwan", though I suppose the former holds some significance.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - per Sca and Vanamonde. Also - NYT - Asia, a region where such rights have lagged. This is why it's historic.  starship  .paint  (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Taiwan isn't a country, it's a breakaway province of the Peoples Republic of China and has no meaningful international recognition. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quit trying to stir the pot. WaltCip (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate point of contention and NPOV issue; Taiwan's status is disputed and does not have widespread acceptance. I'm not convinced the blurb should state "country". 331dot (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's just use State (polity), that's what Taiwan's article says.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it's not like the Chinese can read what we put anyway. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 05:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - highly notable policy shift for an Asian country. It may be the 25th to do it, but it's the first in an entire area of the world. That's significant, and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 05:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "country" is purely incorrect and it's incredibly embarrassing that an enclycopedia is sitting with it on the main page. Incredible.  And as for "it's the first in an entire area of the world (sic)", that's just silly.  Every place is "in an entire area of the world".  Get real. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to educate yourself on the meaning of the world country before giving your opinion on the matter (nevertheless, it has been changed to state). Every place is "in an entire area of the world" but not every place is the "first in an entire area of the world". You haven't provided any compelling reason to believe that being the first on a continent of 50+ states or the first state of non-European descent is not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint other than you don't like the item. Go hard, but good luck. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to respond if your comment made sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * pull this should either be posted on the 24th when the law kicks in, or it should have been done two years ago when the measure was first announced. Today is just one minor step on the road, and the hook as stands isn't even accurate. It was a poor choice to post this I'm afraid, there wasn't any consensus to do so. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, new laws get the most attention when they are passed, not when they are proposed or when they take effect. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well this one was "passed" on 24 May 2017 when the constitution compelled the legislature to pass said law within two years. That was newsworthy, certainly, but like Brexit this is a story with many parts and this is just a middle one. Either way, there's no Consensus for it to be there so it needs to go, pending further discussion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree that there was no consensus to post this, in looking at the above discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the court didn't "pass" it, it just set a 2 year countdown. Like most nations, the Court cannot make law it can only clarify it, and must pass the buck to legislation if the current law is insufficient (like in this case). If the legislative body passed a bill the week after the Court decision, then we would have posted it then. But they posted it nearly 2 years after the Court decision, and there's nothing now stopping it from going into effect, so this seems like the right time to post on this matter. --M asem (t) 15:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * (Somewhat ironic) Post-posting support. Although as a supporter of ssm I'm happy that the law has passed, I originally thought of calling for this to be pulled as deeply misleading to our readers, as what happens in Taiwan is unlikely to be much of a precedent for the rest of Asia due to Taiwan's need for Western support in order to survive (in this respect, it would be a bit like describing a similar event in Israel as the first in Asia). But on reflection (and justified per WP:IAR and WP:5P5 if necessary) I thought it might actually be useful to indirectly give at least some of our more skeptical readers at least the chance (by 'reading between the lines') to realize that the only 'country' to have legalized ssm in the continent where a majority of the world's people live is a 'country' that needs Western support to survive. After all we are here to inform our readers, and this may be all the more important when the information runs counter to the impression they may normally get from our Politically Correct media (probably usually including Wikipedia's front page). This may not be the theoretically ideal way of doing this, but then such theoretical ideals rarely or never happen in practice, and objections based on them should thus be ignored. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't pull It's all cool, state, country, who cares. It's a big thing and it's right to post it to ITN. Article is good, news is hot off the press. Since it's already posted, let it stew, why pull it to post it when the news is stale. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mick Micheyl

 * Support slender but satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashley Massaro

 * Support sourced and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support already GA, ready to post.LM2000 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good Article, and updated. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator - I've added references for anything that looked like it could use one. Marking as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Well written and sourced. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Well written and sourced. Good article.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb): I. M. Pei

 * Support blurb An older FA, but it's in good shape. He is one of the most well-known architects of his time and does have name recognition among the wider public.  Sounder Bruce  21:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support –  Prominent individual and good article. Also per above. Aviartm (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - could you be clear on whether you support “RD only” or “blurb”? Thanks :)  starship .paint  (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even support image, this one: File:JFK library Stitch Crop.jpg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - his contributions to architecture are no less significant than Doris Day's to pop culture. -Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is in great shape and notability is consistent with other recent blurb postings. Teemu08 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, discussion can continue regarding a blurb. Stephen 23:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Zanhe. —Hugh (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Level 4 vital article, Top-Importance for Architecture, Featured Article, one of the most revered architects in the world per NYT, one of the most significant and prolific architects of the 20th century, the New York-based designer left a legacy of notable buildings that span the globe per WaPo.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Since he was such a prominent individual, I support the blurb Aviartm (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb madness We've seen this Aretha Franklin effect whataboutize us before. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Relaying a name, job description and age is RD's job, and it goes even more in-depth that that in one line. These lines are both redundant and inferior to the ones literally one click away. Save the blurbs for a when a death carries some deeper, wider or at least wordier meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I. M. Pei was very prominent, clearly the top of his field. He definitely deserves a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Just refreshed my knowledge of his projects. I am even more sure that he is noteworthy enough for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: looking at the template now, including Pei would probably result in three consecutive blurbs about notable deaths on the Main Page. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 02:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that an issue? This was bound to happen sooner or later. Life's like that, it's random.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Random nothing, they come in threes. Went Franlin, Annan, Vajpayee last time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Highly significant in both American and Chinese culture. feminist (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Promoted to blurb Stephen 05:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I'm sure he was important in his field, but nowhere near the level for a blurb. This is what RD exists for. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Support blurb  Top of his field, article in good shape, of course he's blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per InedibleHulk. RD was not created to shuttle off unimportant people from ITN, and a blurb is not a special honor granted to Really Important People.  The purpose of RD is to avoid an endless string of "So and so died at the age of 98".  If a blurb about a death imparts no meaningful information beyond the death itself it doesn't need to be a blurb.  Blurbs regarding deaths should be reserved for when some explanation is needed because the death itself bears special attention.  Merely dying should, of itself, NOT merit a blurb.  Instead, we should only write blurbs for when we need to explain that the death was unusual (perhaps a suicide or plane crash or assassination) or when the aftermath of the death itself needs explaining (large memorial services, major investigations, etc.)  If all we have to say is "So and so died because they were old", then that is exactly what RD is for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, blurbs are also okay for the following reason as stated in WP:ITNRD: In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is community consensus that the death merits a blurb.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is doubtless that Pei was one of the major transformative world leaders in their field, exactly what the ITN rules state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There appears to be a tendency of, whenever we post a blurb of someone's death (usually a Western figure) whose claim to fame is recognition in pop culture, the standard for a death blurb temporarily becomes lowered for subsequent deaths since it seems trite to equate someone the likes of Doris Day to a world leader like Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher. That being the case, I.M. Pei is a featured article. I also disagree with Jayron that blurbs are chiefly reserved for unusual deaths, since recent examples have clearly shown that it takes more than a death being unusual or unexpected to be blurbed - people usually trot out the Mandela-Thatcher standard whenever something like that is proposed (see Keith Flint). Once again, this is an area of ITN that seems to be an unavoidably grey area, and we're getting no closer to clarity.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - would you know how robust the vital article classifications are? Mandela is Level 3, Thatcher, Day and Pei are Level 4, while Bob Hawke is Level 5.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is meaningless to me, as I'm sure it is to several other editors. The nomination process for "Vital articles" is about as insular a process I've seen on Wikipedia, even more so than ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's hysterical enough to use article quality classes to argue for their inclusion, but to bring this completely isolated "vital article" silliness (controlled by around half a dozen users) to the voting process is beyond words... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I am working on death information and talk page to bring everything to ship-shape, this seems like a no-brainer to post to ITN for me. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. We've left the Thatcher-Mandela standard far behind, and should not be quoting it at all any more. Even setting aside the infamous Carrie Fisher blurb, we have in recent times posted Bob Hawke, Christopher Lee, Karl Lagerfeld, Kofi Annan, and Charles Aznavour, all of whom had nowhere near the level of global influence Thatcher or Mandela did; we also posted George H. W. Bush, Aretha Franklin, Prince, David Bowie, and Atal Behari Vajpayee, who had wide name recognition but still were not as transformative as Thatcher or Mandela. That hasn't been our standard for quite a while. Pei certainly meets the broader standard. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's slightly ridiculous that the top three ITN items are all recent deaths, and then we have another six in the Recent Deaths section itself. We're death obsessed at the moment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I thought four RD's was the limit. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamil Naqsh

 * Support - the "life" section is a bit short but article is fully sourced and adequate overall. -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support An article on an artist should have at least one example of relevant art before it's fully adequate, even if what is there is sourced overall. I don't hold the word count against it. He was no great novelist for a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice he has two External Links galleries, and that's good enough if not fully adequate. I made the article a bit shorter, but it's still OK. Now it teaches a little about post-1989 Pakistani presidential politics, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks fine overall. Invisible Lad (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -    Isn't this a perfect example of WP:BIAS when even a cat is featured on RD and the not-so-influential White celebrity and politician also get a blurb but a Brown person's nomination is being ignored so it goes stale? - Invisible Lad (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD: Bob Hawke

 * Support  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, their is properly some sections that need referencing. But other than that I think this is worthy. Matt294069 (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Death of significant leaders of major (loosely defined) countries usually merit a blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if there is a defined process and/or precedent for situations where editors see a Recent Death nomination and wish to see the article as a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually it's done as a Recent Death nom with a suggestion for a blurb as an option.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb I think he's notable enough for a blurb post.  I Need Support  :3 13:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Former head of state of a major nation. Notable enough for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Hawke was not merely an Australian Prime Minister, but also the third-longest serving Australian Prime Minister, winning four elections, making him one of Australia's most significant Prime Ministers. During his time in power Australia selected its national anthem, created its medicare system, and passed an act which removed the last vestiges of British authority over Australia. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb after a few CNs are fixed (only 2 or 3, nothing insane). I'm of the general opinion that former elected leaders of at least the G7/G8 or G20 countries should be blurbed on their death, being significant worlds leaders. --M asem (t) 15:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The G20 has far less to do with world leaders and their significance than it does with finance ministers' and bank governors' balance sheets. Just a bunch of rich governments, but not even the richest. There really is no solid reason any country's treasurers are or aren't invited to the meetings. If membership counts for anyone in matters of death, it should at least be money-type folk, not leader-type. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article is of decent quality, in-depth, and well written. Prefer RD over blurb, since we don't have anything more to say than "he died", but will also not stand in the way of a blurb if others feel this article merits one.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb he was a significant and important part of the history of beautiful Australia and Oceania and the foreign policy. I'm 26 year old young man and I was almost born under his administration but I was born in 1992 LOL. Totally support blurb. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Decent article, high profile figure and we currently have shortage of news on the template. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there are additional citations needed. No opinion on blurb or not. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On the balance, there were very few, but the one that were there I have cleaned up. I don't think they should have held up the article, but if you want to hold it up, it was also a very quick fix.  Most were for non-essential personal analyses, and removal of those did not alter the narrative at all.  There were also a few unneeded cn tags that appeared to be asking for cites for banal and uncontentious things like the number of seats won in elections or the like.  It looks like there are no more cn tags.  Since all of the cn tags have been dealt with, can you re-assess the article quality?  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, there is no such thing as "banal and uncontentious things" when BLP's are concerned. If a citation cannot be found then the claim was never notable in the first place. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment to any admin keen enough to help, let's get an image of Bob over to Krinklebot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've dropped File:Bob Hawke (8216522868).jpg over to WP:CMP. I'm about to go out though, so someone will need to keep an eye out here for Krinklebot's work. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted as blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment image is now GOOD TO GO! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Image updated. --M asem (t) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support as blurb. My support for this was lost when my blurb recommendation was removed, so repeating my earlier comments: The most transformative post World War 2 Prime Minister of Australia, won 4 elections, was in office for over 8 years, and made significant changes, such as floating the Australian Dollar, introduced universal healthcare (Medicare), introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, deregulated the banking industry, reduced tariffs, amongst other achievements. Chrisclear (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-blurbing oppose Relays three facts of six already listed in Recent Deaths. Pointless duplication. The picture is a bonus, though, I guess. (That didn't stay up for long.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb - I didn't see this in my diversified newsfeed. Not a world transforming figure who died of old-age. This isn't in-the-news even in Australia with the ongoing elections there. He doesn't rise to the level of Mandela-Thatcher-Vajpayee. Invisible Lad (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Iván Simonovis

 * Oppose for someone so purportedly "best known", his article is a weak stub. This isn't newsworthy enough either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grumpy Cat

 * Support - Very well referenced, better than humans Sherenk1 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - death not announced until 16 May, so should be considered as happenening on that date if posted. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Color me completely confused. Isn't the "event" wrt ITN the death and not the announcement of death? Regards So  Why  10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Normal practice when there's a delay. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Only for long delays, not for a day or two. Stephen 11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Alice Rivlin

 * Oppose quite a bit of it is under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - until work is done.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Tim Conway

 * Comment This one is going to need some work before it can be posted. However, if/when it is brought up to scratch, it might be worth a blurb. I don't want to turn ITN into an obit page but Conway was a comedic legend. [Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not sure he's quite blurb-level. A famliar name & face in the '60s, but probably not a household name like Doris Day. (OK, another precinct heard from.) – Sca (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose not good enough. And definitely not blurb-worthy in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Large portions lack references. No opinion on blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but Support RD – if references sorted. Radagast (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD for sure now, the article has been cleaned up a bit. This guy was a comedic legend. Granted there are some tags but I think it passes notability for a RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone with an article "passes notability for a RD". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for posting --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In what sense does 26 [citation needed] tags (and more needed) mean it's "good enough for posting"? This is a BLP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many unsourced statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's a lot of citation needed tags I saw there. Needs substantial work.  I Need Support  :3 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hu Jinqing

 * Support as article creator. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Unita Blackwell

 * Support - article looks great. -Zanhe (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, I came to nominate the article brought to GA quality by Coffee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the others above. Great article! Thsmi002 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) World Record solo dive
Challenger Deep should be groomed and prepared as a major news item. A new world record solo dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, part of a series of *five* dives below 10,800m, including two world record setting solo dives by Victor Vescovo, was announced today. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48230157, https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/victor-vescovo-deepest-dive-pacific/index.html and other media as they come online. For background, please read Vescovo's blog post at https://fivedeeps.com/home/expedition/pacific/live/ which recounts the series of dives in Challenger Deep and Sirena Deep. The implications of this new world record mean a whole series of pages are affected, see:

The official press release from the expedition was made available this morning, see https://tritonsubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FDE-Challenger-Release-FINAL.pdf and Victor Vescovo and Patrick Lahey are doing press at the Explorer's Club in New York today. I anticipate major media coverage in the coming days for references, as well as free/CC images. Due to WP:COI I cannot do this myself, as I have been the general counsel for Triton Submarines for ten plus years, since shortly after I left WMF. --Brad Patrick (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: suggest that Victor Vescovo is the article to be updated. Would support, pending a more substantial update to the article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, worked for WMF but doesn't know how to wikilink??? I fixed them up for you &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sysop with 1000 edits??! The Rambling Man (talk)
 * 105 edits at 2006 sysopping! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He was the WMF Legal Counsel. Which is why he had sysop rights, but did not edit much.  He had the job before Mike Godwin, IIRC.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose they beat a 60-year-old record by 11m? Incremental and objectively meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as can be seen from the Challenger Deep article, the bottom of the trench was already reached by Bathyscaphe Trieste in 1960, making this record dubious. Banedon (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM really, beating a record set 60 (sixty) years ago by 11 metres is not exactly massive news. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Doris Day

 * support Looks decent enough. good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Citations are needed for several claims in the "Personal life" section, particularly the endorsement of "Dubya" and her relationship to Christian Science. Hopefully the obituaries will cover this lot as the day progresses and this will cease to be an issue. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All done. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The endorsement I couldn't source. As for Christian Science, I added two sources that were pretty easy to find on GBooks. The rest seems sourced sufficiently, so I removed the tag. Regards So  Why  13:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The studio album section needs one or more references and there are a couple of minor claims and one quote that could use a cite. But overall this article is in pretty decent shape and I think adequate for the main page. Add a cite for the studio albums and I will line out the "weak" in my support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - but maybe worth a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go! The lorax (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant death, "Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray" Rockin 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb on notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Already out of the headlines in Google news. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted by about 1 hour ago.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support and I would also support a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Major transformative figure. And I know this shouldn't be a factor but we haven't had a new blurb for a week now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - notable, quality up to par, and per Amakuru --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - C'mon; it's Doris Day.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Que sera, sera  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Main news headline on BBC all day, sounds like a blurb. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Global news, article in good shape, g2g for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * please propose a blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Please CHANGE THE IMAGE! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The cropped one is not yet cleared on protection but the profile one is. Done. --M asem (t) 21:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Post posting support - Seriously, it's Doris Day folks. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb per LaserLegs Who the hell is Doris day? 5.44.170.9 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doris Kappelhoff, that's who. Everyone knows that. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Support - One of the most influential figures in her field. She even had her name mentioned in the first line of a number one single. 2601:601:1001:E120:3DD3:56CC:5CB4:BBE (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this blurbed article is sitting on the main page with an orange tag in it's body. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the orange tag with a CN. The orange tag was overkill. That said, we still have an entirely unsourced section for her discography. That really needs to be fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This just shows in stark terms how quality controls in ITN don't make sense. Banedon (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * -ography sections of bios tend to be a bunch of non-notable (not blue linked) works, or where the person has a cameo or guest role which is not 100% obvious from looking at the lede of the indicated work. Here, for Day, the albums are all bluelinked, and it is 100% clear that these are all albums featuring Day going by their lede. Ideally, they should be sourced, but we're begging a source for the obvious and if push came to shove, copying one source from each blue linked is possible. --M asem (t) 13:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * -ography sections are implicitly sourced to their own credits. Presumably, a record album with Doris Day's name printed on it is a reliable published source that Doris Day did actually record the album.  With her name on it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We just comment out the content, or WP:CFORK it to a different article to get around sourcing issues. I've raised it, no one cared. Open an RFC at WT:ITN if you see the need to make a change, this isn't the place. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing was forked since the nomination was proposed. Sources were requested for the -ography sections and they were provided. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to anyone thinking of pulling: improving this article is preferable to protect Wikipedia reputation. Doris Day Wikipedia page defaced with graphic image after her death. Sure, the item was posted prematurely by two admins that seem to ignore ITN standards but pulling it would be an even worse move. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to argue for ography sections to be reffed few weeks ago but was told it's not a requirement, even though the lack of source means we have to do original research in choosing what to put in. So that's the consensus it would seem. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There I fixed it the same way we handle this for all the other dead celebs with unreferneced bodies of work that we want to railroad onto the main page. You're welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have returned it and added back the source that was unnecessarily removed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "fix" this citation problem: linking out to articles in lists like this does not require a citation. See (e.g.) Slayer also WP:BLUE and WP:LOW . Honestly, guys. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that some other articles don't cite the discography section doesn't mean that's the correct thing to do. Although this is more about standalone list pages then embedded lists, there is guidance at Stand-alone_lists which instructs us to define selection criteria for the list and then "it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item". So although the works themselves provide a cite for their existence, reliable sourcing is needed to establish which entries to select and which not to select. In the case of Doris Day the decision made was to list all albums in the article, and source that list from AllMusic. That is the correct thing to do, and ensures that (a) we are not listing things that are not regarded by reliable sources as albums, and (b) that we don't miss any. I think some sort of sitewide discussion may be required here because this issue is coming up repeatedly. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If I don't have a citation for something, I should not add it to the article. It reasonably follows that if someone else adds uncited content and I cannot cite it myself with reasonable effort, it should be struck. Seems the simplest way to address this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Indian Premier League Final

 * Oppose no match summary for the final. A few other issues (e.g. who, or what, is Watson?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018-19 Premier League

 * Oppose almost literally no prose about the season which, arguably, has been the best one ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready. The article is almost entirely tables. It needs a prose summary of the season, like last year's. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. My concern has been addressed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fleshed out an overview section, mostly using stuff that was previously in the lede, but have added a bit more to it as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Might this be better served as something like "In association football, the 2018–19 season of the English Premier League concludes with Manchester City winning the title."? It's a single season that concluded, not the league itself (whatever that would mean) which is obvious to most but not all readers. Plus, it doesn't hurt to link the main league article for the uninformed. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rong Baisheng

 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peggy Lipton

 * Oppose until all the "ography" sections are fully referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - have added some references, however I note that at the start of the "filmography" section, there is a reference to BFI - isn't this considered a RS therefore covers the list? And therefore individual entries on the list are not required to have individual references? MurielMary (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BFI is fine as a source, but make sure every entry given is listed on it. --M asem (t) 15:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Sourcing is looking better now. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support we've got some damn fine sourcing here at Twin Peaks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , sourcing looks fine generally &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Silver King (wrestler)

 * Weak support almost entirely referenced and in reasonable condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support In postable shape.LM2000 (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - was going to nominate this myself, good condition, well referenced and suitable for RD.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced and in good shape to post. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is it standard to post names with qualifiers? It seems out of place. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are number of notable people and entities with that name. So yeah, we add something to article names to separate the different entities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we please take the brackets out of the entry and pipe it like Silver King please? It looks really awful and out of place having the bracketed word at the end there.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done by . (Thanks.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 South African general election

 * Support - sourced and notable.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is well written and sourced. What I am still missing is a reference for provincial-only parties and some summary of the aftermath, such as reactions from parties and abroad. --Tone 07:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yogesh Chander Deveshwar

 * Weak support it's hardly a comprehensive bio, but what's there appears to be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Reasonably good shape.BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * May be we should keep it here on candidates page? Any better place? :) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks for letting me know ;)BabbaQ (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Satisfactory. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Gianni De Michelis

 * I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a poorly referenced nomination. Stephen 22:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Anatol Herzfeld

 * Weak oppose Per the nom, some of the works are unsourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All works "shown" are now sourced, for you. I will try to find references for the others, but have several more urgent tasks, including the next Recent death. I hope interest readers will find the list in German for the time being. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding Grimes2 to updaters, for finding references and improving them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrodvarsson, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - everything is now sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. This is stale (this death dated May 10, oldest death currently on main page is May 11).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuelan presidential crisis

 * Oppose Ongoing if this event stands alone for notability, blurb it accordingly. Ongoing isn't for "simmering" stories with occasional bursts of activity. The target article is highly POV: "persecution of legislators" come on. The 2019 Venezuela coup attempt might make a better target ... lots of stuff is being copy/pasted all over in this space right now. Nolo on blurb, I'll need to read the update more fully. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's stale, the arrest was two days ago, move it down to May 8 if you want it considered. The update is confusing (I had to look up TSJ) and I have no idea what "The rival Constituent Assembly" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb we post convictions, not arrests, charges, accusations or trials. This can wait until he's convicted. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which policy or guideline are you quoting? High profile arrests have been posted before in ITN: Hosni Mubarak, the FIFA arrests, Pervez Musharraf (former President of Pakistan) and more recently, Julian Assange, just to mention some. Besides, Juan Requesens was arrested nine months ago and hasn't had a trial yet; Lorent Saleh was imprisoned for four years and tortured before being released, without having a trial. Both hearing have been/were usually postponed. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those were mistakes, and I see no reason to compound them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you dig though 10 years of ITN discussions to find the handful of times when an arrest as posted? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not even scratching the surface of my news providers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on your news outlets, but every big newspaper covered this. --MaoGo (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it was covered to an extent a week or so ago when the pretend coup was happening, but literally nothing since. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is from two days ago, and the legislators seeking refuge in embassies and the international denunciations are from yesterday/today. --MaoGo (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that things are happening, but they simply don't rise to the level of ITN newsworthiness, either blurb or ongoing. Oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously Maduro waited until after we pulled the story to make the arrests. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the "ongoing hokey-pokey". If you have a blurb you want to put in the main section, please start a new nomination and propose a blurb. Also, as the OP says, the article has not been updated.  That's an "insta-fail" on ITN.  Articles need to be updated before we even consider evaluating the quality of that update!  What are we to evaluate if there is nothing there?!? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been updated, as Jamez says, the Vicepresident of the National Assembly was arrested, and legislators are seeking refuge in embassies. --MaoGo (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't fix the problem that the article doesn't qualify for the "ongoing" slot. Propose a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could give it a shot: "Venezuela's National Assembly Vice President, Edgar Zambrano, is indicted and arrested." Any information regarding the charges or the indictment against other deputies could be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Jamez42's proposed blurb. Article is in very good shape generally, and the updated information on the blurb is sufficient per WP:ITN guidelines.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the on-going tag was removed a day before all the prosecutions and the detention of the VP happened. It should have stayed. --MaoGo (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Still simmering, but unsee coverage in major int'l media. Worth watching, but that's all for now. Sca (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like the Mueller and Brexit, this story has entered the sound and fury stage. The larger stories are notable, and the day to day machinations seem notable given the larger context. But, having previously posted each at length, we must ask in each case if the present events are really moving the story forward in any meaningful way. It's difficult for me to imagine any further development short of Maduro's ouster to be worth noting.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this regularly still makes the news. Each individual event might not clear the notability threshold, but taken together I think it's a good candidate for ongoing. Banedon (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's no longer an ongoing candidate so it's clear from your opinion that you now oppose this nomination, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * AP, in a story filed about 21:15 Friday, has Guaidó "promising to persevere." Sounds like more of the same. – Sca (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose both blurb and ongoing per TRM, Sca et al. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba

 * Support Article seems in good shape. Prominent and historical leader of the Socialist Party. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most prominent Spanish politicians of the past 30 years. Neodop (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article needs work with one section with no references at all and citations needed tags elsewhere. His notability is not in question but the quality of his article is. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved with new sources. .Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is now too stale to be posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Brian Walden

 * Oppose surprisingly this nom by TRM has multiple unsourced statements. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't even look at it, I noted the passing of someone I am reasonably familiar with and nominated it soonest because it happened a few days ago. Pretty sure I didn't claim it was up to scratch, did I? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I am sorry I guess you cannot take it but easily and repeatedly dish it out? You didn't claim anything or apparently, check anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue what you're talking about. When I oppose nominations because they're poorly referenced, I simply state they are poorly referenced, I don't say provocative crap like "surprisingly this nom by X is...", so try not to repeat that in future.  And yes, you can read, i.e. "I didn't claim it was up to scratch, did I?"  Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who said you had no clue, not me. And it is surprising that someone who so zealously "talks the talk" does not also "walk the walk", just stating a fact. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're stating fiction, pure and simple. I review ITN candidates and give an objective opinion.  I don't deliberately set out to provoke nominators making good faith nominations.  And I still don't have a clue what you're so butt hurt about.  Is it something else I've said to you?  Oh dear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You must be very blissful, you go right ahead and enjoy that. I've said my oppose. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was blissful until your objectionable interaction. Cheers, hope you get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose – I don't get what is "surprising" about the nom, either; there is nothing wrong with bringing not-yet-ready articles to ITN/C, as the increased exposure here often helps bring extra eyes to the article. Many articles that start out in ITN/C as being inadequate end up being greatly improved and posted. Having said that, the article looks much improved but the "Political career" section is completely unreferenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 13:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuan Baohua

 * Support – Simply flawless start article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Freddie Starr

 * Oppose Far too much unsourced at the moment but we'll see how that progresses.LM2000 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, just too many unreferenced claims.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm only seeing one unreferenced paragraph and that doesn't cover anything contentious. Would be nice if it was referenced but this shouldn't be a bar to posting. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think so... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced articles are the very epitome of a "bar to posting". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As well as being largely unreferenced, there is too much attention on the hamster eating stuff, which should be pared down to a few sentences. It makes it sound like it's the only thing he's known for. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For many people that is all he's known for, and for others the main thing. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a lot of work on the referencing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The hamster eating allegation certainly made him a household name, when he was going out of the public view...Also, the article is largely referenced, unless I am looking at a different article???? Seth Whales (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the lead states he was a comedian, but I don't recall ever laughing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * why is your personal taste relevant? I don't find Jim Davidson at all funny, but that doesn't mean he isn't a comedian. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have just removed the unsourced sections so it is suitable now.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Atariya

(Posted) RD: Jens Beutel
I added from more obits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ready for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thai election results

 * Wait – we should ideally wait until a government is formed before we report on it, in my opinion. Nonetheless if people want the headline to go live, a more appropriate blurb would probably be "The Pheu Thai Party win a plurality of seats in the House of Representatives following the Thai general election."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipTerryGraham (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply General election results are WP:ITN/R. Government formations are not, but in certain circumstances they could potentially be blurb-worthy assuming their formation receives enough coverage to demonstrate their notability. I don't intend for this to come off as harsh, but please do give that guideline a quick read if you haven't already done so. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We should not wait. What is ITNR is the election results not the formation of government. We just need to take care of a few more citations needed. The article is predominately in good shape. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your stance further? It seems confusing that you say that we should report the election results and not the formation of government afterwards, but at the same time opposing a report on the election results... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As they said, there are some citations missing in the article; it cannot be posted until that is addressed. Elections are what is ITNR, not the formation of governments; if you feel the government formation is notable enough for posting, you are free to nominate that. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose only on quality per Coffeeandcrumbs. No need to wait. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality and unsatisfactory blurbs based on an inconclusive result. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sprent Dabwido

 * Support Seems ready to go with sourcing. RD doesn't require any special level of importance as long as the article exists and of proper quality. --M asem (t) 20:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Well-sourced article. What a fascinating presidency and life. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Montgomery (baseball)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) STEM School Highlands Ranch Shooting

 * Comment This is not ITNR. Nomination amended, Mjroots (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm taking myself out of the updater (I don't think I did that much) and putting in my place, they have the highest authorship. Anyway, I'm not very sure this one meets the prominence on a global level,   starship  .paint  (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, shootings in the US, even school shootings are too common for ITN. --M asem (t) 05:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Te Wharehuia Milroy

 * Oppose regrettably. There is a 53-year gap in this biography. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm with C&C above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georg Katzer

 * Oppose most of the literature is without reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a Bibliography should be sourced (even though others don't). I don't think that applies here since none of the items appear to claim that they were written by Katzer. I think the "Literature" section is a left over from a translation from de.wiki. En.wiki would call that section Further reading and it belongs below References. Requiring verification for Further reading would be unreasonable requirement at ITN. That is IMHO.--- Coffee  and crumbs  12:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Literature section - which is probably meant - is not a leftover from translation, but collected by User:Jerome Kohl (who is a composer an expert) who wrote the article (see 2010 version), and it's the best collection of literature about the man I have seen, more substantial than in German. We can of course sacrifice it (temporarily) for ITN's sake, but I believe that's no service to the reader. It's only for experts from the start (all in German), and they may be delighted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means keep it, but it needs to be verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Going after these special music papers of 2010 is exactly what I have NO time for. AGF? It's Further reading now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I can verify that the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians article (the sole inline citation until very recently, now removed for some reason) not only exists and is in English rather than German, but that New Grove is not considered by many people to be a "self-published source". In fact, I cannot imagine how that tag got put on the article in the first place, since there is not a single self-published source in the list. Oh, yes, thank you, Gerda for mentioning my name in connection with this article, but I am a music theorist and musicologist, not a composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I didn't recognise the inline refs as refs at all, just something in brackets. I don't think to for the new references is a good idea. What do others think? Same for removing an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks good to me. AGF for German language sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ditto. Sieht mir angemessen aus. – Sca (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seymour Nurse

 * Support looks good enough to be a GA as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as per TRM. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Vanier

 * Support – I spot-checked a few sources and they looked good. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom

 * I cannot find any mention of this at WP:ITN/R, so I've modified this nomination accordingly. I'm not certain about the significance of this; it may be the US's highest civilian award, but Obama awarded about 15 a year, so the significance of an individual award does not seem to be that high. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanamonde93. Banedon (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No way on earth this will be posted, but undoubtedly someone will complain if it is closed at this point. Stephen 03:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest speedy close. Way below the threshold of significance needed for ITN. I believe such presidential medals/awards are awarded literally everyday all over the world to hundreds of people and can't recall any that was posted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are around 200 countries (the exact number depends on how you measure it) in the world, and every one of them has an equivalent honour. If we posted this kind of thing ITN would literally be a rolling ticker of awards. ‑ Iridescent 06:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this really is trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Snooker Championship

 * Support Excellent article with comprehensive coverage of the event.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm just going through changing the tenses and adding anything that needs it. There's a couple of uncited sentences but I'll deal with those now. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a picture available (the Naruhito one will drop off ITN when this and the one below are posted). I've just added it to WP:CMP for protection. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now protected. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. The event finished less than an hour ago, so it's likely the event will have some tense issues. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Question: Should the final's score (18-9) appear in the blurb (as in 'after defeating John Higgins 18-9 in the final.')? That would give the reader a quick overview of how things turned out. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, we don't post scores. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The precedence from the last few years seem to be to omit the score. From 2015-2018, only the 2017 blurb contained the final score. Gust Justice (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support in extremely good condition (barring a few minor quibbles which aren't stipulated for ITN), thanks to a handful of highly dedicated and able editors. Very good work indeed, something we should be proud to see in the ITN section so quickly after the tournament's conclusion.  Well done all involved.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – This is ITNR and the target article more than meets all reasonable quality standards. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone please take care of updating the picture. --Tone 20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If only I could. But service is so slow these days, it's kind of sad we have at least two stories ahead of the current pictured one... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity

 * Support Headline news in UK and I see top article on Le Monde. Would have nominated myself but couldn't find the relevant article! yorkshiresky (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support when article is ready (C class is pretty good). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Article not perfect but is ready to go now. I will start your separate article but this is exhausting so some help would be great. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Very important news for the planet.The lorax (talk)
 * Support - It behooves us to make people aware of this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Shouldn't the report have its own article rather than a five-line update in another article? Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Please don't bite me. I support in principle. I am playing devil's advocate in the hopes that this will get to something post-able in the future. I do not see a clear target article. Assuming the IPBES article is the target, there are dozens of paragraphs that remain uncited including entire sections. If you really wanted to be successfully tendentious, you went about this all wrong. (WP:IAR can also be applied to WP:TE. No humans means no Wikipedia.) Start a new article called The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and focus on the report and the release. If the release of this report is a truly ITN-worthy event then this should not be difficult. Right now all we have is the 40-page Summary for Policy Makers of the forthcoming full report. The summary was released today in Paris. The final report is expected to exceed 1,500 pages and is yet to be released. Good luck and I hope you succeed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Coffeeandcrumbs's suggestion, I took a stab at a fork article. Let me know what else needs to be added.The lorax (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a separate article as well, should not be that hard to fork it from the big one. --Tone 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs and Tone. There is no article on this subject and there should be one for an ITN entry. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article is a horror show ("C-class" is meaningless if most if it is unreferenced) and I'm with the folks who think such a substantial piece of news should havef sufficient coverage to stand alone from that grim piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Coffee, TRM. (Article smacks of a secretary's meeting minutes.) – Sca (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is a reason. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would also agree to use caution here without an article on the full report per Coffee + others. --M asem (t) 21:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose These articles need significant rewrite to be eligible for Mainpage. In fact, the former looks like a longstanding copyvio. I am looking into it. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Whole article is a copyvio, not main page ready without a whole lot of manhours to rewrite from the ground up. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Break
 * Support Alt 3 – A new article was created per my suggestion and I have made some improvements to it. I have suggested a blurb to use and also boldly modified the nomination. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3, excellent work! --Tone 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For your information. The article has been improved.     )LennBr ({talk) 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to sign again if you error when pinging. I gotchu.     . ---  Coffee  and crumbs  08:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - good work, and I think ALT3 is almost there. One question though - does the list of "further statements" count as a copyvio? Looking at the German source, the bullet points seem to be almost word-for-word copied from the translated version of that. Although they're announcements of the report, it's arguable that the precise wording is still the newspaper's and therefore should be paraphrased rather than copied? Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Answer - indeed, the bullet points were nearly copyied and then extended by other statements from the Source. It can be put into context writing: "according to the source". Howeever, a other argument could be, that those statements were extracted from the Global-Assessment-Report. LennBr (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still weak oppose Obviously we still have some article problems - near copy-taking of this is not good even if it is the bullet points. But the larger issue I have is this is the trimmed version of the report for policy makers so it is biased in one direction. I realize the UN made big fanfare of this version, that this summary version is not likely so skewed to be over-emphasizing facts or trying to employ doomsday scare tactics, but we really should wait for the full report to be released so that 1) it can be linked and 2) we can use additional judgement of other subject matter experts to comment about it. But I doubt that point will be ITN when that's released, hence a weak oppose. I would support on the basis of a good quality article that has no copyvio issues for this summary. (BTW is it just me or do we not even link to the summary in that article?) --M asem (t) 14:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the PDF the IPBES released in a Dropbox: which admittedly only further proves your point. It can be reached with some difficulty from our external link.---  Coffee  and crumbs  14:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I went to IPBES's site and found this link with two clicks. --M asem  (t) 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trout me! How did I miss that? --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was weird that there was no easy link to a broadly-announced UN/UN agency report. Just that their press releases this time around did a crap job of getting you to the right page to find that report (cmpared to say the last climate change big study). --M asem (t) 15:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have linked it now and of course paraphrased the copyvio as much as I can. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3 - All of the previous concerns seem to be assuaged.The lorax (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems the issues have been fixed, ready to post. I'd just like to reformulate the blurb to be in line with ITN style. What about "The UN release a report stating ..." ? --Tone 06:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I now regret using BrEng in the article. Just kidding! "The United Nations report that due to human activity the Earth's biodiversity has suffered a catastrophic decline that is unprecedented in human history." --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good :) Posting. --Tone 12:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After-posting weak oppose Not sure I would call this a consensus to post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) New royal baby in Britain

 * Oppose stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 7th in line for the throne, we did post the birth of Prince George who is in direct line but not his younger siblings. --Tone 14:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Couple have baby shocker. As above, he's almost certain never to ascend to the throne, and we didn't post his cousins who have very slightly more chance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Your definition of "mega-huge" clearly differs from mine. ‑ Iridescent 14:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless the baby's ginger. Then strongest possible support. On Gingerpedia. Seriously, this is front page news in the UK but I'm not sure it will be even in the Commonwealth. Shame, cos it's always nice to have a positive story. But this ain't the one. Neo is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

 * Oppose it remains in the news, so I'm against this. Banedon (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Still on a slow boil simmering, it seems. Sca (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – As you said elsewhere on this page, Mondays are not a good day to judge ongoing topics. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet that elsewhere was evicted from the box, even though it's still getting regular updates and still being in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though I agree, two wrongs don't make a right. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are pretty clear. Pulling Mueller was right, so is pulling this. It doesn't stay in the box just because there is a "slow boil". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree with Coffee that two wrongs don't make a right, and that you were right to protest about the removal of the Mueller Report, which should not have been pulled (more on that here if you're interested). That said, I have no firm views on the merits of the current removal proposal, except that the very dubious Mueller removal should not be used to justify this one.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove The guidelines are anything but clear. I'd like to suggest that ongoing only be used to keep us from posting blurb after blurb about the same event. In other words, new events (of the significance that would at least merit a nom) would have to be continually happening. It made sense to add this back when we did, but it should go now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Ongoing was never designed for slow boil stories with basically nothing of note taking place, regardless of the occasional reporting of those trying to justify a living. And we all know that last time it was removed, some "really exciting coup" nearly took place, so clearly ITN is driving the direction of this crisis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic of your argument would seem to be that we should remove this again in the hope of provoking another coup attempt, just like last time. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do Brits really have names like Francis Fortescue &c - ?? – Sca (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, my real name is Sir Charles Peddington-Smythe. And as far as I know, TRM is called Henry Albert Cockburn Rutherford. No Dick Smiths around here, thank you very much. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some really do (and really do inflict names on their offspring such as Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher, Peter Theodore Alphege, Mary Anne Charlotte Emma, Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan, Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam and Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg), but TRM above is quoting the fictional Francis Urquhart, whose name is meant to be less significant than his initials - I thanked TRM for that post (which was in reply to mine), perhaps unwisely so, as it may or may not have been intended as an imaginative, amusing, and (perhaps most importantly) deniable way to tell me 'FU' (or at least it might be if I were allowed to ignore WP:AGF, which I'm not, so I won't). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, don't be silly, it was nothing to do with "fuck you", it would have be FY, right? No, it was just that conspiracy thing in (the original) House of Cards where FU would tell people that.  Much better than the US remake, and fewer criminals involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is still in the news.BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: you may spare us from the "failure/never happening" and the "avoid just because the crisis has been going for a while" arguments every time you oppose notability on a Venezuelan article.  --MaoGo (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No significant update for 3 days, still in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal per WP:ITN. Now, this article's most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN. Here, I interpret "most recent update" to mean the most recent update adding a significant new event, which occurred on 2 May. I compared this to the oldest item on ITN, Cyclone Fani making landfall on 3 May. When I commented yesterday, there was an older item at ITN.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per Coffeeandcrumbs. The story may not necessarily be over, in that there's no resolution, but there are no ongoing significant developments and it ko longer meets the typical conditions for the Ongoing section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Mild) oppose news: seven deputies are been charged for treason related to the uprising. --MaoGo (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed mostly per Coffeeandcrumbs note that the last substantive update is older than the oldest current blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019)

 * Oppose for the moment, tagged empty section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still oppose the original blurb per NPOV (use of "militants" in blurb and disputed tag on target article ). Also, the cease fire now in effect should be the focus of the blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like a good thing to put in ongoing. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support major clash with high casualty. I've posted an altblurb to address the neutrality issue in the original raised by . Article is decent enough. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections to the Altblurb's wording. But I am having a hard time reconciling the death tolls. The NYTimes puts latest numbers at 26 (22 Palestinians and 4 Israelis). However, our article's infobox has different figures above that. I suspect some people were double counted in the target article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a major escalation. Possible connection to ESC 2019. This is ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb is better. Article is in good shape.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb is verifiable in the article now and good enough. The article is good to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Norma Miller

 * Oppose Allan Jones is a dab and TV/filmography unreferenced at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Aeroflot Flight 1492

 * Comment Have we actually got a source for the casualties? As of now CNN is saying 10 people injured, and RT (who ordinarily aren't a reliable source but in this case presumably know) is saying 1 dead and 4 injured. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN now saying 13+ dead. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment definitely needs to wait. The article is in conflict with itself and doesn't seem to reflect the majority of RS saying one dead.  Of course, this may change, but let's not over-egg it until there's more to verify such claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - as information comes in, the article is being updated. Latest from TASS and RT is 13 dead. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but change "13" to "many" or "a number". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - BBC now say At least 41 killed. I've updated the proposed blurb and am about to check the article. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 21:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for confirmed death toll in the blurb to be reflected in the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is no longer a stub and is adequately referenced. Expansion and updates are likely to continue as more information becomes available but the article is acceptable for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article now of start class quality and 41 deaths means it passes the significance bar. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Image dropped into protection queue. --M asem (t) 00:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough as is.  Schwede 66  03:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on both notability and article quality. The article's sourcing is impressive and the confirmed casualties demonstrate that the story is significant. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I added altblurb since the fire started during landing when it slammed on the runway the second time after it bounced and not "in-flight".
 * Posted Stephen 04:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Been reported twice at WP:MPE, but still no image. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kentucky Derby

 * Comment I would note specifically that disqualifying the horse that crossed the line first has never occurred before in the extensive history of the Derby, and should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be significant in the coverage, so I added altblurb for that. --M asem (t) 01:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. The article has a tag about lack of detail in the race. It is ITNR so once the quality concerns have been fixed, it is good to go. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, as this was a first, although it should be clarified that this was the first DQ for something that happened on the track (the 1968 winner was DQed after failing a drug test). Article needs just a couple more cites and should mention this in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why mentioning the interference call - which can only happen during the race - is important. The original blurb could have implied doping or other pre-race issues. --M asem (t) 14:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant, first ever DQ of first place in history of Kentucky Derby, which is the most famous horse race. Rockin 12:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt 1, although suggest we make it "a first in Derby history." A "shocker" outcome. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment in good condition, although the table sorting is wrong for "margin" and I'm not sure I follow second highest-priced winner (behind ___) unless there was really a horse called "___". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting with a slight tweak to the blurb and linking both horses since the articles exist. --Tone 17:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rachel Held Evans
Open to supporting She was well-known in progressive Christian circles.-TenorTwelve (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is eligible to post. The discussion is only on if it's of sufficient quality, not if it's worthy of front page status. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prospero Nograles

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn crowned

 * Comment. We posted the death of the prior King when it happened (October 2016) as ITNR since that's when the succession took place(the current King's article states the government declared his reign to have begun at that time). We don't usually post inaugurations/coronations as that just formalizes what has already taken place. Either way, I don't think this is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not ITNR, since the succession happened in 2016 (and was posted then, twice). In any case, it's the top story on most news sites today, so it could stand for discussion on its own. There's a more directly relevant Coronation of Vajiralongkorn article, but Coronation of the Thai monarch is much better developed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Meh. Is the hoopla over yet? – Sca (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - too many CN tags, coronation section too short. I would be fine posting this in a better state. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article is full of unverifiable claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now purely on article quality. Support on merits if/when the article is brought up to speed.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality per above comments Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added alt blurbs 1 & 2 with alternative bold items. The Alt2 article's update is rather minimal, but it's the only one without significant quality issues. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1. There have been some updates on the articles. Coronation of the Thai monarch now looks much better. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Alt 2. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I mean the first Alternative blurb: The coronation of Vajiralongkorn is held in Thailand. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Goro Shimura

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  not "minimally comprehensive" 30 years at Princeton and nothing about his career? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He spent 30 years at Princeton developing mathematics and advising students... I'm not sure what else you'd like to see. His career was primarily his research which is discussed in the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing published? Not head of or part of any professional organization? Nothing? Just went to work every day and went home? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article already has a large collection of works listed on his page in addition to the discussion in the "Research" section about the various mathematical concepts (whose separate articles are already linked) that he pioneered through his published papers and books. He was never head of the American Mathematical Society nor the International Mathematical Union (nor were most influential and well-established mathematicians) so there was nothing to be mentioned about any "professional organization" roles. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's there and always was. I just didn't scroll past "See also". My bad. Oppose stricken. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I fleshed out the "biography" section a bit with the MacTutor page as a guide. If he stayed in one place for 30 years and just did research, taught students and won prizes, then saying as much is adequate coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Renowned mathematician, very well-known for the Taniyama–Shimura–Weil conjecture. Article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work, ready for posting. -Zanhe (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Fani

 * Comment Three deaths is really not a lot for a substantial storm, but it seems damage is still being assessed so more may be found. Not immediately opposing but if only three deaths are the major impact, given that millions had to evacuate, this is rather small. --M asem (t) 15:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  I Need Support  :3 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This would also require the blurb to change too.  I Need Support  :3 16:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll change my !vote to Support due to the destruction and death the storm occurred. Impact section of the article needs some work, but it'll be expanded soon as more information about the storm's destruction is published.  I Need Support  :3 02:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also support the alternate blurb, since the word "slammed" is not formal.  I Need Support  :3 13:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 *  Wait and oppose the blurb Too little is known regarding the actual impacts as it just made landfall earlier today. Additionally, I feel it would be better to focus on the deaths and damages rather than the landfall intensity. However, this is the most intense storm in the basin since Cyclone Gonu in '07 (strength is measured by pressure). Also, it is better to use the actual name of the cyclone when referring to 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 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to basically say "Cyclone Fani, the strongest storm to hit the region in X years, kills Y people and causes significant damage in Z areas." Also... get an image of 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 21:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Wait for now Support More time is needed to understand the impact of the storm. The death count has already gone up since the nomination (3 to 8). I wouldn't oppose on quality at this time (as all of the expected subsections of any tropical cyclone article are present and contain a substantial amount of sourced material). I will support on both notability and on quality if it is later revealed thatthe storm's impact was any more significant than it is currently believed to be. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now 30 people killed Sherenk1 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed my !vote accordingly Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm slightly concerned about the lack of sources in the lead. It's basically a rehash of the meteorological summary. Also, for "significant death toll" (whatever the hell that means) the only details are "At least 16 people were killed in Odisha by the storm. and 14 people were reportedly killed in eight districts of Bangladesh." which does not strike me as "minimally comprehensive". --LaserLegs (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's common for leads of tropical cyclone articles to contain summaries of the major sections (being the meteorological history & impact sections) without the sources being contained in the lead itself. For comparison, here is a GA-class tropical cyclone article. The Cyclone Fani article is actually in rather impressive shape. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I was still trying to reconcile facts in the lead about when it hit peak intensity with referenced sources in the body and I couldn't (the body says it hit cat 5 on 2 May, but the statement "peak intensity" isn't there -- maybe it doesn't have to be). Either way, the impact section is too thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually says it was just below the category 5 equivalent, which is correct (it peaked at 155 mph one minute sustained, and anything above 156 would be categorized as a category 5, making it a very high end category 4). Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * JTWC winds are not official for any basin, so the Saffir-Simpson scale isn't exactly relevant to Fani. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 04:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion was not stating that the winds are relevant to Fani, but rather a response to LL's initial confusion regarding the article (his post read that "the body says it hit cat 5" which is not a correct statement) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never had to source anything in the lead. I have written many GAs and a FA without sourced info in the lead. General rule of thumb is that the information must be sourced in the body of the article. If that is true, lead sources aren’t required. Yes, the impact needs expanded and I will work on it when I get home. I do still oppose the blurb as it isn’t that great. <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 21:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDECITE Ledes do not need citations as long as the info is supported by citations in the body, except when direct quotes are cited. --M asem (t) 23:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that thank you, and I couldn't reconcile basic facts like "peak intensity" from the lead in the body. Never mind, this has "significant deaths" go ahead and rush it to the MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant death toll and much greater economic impact. The referencing is good enough in my view to warrant a blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added image c:File:Fani_2019-05-02_1657Z.jpg which shows the cyclone just after peak intensity with the Indian coast visible on the left side of the image. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb as being slightly sensational (is "slammed into" absolutely necessary?) and providing incorrect wind speeds - the Indian Meteorological Department, which is in charge of issuing advisories on Fani, states that 3-minute sustained winds at landfall were 185 km/h (source, official twitter account). Support alt blurb but could be more specific about landfall location. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 04:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and offered second alt that's straightforward and non-sensational. Notability is an easy pass, article quality is more than sufficient. Previous opposes should be outdated at this point ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, posting. --Tone 15:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Transmission of HIV/AIDS
comment This certainly is big. We should be very cautious with medical/health claims however (as you indicate), especially when "proving a negative" is involved. The research indicates that the study suggests the transmission rate goes effectively to zero. The above blurbs all state it as a fact (and facts, rather than news are also not suitable for ITN). Thus, despite making the blurb less sexy I would go for something like L.tak (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Lancet study suggests HIV is effectively untransmittable through condomless sex if the HIV-positive partner has an undetectable viral load
 * This point is taken up in the consensus statement supported by 850+ HIV/AIDS organisations... I don't mind the addition of "effectively", but I do think attributing it to the Lancet makes t sound like a result from one study when it is actually the culmination of a whole series of investigations. Added as alt blurb 3 without the starting bit.  EdChem (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, statistical result affecting tiny fraction of HIV positive persons worldwide. I doubt that the source even passes WP:MEDRS to be on Wikipedia at all. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not news. That HAART renders HIV effectively non-transmissible has been known for years. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the above posts. Trivial at best, but most people who are aware of the disease already know it does not transmit by traditional means like many diseases. 70.14.46.83 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, and possibly modify along the lines of L.tak's suggestion. Here's another source: . Thsmi002 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Below the radar. Sca (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A news blurb cannot merely state a fact about the natural world, because such facts are not "new." We must include a clause such as "A study shows" or "NIH announces" to convey recentness. Only with such a clause applied can we consider if the recent event/discovery meets the general significance criteria for ITN. Also, given our intent to inform, the new information must be readily found in the targeted article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if properly worded for a "result of a medical study" per GCG above, I'm not sure of the major significance here in that HIV still exists in the world and doesn't change its spread, onl that one avenue it thought it was spread is now believed closed off. I would think an HIV story would be based on coming up with a sure-fire cure, or the announcement the virus is considered eradicated by WHO or other groups. --M asem (t) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good-faith nomination, but the provided information doesn't seem to suggest that this is a major change in the common understanding of HIV/AIDS. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we’ve known this since 2003, when fertility clinics stopped funding people with undetectable loads because it is safe for them to reproduce naturally. That’s a whole 16 years ago. Kingsif (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Mayhew

 * Weak support - article is generally okay but the cn tags and unreferenced paragraphs needs work, ASAP. The article is gonna get massive viewcounts with or without RD. Juxlos (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per lack of citations for several paragraphs in the Star Wars section. The article needs a light copyedit as well.  Sounder Bruce  00:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please protect or at least semi-protect. NO ONE needs to see that.
 * The article has been semi-d by Muboshgu. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  01:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. He's clearly notable. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a question for RD, he has an article, it's just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged and refs missing before that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Unless someone updates the article with proper citations, then it's a strong support. Rockin 11:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support all tags have been cleared.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Improvements have been made. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Juan Vicente Torrealba

 * Oppose stub with referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments article improved. -- Jamez42 16:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Has been expanded a bit but still needs more references.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of Denisovans on the Tibetan Plateau

 * Support - Surprised that no one has yet commented on this. There have been some significant strides recently in understanding the variety and spread of Homo (various), and this finding is certainly one of them. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the anon. The reason no-one's commented is probably that it sounds like a creature from Dr Who. But the article's in OK shape, and this is literally an event universal to humanity. Etc. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Another possible explanation for the lack of comments is that this was nominated 11 minutes prior to his comment and 15 before yours. And posted in less that three...  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support per nom's comments and per other supporting comments above. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Accession of Emperor Naruhito

 * I am boldly changing this to an ITNR nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing if by some miracle the box turns that fast, then ongoing it. Also Oppose blurb article has serious referencing issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Not that this is not ITN (last one was 200 years ago, we're living the dream!) but per our article "The enthronement ceremony will likely happen on 22 October 2019" I think we need to have this as a fixed thing, likely ending May 6 (the last day that this part of the ceremony will be treated in a special manner). Then when the enthronement comes around, we can have another ongoing. --M asem (t) 23:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing but Support blurb in principle. It's a long process but the actual date the transition occurs is April 30/May 1. -Zanhe (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. Obvious blurb in principle, when articles are in shape; we should probably be assessing all of Akihito, Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan (which presumably is about to move) as well as the target mentioned here. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Once the abdication becomes formal, this will fall under WP:ITNR as a change in head of state and the blurb will be automatic subject only to article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any kind of posting, target article is under-referenced and not adequate in any sense for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article has yet a way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the abdication took place at 08:00 UTC on April 30 so this has already happened. Hektor (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per TRM. Citation issues are plenty. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article is a horrible list of WP:PROSELINE, much of it unreferenced. Could we bold one (or both) of the two biographies, which look in much better shape? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – ITNR notwithstanding, I'm not convinced this is really significant: It was officially announced two years ago, and before that Akihito, now 85, had been hinting at it for years. Furthermore, AFAIK the emperor of Japan is a ceremonial position whose occupant has little actual political power. As to ITNR, since the last abdication was 200 years ago, this is hardly a "recurring" event. Sca (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We've tried, in the past, to fix the loophole making pointless figure heads ITNR. Every time it's failed. It's probably not the hill you want to die on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yugo. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that this is an abdication of an emperor ruling the most populous monarchy in the world, and it marks the start of a new era in the country's traditionalist society. While it's clear that it's just a ceremonial position, its significance would've surely not been brought into question had this even not been listed as an ITNR and no resignations of ceremonial heads of states been posted before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When Nicholas II, 50, and Wilhelm II, 59, abdicated amid war and revolution as emperors of Russia and Germany, respectively, a century ago, it was watershed news. Akihito, 85, has abdicated due to age and infirmity, not as a result of political issues. It's a big event in Japan for reasons of national tradition, but not anywhere else. – Sca (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason of abdication is irrelevant for that matter, such events naturally enter the historical textbooks anyway as milestones in national histories, especially in the case of the world's oldest monarchy which is Japan and the end of a 30-year reign. So does an encyclopedia. Brandmeistertalk  15:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reasons for great historical events are never irrelevant. – Sca (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except blurbs where they are often omitted, as in this one. Brandmeistertalk  20:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If a blurb contained his age the reason wouldn't be omitted. Sca (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You are probably correct that the abdication on April 30 is NOT ITNR, but the succession of the new Emperor on May 1 seemingly is ITNR. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, posting as a blurb, once properly updated. Ceremonial or not, this event does look like a big deal in historical terms. Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the main article, 2019 Japanese imperial transition, looks good enough and is not currently tagged one way or the other. Brandmeistertalk  14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality only. Support either the blurb or ongoing, even ignoring that this may not be an ITNR; this is still an appropriate ITNC. Unfortunately, the timeline and the table are unsourced completely, that needs to be fixed. Is there a way those can be combined? --M asem (t) 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. If the problem are unsourced statements in the article, they can be removed (especially the table) and reinstated when proper references are found. This is a very important moment for Japan (a change of an era happens few times in a century) and it clearly deserves a mention. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, no, we don't just "censor" articles to get them on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not censoring, it's removing unreferenced material. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is historical moment for Japan. 68.65.83.93 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLP. Both the transition article and the one on the new Emperor are inadequately referenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as timely notification of the change of head of state of a major world power. Radagast (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously I'd prefer if the emperors' articles were also of good quality. But the bolded article is the one about the transition, and I see no problems with it. Davey2116 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  23:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as news event, not convinced it should be ongoing. The article's do seem to be undergoing improvement. CMD (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The emperor BLPs are missing a few references. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, in principle The topic is either ITNR or culturally important, but the articles could be further improved. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event, bolded article is ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This item should seemingly be renamed 'Accession of Emperor Naruhito' and moved from April 30 to May 1. The apparent reason is that the abdication at midnight at the end of April 30 is seemingly not ITNR, but the new Emperor (an instant later at the start of May 1) seemingly is. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Article ready for posting. Significant event.BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Timeline and ceremonies sections are lacking sources. Probably they can be sourced to a single source but until this is done, we cannot post to ITN. --Tone 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. He's had his week of int'l puffery. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First you oppose an ITNR item on significance, now you want to...what? Close the nom because it's "stale" despite being newer than the newest item posted?  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This user does not respond to users who don't exist. Boo! – Sca (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with the ghost; if you're going to say he's had his week, at least wait until it's actually been at least one week. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Sca, originally opposed an allegedly ITNR item both seemingly 'inappropriately' (or at least in a supposedly inappropriate forum) on significance but eventually also seemingly 'appropriately' on whether the abdication was ITNR, at a time when it was in fact correct to question at least its ITNR status (since the item was then headlined as about the abdication, which was not ITNR, rather then about the succession, which is ITNR).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - the emperor of Japan is ceremonial, yes, but if Elizabeth II dies/abdicates tomorrow the ITN would be posted in a heartbeat. This is certainly a gigantic event in Japanese circles at least and a major news worldwide, especially compared to some specific annual sports event or something. Juxlos (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the emperor is the head of state in Japan. This is the formal transition of the title, if no longer of the power. Regardless of any personal opinion about "pointless figureheads", the question really comes down to whether ITN recognises the relevance of heads of state. If no, all heads of state should be treated similarly, regardless of country. If yes, this should be posted. Btw I agree that while the abdication itself may or may not be ITNR (in some countries it is exceedingly rare, in others the modern norm), the transition (per accession) certainly is ITNR. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with caveat on quality - I counted a total of six sentences that still need to be verified. I've seen articles in much, much worse shape get fixed in a matter of hours. This nomination has been stalling for days due to the need for additional sources, so I'm going to try to look for some myself, and I'd appreciate if any other editors would like to cite a sentence or two. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all of the sentences with citation needed tags, but the "Timeline" and "Ceremonies" subsections are still problematic. Any help would be welcomed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't the pdfs given in the external links verify the 'timeline' and 'ceremonies' information? I don't read Japanese, so I can't say for certain. Maybe ask one of the Japanese-speaking editors who are editing the article? This does look close to being ready to post. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't read Japanese either, but if any Japanese-speaking editor can verify that the provided links do in fact verify these sections, then it's good to go :) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Editor who added the ceremonies table here. The ceremonies are indeed sourced from the pdfs in the external links, they are both publicly available information from the Imperial Household Agency and the Prime Minister of Japan's official websites. TheInfernoX (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you! I think it's ready to be posted now. I've struck my reservations from my comments. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 04:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support But "succeeded by" should be bolded instead of "abdicates" if it's about the ascension of Naruhito and not the abdication of Akihito. 2601:601:1001:E120:A1B5:51FB:E3EB:A009 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We should also mention this begins the Reiwa era. This is internationally and historically significant.-TenorTwelve (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I've added Altblurb1 per the above IPV6 comment. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done, looks much better now. Posting. I'll add the Reiwa in the blurb. --Tone 15:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Fiona Onasanya

 * Oppose local politics, and worse for the fact that it's fucking bonkers that a serving MP can go to prison and still be an MP unless their constituents get all disgruntled about it. Perverse. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only came here because I was pinged in the nomination (for which thank you Mjroots!), but this does seem to be a significantly more limited story than most of the material in ITN. It's more politics-geekery than significant news, in my view. The Land (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a first for the UK. I don't know how other countries deal with getting rid of their Members of Parliament in similar circumstances. If it gets posted, then great. If not, I really don't mind. Often an ITN nom has the side effect of more eyes on the article and improvements thereto. This is very much a "suck it and see" nom. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor politics, indeed not even the biggest story of the day in UK politics, let alone worldwide. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some interest in that she's the first MP to be successfully recalled via a petition, but doesn't cross the ITN threshold.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support First time this has happened in the UK, which seems notable enough. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Though perhaps not so much when you realise that recall petitions have only existed since 2015. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose As others have said, this is minor politics, and not really good for ITN. --M asem (t) 20:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable. 84percent (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Undue. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Thai queen

 * Comment Too short, and what's there is missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the story, the story is the formal coronation of Vajiralongkorn in a few days. Her being named his consort is part of that. --M asem (t) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the marriage procedure took place today, while Vajiralongkorn has been king since 2016. So this is the moment. Brandmeistertalk  18:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this has no impact on the rule of Thailand, this otherwise doesn't seem appropriate for ITN. I do see when we posted Vajiralongkorn taking the throne back in Dec 2016, so this changes nothing. --M asem (t) 19:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be gauged only by the impact on rule. We did post Prince William's and Harry's weddings. This is a level higher. Brandmeistertalk  19:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He could have not chosen a queen if he really wanted to, but since he made the time to choose his mistress as his queen, then it should be posted. CaptainAhab1841talk
 * Unlike those grand spectacles of William's and Harry's, this was a private wedding that, like his parents' 69 years ago, was held just prior to the coronation for traditional reasons. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way below ITN threshold of importance. A pseudo-ceremonial position with zero political and military authority. Article contains little content about the subject, more than half being collection of titles and awards. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Ammarpad, although the coronation is ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and save the slot for the coronation, which, though it isn't ITNR (the succession happened three years ago), is a significant enough event to be considered on its own. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both comments by Paul_012. However, Vajiralongkorn is also unlikely to pass the WP:V and WP:BLP smell tests at this time. I encourage those interested to instead preemptively prepare that article lest we have another royal event go without an ITN blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Caster Semenya loses appeal

 * Oppose emotive tone and really not rising to the level of ITN in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Below the radar on most RS sites, and of dubious broader significance. Sca (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A ruling (or maintenance of one) that only affects a small proportion of Olympic-class athletes. Also agree the blurb given is POV relative to the BBC's description of the process. --M asem  (t) 13:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunate ruling, but definitely not a major news story. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support this on newsworthiness (I'd say it's more newsworthy than Fiona Onasanya losing her seat, the nomination above because global athletics is a bigger issue than British politics). So I'd encourage people saying it's not significant enough to think about what context and standards they are applying. However, the text suggested is very different from the tone of coverage in most RSes. The Land (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a terribly POV blurb - having to take medication to reduce testosterone is hardly "chemical castration."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable at all. A wholly insingificant event and barely semi-significant person. 84percent (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)