Open main menu

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.


Kawhi Leonard in 2019
Kawhi Leonard

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...Edit

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


June 16Edit

Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

2019 South American blackoutEdit

Article: 2019 South American blackout (talk, history)
Blurb: Argentina and Uruguay lost all power in a major blackout.
News source(s): [1]

Nominator's comments: Working on expansion now, may be a while for sufficient coverage to reach main page. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Aging infrastructure fails, this isn't news. Unless it caused a major number of deaths (eg hospital patients dying) or the like, this is an unfortunate event. --Masem (t) 14:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm pretty sure wiping out electricity to two entire countries and heavily impacting a third counts as 'news'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle: As mentioned above, this is an extraordinarily noteworthy event. I really do not understand the logic of an event 'having to cause deaths' to be notable. That is ridiculous. However, the article is currently too short, and needs to be expanded at least a little before it should be posted to ITN. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a blackout caused by failures of high voltage lines, but even within hours, power was getting restored. Lives were inconvinenced, not threatened. --Masem (t) 14:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support pending some expansion. A wholesale blackout affecting several countries simultaneously is significant enough. Brandmeistertalk 15:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a large area of the world to lose power all at once ... a lot more than the Northeast blackout of 2003, and we have an article on that even though it lasted only 10 hours where I live. Blurb should be amended to note that not all of Argentina is out (Tierra del Fuego, isolated from the country's grid, still has power, which is good for them since it's very cold and dark down there this time of year. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As mentioned above, this is a remarkable event that affects several countries and millions of people. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless something like cyber terrorism is involved, and so far, no impact noted beyond inconvenience. Probably ought not even have an article, just a one-liner in each country's recent history section. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Limited lasting impact. SpencerT•C 18:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Time to pull the plug on this one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – More a commentary on regional conditions than a significant event. Unsee reports of casualties. – Sca (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see how it's insignificant for such a large country to have such a widespread outage (especially when said outage also affects many of its neighboring countries) in which millions of people were affected. Take out "most of Argentina" and put in "most of the US/UK" and it would more likely than not get posted shortly after power is restored. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard. Banedon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • Seven people—four sanitation workers and three staff members—die after inhaling toxic fumes from a Darshsan Hotel sewer cleaning in the village of Fartikui in western India. The hotel owner is charged with the fatalities. (BBC)

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Franco ZeffirelliEdit

Article: Franco Zeffirelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Italian film director. Minor ref issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSECTION. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (sadly). Massive figure in the film world, and I'd love to see him on the MP, but the article just is not in good enough shape - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident
    • An unnamed United States official claims that, just prior to the attack on two merchant vessels, an Iranian vessel launched a surface to air missile at a MQ-9 Reaper drone in the vicinity of the attack. An additional MQ-9 Reaper is reported to have been shot down by Houthi rebels several days prior in the Red Sea. (CNN)
    • The president of the Japanese shipping company offers a different account of the attack than that provided by the United States. Yutaka Katada says the Filipino crew of the Kokuka Courageous oil tanker said their vessel was apparently first hit by an artillery shell rather than a mine. The United States said the tanker was attacked by limpet mines and released a video it says shows Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from the oil tanker's side. (The Washington Post) (BBC)
    • A U.S. official says Iranian Navy gunboats are preventing the damaged Norwegian-owned Front Altair oil tanker from being towed away by two private tugboats in the Gulf of Oman. (Reuters)
    • United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres calls for an independent investigation to establish the facts and responsibility for the oil tankers attacks in the Gulf of Oman. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
  • At least 61 people have been killed and 356,000 evacuated from their homes as heavy rain and floods swept through large parts of southern and central China this week. (Al Jazeera)

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro
    • In response to a controversial pension reform proposal and cuts in the education budget, a general strike by over 40 million workers takes place in Brazil. Demonstrations are held in over 80 cities across the country. (France24)

(Ready) RD: Ning BinEdit

Article: Ning Bin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support Would like to see more added about Ning's specific research contributions; article has a single sentence on this (Ning was a pioneer in developing the digitized signalling systems of China's rapid transit networks and made significant contributions to the control systems of China's high-speed railway network and rapid transit networks.) That said, his article is more fleshed out than other members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and meets minimum standards for RD. Props to Zanhe for expanding the article substantially. SpencerT•C 02:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • support - ready enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and despite being clueless, I can see this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2019 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Toronto Raptors defeats the Golden State Warriors to win its first NBA Championship.
Alternative blurb: ​In basketball, the Toronto Raptors defeat the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA Finals (MVP Kawhi Leonard pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​In basketball, the Toronto Raptors defeat the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA Finals (MVP Kawhi Leonard pictured), becoming the first Canadian team to do so.
News source(s): [2]

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

 OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh Canada! game 6 summary needs a ref then good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Non-newsworthy. Too many sports events after NHL finals earlier this week. Just stop already. 07:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
We don't control when events are scheduled. This event is on the recurring events list, meaning that notability is not at issue, and we are only waiting for a quality update to the article. If you feel this should not be on the recurring events list, you are free to propose its removal. Usually our most common complaint is that not enough things are posted. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Should the blurb note that the Raptors are the first Canadian team to win the Finals? 331dot (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    I've added a more standard blurb as an alt (with image to the series MVP).—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb I (as its proposer). The fact that it is Toronto's first is significant to mostly just Canadian basketball fans.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that, Canadians read Wikipedia, too. Googling "Canada winning NBA finals" brings up many results. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not say that Canadians do not read Wikipedia. Still, perhaps there'd be more interest to say they are first non-American team. But I'm still OK with the vanilla alt blurb I. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
First win is notable no matter what. Could be mentioned for the blues as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment when this goes up, could we leave Pietrangelo in the box for another day or so? If not it's fine, but our turn over is so slow it'd be nice to have the image change to Leonard in a few days. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the anon IP; we've passed on including the NBA Finals in past years so it's not like it's automatically mandatory to include it this time around. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 11:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • More likely if the article was not ready. ITNR is not an exemption for quality. Which year are you referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and discount the oppose votes. This is an ITN/R event. It will be posted, once the article update meets the quality standards for ITN. Nominate its removal from ITN/R if you are so inclined. WaltCip (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support opposition votes are meaningless in the case of a well-updated ITNR nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR and the article is in good shape. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ITNR. Good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Beyond noting that the finals are an ITN/R event, it is significant to all basketball fans because it is the NBA Finals and because it is the first championship with this international component, and Canada does warrant a footnote in the history of the game. I'd like to recommend the Toronto Star's article as an alternative however as it not an agency article but was written by one of the series' pool reporters. Finally, I would support Pietrangelo hanging around for a bit as it was a notable victory for the Blues as well. ogenstein (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support' Dont need to necessarily mention first Canadian Team as long as its mentioned that its first Raptors win. Given they are only Canadian team atleast for last like 19 years (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps alt blurb II could be condensed to "... defeat the Golden State Warriors, becoming the first Canadian team to win the NBA Finals ...". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Don’t forget, this also was a major cultural movement as it bought the whole of Canada together (coast to coast). The last time a Canadian team won in a major sports league in North America was 26 years ago. RehmanK786 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
During which time we've watched our real sports team win nine world championships and three Olympic golds, several handily. North American basketball is technically our game, too, but we gave it to the States before TV even existed. Still way bigger than lacrosse, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted but image has only just been added to get protection. --Masem (t) 15:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • And now updated with protected image. --Masem (t) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note for consistency's sake, can an admin either hyperlink basketball in the blurb, or remove the hyperlink from the hockey blurb? --PlasmaTwa2 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Is there a reason the Canada aspect was left out? This aspect is getting coverage in the BBC among other outlets. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Came to comment on this exclusion too. I believe the information about being the first Canadian team to achieve this win is more than just trivia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Belated support. Congratulations to the Raptors. Can anybody explain to me why two days later the U.S. media only covers Ujiri? Or am I mistaken. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Edith GonzálezEdit

Article: Edith González (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, BBC, NBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Oppose for now. Article is too much table, needs more prose that can explain why this person is notable enough. Merlinsorca 14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the lack of prose means this is close to stub, the lack of references for appearances on film etc is equally troubling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Same-sex marriage now legal in EcuadorEdit

No consensus to post will develop. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Same-sex marriage in Ecuador (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Ecuador legalizes same-sex marriage.
News source(s): [3]
 jackchango talk 20:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it were the first country in Latin America, maybe, but with Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay already there I can't see anything exceptional enough to justify posting it. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not even the only one in this week (or previous) to do so. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose just catching up to normal society. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

(Posted) June 2019 Gulf of Oman incidentEdit

Article: June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman in the 2019 Gulf of Oman attack
Alternative blurb: ​Two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman by suspected Iranian troops in the 2019 Gulf of Oman attack
Alternative blurb II: ​Two oil tankers were damaged in a suspected attack in the Gulf of Oman, following a similar incident last month.
News source(s): [4], [5], BBC, AP

Nominator's comments: Will need further expansion before posting StudiesWorld (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I definitely agree that this is a notable event, and I would support posting it; however, the article is only one paragraph long currently, so probably does not qualify for ITN yet. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Support: Huge improvements to the article in a short space of time. It is an internationally notable event, and I definitely now support it being posted. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Leaning toward oppose, as all crew reportedly safe. Both ships afloat, though one fairly heavily damaged. Cause uncertain; mines suspected. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Opposing for now. If article is expanded then ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the event is receiving heavy coverage and the page has seen a bit of expansion, but not front page material yet. Spengouli (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Spengouli, BabbaQ, ChocolateTrain - The article has been expanded if you want to take another look. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated that U.S. intelligence believes that Iran is responsible for the attacks on the oil tankers[6]. I'm unsure whether or not this would be deemed an escalation of notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support upon expansion, oppose for the time being. I expect it to have enough content very shortly if anything develops further out of the incident, but if nothing develops then it's probably not as newsworthy anyways. Juxlos (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Article should be expanded enough for now. Juxlos (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly notable event, article seems in a better shape than when it was nominated. Wikiemirati (talk)
  • Support and added Alt Blurb II. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Based on what I've found, this event is receiving LOTS of coverage. I feel like the average person has noticed by now. I think the first altblurb is the best at the moment, but none of them are that bad or good IMO. I'm not sure how I would write it, though. Pie3141527182 (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Well referenced and notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is much higher quality now. Also, looking past the apparently low damage and casualties, this event still has big political implications which should be relevant to many readers. Merlinsorca 03:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready. It's in the news, the article is in good shape (slightly anti-Iran POV but that's how RS is playing it). Staggeringly irrelevant in terms of "importance". Please make sure the bold link doesn't point to a disambig page. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Both images of the ship on this article are COPYVIO (now removed as of this comment). They were not taken by Mehr photographers and were screenshots from this video footage --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Amid tensions"? Didn't see that in a proposed blurb, and it suggests Iran is the perpetrator. Best remove that bit and keep it neutral. --LaserLegs (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn’t suggest any perpetrator, it’s a simple statement of fact that’s in the lead of the article. Stephen 08:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Stephen. (And while ystdy I was leaning to oppose, today I can voice PP support as the incident looks more serious.)Sca (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, the increase in tensions is critical to the context of these attacks. However, would've been nice to discuss it first. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Stanley Cup FinalsEdit

Article: 2019 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the St. Louis Blues defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup.
Alternative blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Stanley Cup concludes with the St. Louis Blues defeating the Boston Bruins in the finals.
Alternative blurb II: ​In ice hockey, the St. Louis Blues defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup Finals.
News source(s): CBC

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

Nominator's comments: Gloria. Ryan O'Rielly won the Conn Smythe, and could be mentioned if we have a photo of him. PlasmaTwa2 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support nice game summaries. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, nice article, but we should use 2019 Stanley Cup Finals as the bold link. Adding altblurb in our standard phrasing. O'Reilly's article has no photos of him since he moved to St Louis, and it's going to look weird if we picture him in a Buffalo or Colorado shirt. Modest Genius talk 12:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt1 is still not quite standard. Here are two previous year blurbs for reference.[7][8] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's what ModestGenius was saying, there is no appropriate image of the Conn Smythe winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I was trying to point out the Stanley Cup does not conclude. It is a physical object, a trophy. The Finals concluded and there too many links in alt1. I am not talking about the original blurb. Suggested alt2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I think alt2 is the best blurb to use. I went too far into football parlance where the name of the trophy is also the name of the championship game with my original blurb. --PlasmaTwa2 14:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready marked --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I know this is a can of worms, but it seems that the singular "Final" has finally caught on in the MSM - CBC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, CNN, and the Guardian all use it. NYT is the only major I can find using "Finals." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Page move for next year? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Should add that the logo on the bolded article also calls it the Stanley Cup Final. It seems a little dissonant to have the logo not match up with the article title. Granted it's been the same since 2008 and nothing has been done up to this point. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • There was an RFC three years ago that basically said that it should stay plural because everyone called it that. It seems that is no longer the case. I acknowledge this is a very bike shed debate, though. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • A reasonable question, but one that can be left to the article talk page. ITN can just reflect the article title. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted alt2. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Moldovan constitutional crisisEdit

Article: 2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

 HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 07:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Might need one or two more refs. But other than that good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose reading the article (vs trolling the edit history) the last update of any significance was June 8th. There is a one sentence update WRT Romania on June 12th. Maybe there are some new people here who haven't read the instructions but "Ongoing" is for articles which are being continuously updated, not for news stories which are ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support We owe it to Moldavan people to show the world their struggle against the evil oligarchic regime (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's evidence to suggest both that this is particularly significant, and that the article is being updated regularly to reflect the fact. Moldovan governments are notoriously prone to collapsing—nine parliamentary and eight presidential elections in the 18 years of independence—and I'm not seeing how this is any more significant than any other occasion (we don't feature the current crisis of the leaderless UK government in Ongoing, for instance, despite it being far more in the news and of much more relevance to English-language readers). When the general election is held in September, we'll post the results of that. ‑ Iridescent 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive added in the last three days, and not really "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - fails the criteria for Ongoing as it is not being regularly updated in a substantive manner, and is also not especially in the news as TRM states. WP:RGW arguments also don't apply. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 12Edit

Armed conflict and attacks
Business and finance
  • China–United States trade war
    • Chinese telecommunications and electronics company Huawei cancels its new laptop launch. A Huawei executive said the company has been "unable to supply the PC" because of the U.S. trade blacklist and may have to scrap the project. (BBC) (The Guardian)
Disasters and accidents
  • Bolivarian diaspora
    • A speedboat carrying migrants reportedly sinks off the coast of Venezuela en route to Curaçao, making it the third migrant boat leaving Venezuela to sink in as many months, with over 50 people missing. (BBC)
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Ready) RD: Chang LiyiEdit

Article: Chang Liyi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): World Journal

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Legendary CIA-trained U-2 pilot who was shot down by China and held for 17 years. Zanhe (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support another typically good nomination from Zanhe and despite me being clueless, I support and suggest this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indian Air Force An-32 crashEdit

Article: 2019 Indian Air Force An-32 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: Indian Air Force An-32 aircraft wreckage found in Arunachal Pradesh with all 13 people on board killed.
News source(s): The Times of India

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The aircraft went missing on 3 June and the wreckage was found on 12 June after a week-long search. The article was created on 10 June and now updated. The incident is in the news again after the wreckage was found. Nizil (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I know generally there is a higher threshold for casualties in military aircraft crashes, given that military personnel accept higher risks to perform their duties than civilian aircraft passengers do. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:AIRCRASH. We have cricket ongoing, and open noms for a military plane crash, a heat wave and a cyclone. Indian bias? --LaserLegs (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @LaserLegs: There's no bias here. It just so happens that numerous significant events have converged upon India this week. Additionally, the nomination for Cyclone Vayu was effectively shut down, and the heat wave has not been agreed upon. Cricket is also not an India-centric nomination. Sadly, it has just been a very unfortunate week for people in India. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Multiple events from the same region should not be a problem for ITN if they are noteworthy enough.-Nizil (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive in the discovery. The disappearance and inevitable complete loss was nearly two weeks ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:, there was no article when the aircraft went missing. The event is being covered now for 13 confirmed deaths and wreckage find. It is not that late and 13 deaths are ITNworthy in my opinion.-Nizil (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I get it but this is "IN THE NEWS" and the news item here was the loss, not the discovery. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I fail to see what is significant in ITN terms about this crash.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemicEdit

Article: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Health Organisation reports that the Kivu Ebola epidemic, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has spread to Uganda.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, etc.

Article updated

 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think the two commas should be removed from the blurb. They are unnecessary. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems like a reasonable development to blurb, and remove from ongoing in the process. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The spread of a major disease epidemic like Ebola is definitely worth posting (just remove the commas). ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Instead of a blurb, the Ongoing listing should be maintained(there is a proposal to remove it below). 331dot (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The article isn't being "continuously updated" in any meaningful way, which is a requirement.... --LaserLegs (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say at this point that this is still a watch rather than a post as far as ITN goes, which also includes the previous suggestion of "ongoing" status. (Personal opinion: no outbreak of this nature should ever be glossed over; but at the moment this particular outbreak has not (yet) spread beyond what is unhappily fairly common for such outbreaks.) If consensus is to post, I would suggest tightening the blurb to "The World Health Organisation reports that the Ebola epidemic in Kivu, DR Congo, has spread to Uganda." More detailed information is in or linked in the article. - Tenebris (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If this happened in Europe or the US, it would been the top news for days. -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well that's apples and oranges because virulent haemorrhagic viruses are incredibly rare in Europe or the US. But find a monkey and everything will be fine about four minutes later. See Outbreak for further information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sylvia MilesEdit

Article: Sylvia Miles (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose, filmography apparently needs updating. Otherwise perfect. Spengouli (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Spengouli:: The article section is about selected filmography which depict notable films and works that are found in sources. Some actor/actress' bios have selected filmography section. The 2010 film is her final notable appearance per IMDb page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, understood. Was just going by the tag. Support. Spengouli (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philomena LynottEdit

Article: Philomena Lynott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTE

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Phil Lynott's mum Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – a well-referenced article which makes a clear case for independent notability. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – fully sourced. (Yes notable, even without 30 studio albums, 9 live albums and 6 Grammys). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Well sourced and updated well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Very nice --BoothSiftTalks 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreakEdit

Article: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Not being "continuously updated" as required by WP:ITN. Content reorgs, death toll updates, and ref fixes don't count. While the event itself may be "ongoing" the updates to the target article are not. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC) LaserLegs (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone VayuEdit

Article: Cyclone Vayu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​300,000 people are evacuated as Cyclone Vayu theatens Gujarat, India, as the state's strongest tropical cyclone in 21 years.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, etc.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Cyclone Vayu is the strongest cyclone to affect the Saurashtra Peninsula of the Indian state of Gujarat in 21 years. As many as 6.6 million people could be affected by this system, and 300,000 have been evacuated. So far, there have been six fatalities. News agencies from all across the world are reporting on this cyclone. The article is very well developed for an evolving situation, contains many references, and is written well (if I do say so myself). ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose No impact is mentioned in the prose of the article. There needs to be a decent impact section (At least enough to avoid requiring an expand section notice) in order to get the article put up for ITN. NoahTalk 16:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That is not currently relevant or applicable. I would agree with your comment in 24 hours' time, once Vayu has finished causing impacts, but it has only just begun. There is no information on that at the moment. In accordance with that, the blurb that I proposed refers to the preparations, and does not speak to any potential damages. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • As it stands, the article meets all three of the ITN criteria (namely updated, significance and quality). ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should wait until the impact is known before trying to get ITN. I'm still going to oppose this as you need an impact section since people have been killed. I hate to say it, but your blurb is not the main part of the story. The impact is what is relevant here. Most blurbs stay up for a week so. NoahTalk 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Point taken. I will write the impacts section with the available information now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@ChocolateTrain: Maybe have a blurb more along the lines of "Cyclone Vayu brings tropical storm-force winds and rain to Gujarat, India, killing at least six (possibly add injuries and/or damage estimates)." This is more important than the evacuations. Any additional blurb would have to be identified as an alt blurb. NoahTalk 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Thankfully the cyclone veered away from the coast, which means the primary story is in the shore erosion, outlying rains, and evacuation only -- and those do happen on an equivalent scale with some regularity, now that the need for large-scale evacuation is more widely recognised. After a predicted falling-apart, the cyclone may possibly redevelop and strike Oman, but that would be a different story and a different nomination. - Tenebris (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Disruptive storm, sure, but doesn't reach notability for ITN. Lack of impact works against viability for ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until (if) it makes landfall and something actually happens. Also, LOL, a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(laugh) I was expecting someone to try to make a comparison there. Thank you for not disappointing. You, I think, recognise that the two are near opposites and that we might well have posted Vayu if it had made landfall the way originally predicted. Thankfully, it never did and is further predicted to weaken. (To say "should have posted" is to crystal-ball a possibility which never happened.) If it strengthens again later and hits Oman, that should be a different nomination, distinct from this one. In the case of the tornado outbreak, it is ironic that part of what does makes it newsworthy is precisely that so few people were killed, especially with rain-wrapped / nighttime EF4s, usually a worst-case situation because no one can see them coming (see the Washington Post article on the subject). Unfortunately, many people do not recognise the absence of a common outcome as being significant in itself. - Tenebris (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: Well... 6+ people have died, so that is something. Not enough for ITN IMO though. The track model indicates a landfall could occur on June 18, but it would be so weak that the winds wouldn't do much if any damage. In fact, the winds that are affecting the coastal areas now are much stronger than what the predicted landfall strength is. Basically, this looks like a now or never kind of situation. NoahTalk 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

June 11Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


June 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
  • The Vatican issues a teaching instruction, Male and Female He Created Them, which criticizes the theory of gender as being more complex than the binary division of sexes. The document draws criticism from LGBT groups. (BBC)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Indian heat waveEdit

Article: 2019 Indian heat wave (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [9], [10]

Nominator's comments: This heat wave is a significant ongoing event, with dozens of deaths so far, deadly fights over water shortages, and high temperatures that have set a new record (in the city of Delhi) or nearly broken the previous record (in the city of Churu). Has ample coverage in multiple reliable sources. Merlinsorca 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at this point. We're into the summer months so its going to get hot, plus the known effects of global warming making it worse. This unfortunately is going to become more common around the globe, so to highlight one wave isn't really ITN's perview. --Masem (t) 15:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure if the regularity or the expectedness of an event should affect consideration. Things like sporting events and elections also happen with regularity, and they tend to be included in ITN (rightfully so) because they're significant. Besides, a severe heat wave that causes multiple deaths is not the same as mere hot summer weather, so it should not be treated as such. Merlinsorca 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken but we don't post that sporting events happen, per se. We post that a particular side wins them, and THAT is not expected (though with that in mind, maybe we can stop posting the Bundesliga). GreatCaesarsGhost 16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
We do seem to post sporting events in progress, though: the main page currently has 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup as an ongoing event and it doesn't seem to have a winner yet. FIFA is definitely a huge event and only happens every 4 years (so it is rightfully included), but it does also occur regularly and expectedly. So regularity and expectedness shouldn't affect consideration of this heat wave; rather we should discuss whether or not it is significant enough. Merlinsorca 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
India reached 51c for only the second time, tying its record high, also they are close to turning off the running water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The context is helpful; it seems the heat waves you linked were rejected from being added as "ongoing" items, but the Japan one was accepted and posted as a blurb. Would you oppose this article being posted as a blurb, too? Also, how does the article show "no signs" of being continuously updated? Checking the revision history, you can see there were 7 edits today and 11 edits yesterday, which added significant updates. Merlinsorca 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want it for a blurb, nominate it for a blurb. Re: updates, sure, some changes made daily, but I have no idea what happened on June 7th, for example, in the grip of a heatwave, and I don't care about some dead monkeys. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Why do you bring up June 7th specifically? Does every single day of an ongoing event need to be documented? Take a look at a current ongoing event, The Kivu Ebola outbreak. I can pick any arbitrary date like 7 February, for example, and not find any information in the article about it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an ongoing event, though. The 15 dead monkeys are only a small part, there are also dozens of dead humans, and humans fighting over water shortages. 4 more people died on a train due to heat on June 10. Merlinsorca 05:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that article is stale and doesn't belong in the box. Nominated for removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it's not constantly updated anymore, so that makes sense. But can you explain how that reasoning applies to this article when there have been significant updates in the last few days? Merlinsorca 13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 36 deaths is absolutely notable, and is worthy of being posted. As noted previously, people do not usually die just because of typical summer weather, and 50.8 °C is far from normal weather—it is literally more than halfway to boiling from 0. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
In the interest of strict accuracy, it is true that 50°C is technically halfway to boiling from the freezing point (0°C); but that should not be confused with 100°C being twice as hot as 50°C. (See Kelvin scale) I know you did not make that mistake, but the mathematical relationship between 2x and 1/2 could lead to confusion. All that being said, I am glad someone other than me nominated this article. Support posted below. - Tenebris (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the distinction between Celsius and Kelvin, which was why I was specific in saying 'between 0 and boiling' (just as a coincidence, I have been studying some introductory thermodynamics at university in the past few weeks, and we discussed this very topic). But I definitely appreciate your academic thoroughness!   ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice to meet a fellow physicist! - Tenebris (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChocolateTrain: Thoughts on incorporating Vayu into the heat wave blurb? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I know you were not addressing me, but mention of Vayu does belong there, as for that matter does a more detailed look at the late monsoon. I will look at it as soon as I finish processing the flood information for the tornado outbreak. - Tenebris (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Juliancolton: I was thinking that it might be possible to propose a single blurb regarding all the Indian disasters this week, as none seem to be notable enough in their own right for everyone to support their individual posting. There has been an extremely severe heat wave, a cyclone, and a military plane crash. All of these caused fatalities, and they add up to more than 50 in total. We could say something like, "More than 50 people are killed in several disasters in India, including a severe heat wave, Cyclone Vayu, and a military aircraft crash." What do you think? ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb. You may want to add that 48°C is a New_Delhi#Climate record. (The information in the linked article is already outdated -- the previous record of 47.8°C was set in 2014, and the referenced statistics only go up to 2010.) Responding to an earlier comment, ignoring the extremes of events because such events in general happen "with regularity" or "are going to get more common" is essentially to dismiss every piece of news that is not a one-off -- and thus inherently to set a pre-existing argument against pretty much all weather-related events which do not have extreme death tolls, regardless of how far they fall outside standard deviations in their raw statistics. On a related note, the limits of human survival are somewhere between 52 and 58°C, depending on relative humidity. The hottest temperature ever recorded on conventional earth (ie. outside volcanoes) was either 54.0°C or 56.7°C, but neither of those places is long-term inhabited, let alone by millions of people. Extreme heat records in inhabited areas are starting to encroach on those limits. This heat wave reached 50.8°C in the city of Churu, which is 0.2°C off India's all-time record; and it is only because it is a dry heat (pre-monsoon) that more people have not died. In this kind of heat, air conditioners don't help. Even if they or the electrical grid don't fail, they only make the surrounding air that much hotter. - Tenebris (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
56.7C is bullshit. One of the world's top if not the top expert on temperature records has said it's probably at least 4-5F too high. He considers 54.0C to be the world record. This has occurred once each at 2 weather stations in the Arabian Desert and (once?) at Furnace Creek a weather station in Death Valley in California. I doubt the creek had a droplet in it at the time. The 56.7 record is believed to be caused by the weather station guy wanting to get back in the shade so much that he read one bold line too high on the thermometer or paper graph so it was really 129F (=53.9C) instead of 134. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The heat wave will most probably continue due to a delayed monsoon. A minimum of 36 people have died which itself makes it quite significant. Cities are reaching all-time high temperatures and people are dying in trains due to heat (never heard of before). Pratyush (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we change this to a blurb nomination? eg. "Temperatures exceeding 50°C kill 36 people during a pre-monsoon heat wave in northern and central India." - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I also think a blurb would make more sense now. More suggestions for blurbs:
  1. In one of India's longest-lasting heat waves, record-breaking temperatures are reached, and at least 36 people are killed.
  2. Temperatures of 50.8 °C (123.4 °F) are reached and at least 36 are killed in a severe heat wave affecting India.
But I would suggest we Wait for more news today and tomorrow. If the heat wave doesn't end, it will become India's single all-time longest heat wave, and no longer only "one of" the longest. Merlinsorca 14:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a blurb for this over ongoing. The article is kind of "iffy", supporters could add an infobox with stuff like death toll, highest temp, number of days, etc to summarize the scattershot prose, then IMO it's GTG for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Girish KarnadEdit

Article: Girish Karnad (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India, News18

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major playwright and film personality from India. The article needs some references for unreferenced paragraphs and some copyediting and reorganisation. I invite other editors to help. Nizil (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - That is one challenging article for getting references and sources. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A lot of work needed. Ping me when done.BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article needs quite a bit more of research and journals, lest having an article being built off of preliminary knowledge. DoctorSpeedWant to talk? —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 9Edit

Disasters and accidents
  • At least one person is killed and six others are injured after a crane collapses onto an apartment building in Dallas, Texas, amid severe weather. (KTRK-TV)
  • A woman is killed when a police officer driving under the influence crashes into a restaurant in Illinois. (MSN)

International relations
  • Vietnamese customs say it will crack down on goods of Chinese origin illegally relabeled "Made in Vietnam" by exporters seeking to avoid American tariffs on Chinese imports. (Bloomberg)

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Bushwick BillEdit

Article: Bushwick Bill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, Variety

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Most, if not all claims in the article, are sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There were mistaken stories yesterday that he had died but he had only been hospitalized. There's now enough clarity to confirm his death now. --Masem (t) 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose discography needs referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discography isn't complete either, as it only includes his solo work, not work with the Geto Boys, which he was most famous for. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that it's BAU to list collaborative work on the individual's page. Mick Jagger, Gwen Stefani, & Beyoncé omit group albums. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Article: Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: More than 1 millionHundreds of thousands of people in Hong Kong participate in protests against a proposed amendment regarding extradition.
Alternative blurb: More than 1 millionHundreds of thousands of people in Hong Kong participate in protests against a proposed amendment to ordinances regarding extradition.
News source(s): Many

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a really good quality article. The subject could be split later but that should not be forced just for ITN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is sufficient. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - for all the reasons given above (blurb, comment by BabbQ, etc). I would also to this the obvious geopolitical dimension of the event. This is a no-brainer Syopsis (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on both notability and on quality. Looks good to go. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly notable event of significant political importance. I would propose a change to the blurb, to say "extradition to mainland China" rather than just "extradition". ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Technically, the amendment applies to any place outside Hong Kong. But yes the main concern is China.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment did we post the "supposedly one million people marching against Brexit"? Why is this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Was it nominated? To answer your question, it is different because it is a rare event in China/Hong Kong. Americans/Europeans protest several times a year. AFAIK, this is the first such event in Hong Kong since 2014. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's what I'm asking. And no, Brits don't protest in their hundreds of thousands several times a year thanks. Maybe once every few years. So I ask again, what's different? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Was it nominated? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Brexit was still posted to ongoing at the time. The protests were not nominated, but were mentioned in a contemporaneous nom to removed Brexit from ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I am glad I am consistent. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    It's got nothing to do with you and/or any consistency you may claim. It's about the fact that we've posted something that is directly equivalent to the rare Brexit protests in the UK, which wasn't posted. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    The next time such a protest occurs in Britain, I encourage to nominate it. You will have my support. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I'm sorry, but your rationale about Brexit doesn't get a look-in in my book for the following reasons: #1: it's not only the absolute size but the relative size, viz: Population of the United Kingdom: 69 million; Population of the Hong Kong: 7.3 million. #2: HK one rare example of a territory with a liberal culture existing within a totalitarian state and whose way of life is enshrined in an international treaty but whose government is hell-bent on succumbing to the whims of the regime to the detriment of its people, for which they are mounting this rearguard last-stand protest. -- Ohc ¡digame! 19:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting headline change request - You cannot lead with "1 million" people" as the objective number of participants as that is one boasted by the organizers who always greatly inflate the numbers. Similarly, the police number of 240,000 is always too low. The headline should therefore be changed to "hundreds of thousands march in the largest protests since 1997." The current one fails WP:RS and WP:V. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose using obviously inflated numbers from unreliable sources. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    The blurb has been fixed. The current blurb is consistent with the lowest estimate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've changed the text regarding numbers, per Fuzheado. I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be pulled altogether. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – There is a now better target article at 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. It looks like it is well referenced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Fascinating story, which has been getting significant coverage; the article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Post-posting headline change request @Coffeeandcrumbs:, User:Lmmnhn and User:Ohconfucius can any one of you please change it to Protesters gather in Hong Kong to rally against a proposed amendment regarding extradition in what is the city's largest demonstration since the handover/Article 23 protest? The way it's written now gives credence to those who underestimate the size of the crowd (organizers had it at over a million). My headline proposal would just sidestep the measurement issue completely and go directly to why it's important by connecting it up to past events. Syopsis (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It is generally better to go by third-party witnesses than organizers for these events on crowd size. It is not that possibly a million+ protested, but we need to stay with reliable conservative numbers. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      There are only two estimates, from the government and the organizers. There is good reason to distrust both. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Syopsis, only admins can change the blurb now. Do you have a reliable source that states that even the government's low estimate (240k-270k) is still larger than any protest since the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong? If so I have no objection. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no issue with "hundreds of thousands" – it could potentially cover nine hundred thousand  . Fact is, there are no reliable attendance figures. What we want is a figure arrived at by proper scientific means, with all assumptions and bases transparently disclosed with the potential for them to be audited, but they don't exist. Organisers' figures might be inflated, but he police figures are risible. Either way, the protest was massive by any standards. The only concern I have, as I already mentioned on the article's talk page, is that there may be close paraphrasing in the article, the extent of which I have not yet verified. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Ohconfucius the way i read it the headline the wording still isn't giving a proper context. I am sure you will be well aware that this march didn't happen in a vaccum - that is why i said earlier to connect it up to past events. From what i understand, the numbers easily outstrip the number of protesters who came out for the Article 23 protest. Perhaps we can agree on changing it to Protesters gather in Hong Kong to rally against a proposed amendment regarding extradition in what is the city's largest demonstration since the Article 23 protest? or is that too specific? Syopsis (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to connect the protests up to past events. They standalone as significant numbers. Stephen 02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On news today that the gov't has suspended pursuing the legislation, I have altered the blurb slightly to reflect this change but keeping the protests as the focus article. --Masem (t) 18:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 French OpenEdit

Article: 2019 French Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the Men's Singles and Ashleigh Barty winning the Women's Singles.
News source(s): BBC, BBC

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

Nominator's comments: It is the premier clay court tennis championship event in the world and the second of four annual Grand Slam tournaments. Article is receiving more than 40K views since the start of the tournament. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support one of the four "major" tournaments per year in professional tennis and the article is up to par for what is expected of its type. Abajurrujaba (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article is simply a bunch of tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As mentioned, Roland Garros is a grand slam, and hence is one of the four biggest and most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world. Tennis is also a sport of international appeal. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We have consistently rejected nominations such as this with only charts and lists. The "importance" is pre-established as ITNR. But the nomination still needs to meet the article quality standards with addition of prose especially of the finals.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as in previous nominations of this kind, prose is overrated. What matters in this kind of article are 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and tables are good enough for that. Banedon (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, not at all. It is house style now to expect prose covering at least the final matches in the target articles. This is routinely applied to all sports, including the Superbowl, the Boat Races etc. This is not exceptional and should not be given a free pass. The article currently barely gives more information about the final than the blurb, and that is wholly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "article" is an impenetrable thicket of tables, flags, headings and blue-links. That's perfectly understandable: most wikipedia editors are illiterate and it's probably better that they don't try to write prose. But we can't feature the resulting mess on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Really? Do you have any evidence to support that the majority of editors are illiterate? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    According to WaPo, Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can't read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can't read a book written at an eighth-grade level. So given most of our readers are from the US, while "most" is a stretch, "almost half" wouldn't be far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    a) editors≠readers; writing is more difficult than reading, so the rate would necessarily be lower b) The U.S. makes up just 40% of our readers, as everyone is fond of bringing up whenever the CFP is nominated, c) while standards vary from place to place, an eighth-grade level is no one's cutoff for being "illiterate." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Just yanking ya crank y'all! Come on now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Coffeeandcrumbs SD0001 (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose All encyclopedia articles have prose. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Goodness me, if I bought a paper encyclopedia from WH Smith and found it had an article looking like that I would probably return it to the shop. Far too many tables, far too little prose. It's a great shame, because this is indeed one of the major tournaments of the year and for someone to win it for a twelfth time is quite something. But there we go.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article is lacking in sufficient prose to justify posting at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Cricket World CupEdit

Article: 2019 Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

Nominator's comments: Seeing FIFA getting nominated, I believe we can nominate this one as well. Article is receiving more than 100K views since the start of the tournament. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose the posting of sports events to ongoing (bar the Olympics) Ruyter (talkedits) 07:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. I oppose posting single-sport events in progress to Ongoing in general, but this especially, as it does not have the worldwide and large appeal of soccer/football. The result of the tournament is ITNR and it will get posted then(assuming the article is OK). 331dot (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    WP:STRONG.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    Pawnkingthree Thanks for the tip, but I stand by my expression of opposition. I think this is not a good slippery slope to go down. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm also not a big fan of these nominations, but since we just posted the Women's World Cup, it would be bizarrely illogical not to post this, which has bigger appeal - don't forget, the countries taking part - from 4 continents - have a total population of around 2 billion, in much of which cricket is the national sport. The article has had 1.2 million pageviews in the last ten days. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a worldwide interest sport. Period. Final and winner might be posted though.BabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A very odd comment. Cricket is the 2nd most watched sport in the world after football. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That may be true relative to the population of the Earth, but the bulk of fans are in India. Nation by nation would be different. And where does it end? 3rd most watched? 5th? 331dot (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There are 112 countries in the world which have membership in the ICC, and thus are professional-grade cricket-playing countries. It is simply false to suggest that cricket is not a worldwide-interest sport. I should also point out that saying 'strong support' or 'strong oppose' is completely redundant. The strength of one's position is established by the strength of one's argument, and it is irrelevant how strongly the proponent agrees with their own opinion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's time to move on from this "it's not what Ongoing was intended for" argument. Things have evolved, and consensus has clearly changed. As noted above, cricket is about as far from a niche sport as possible, played in countries with a total population in the billions. The interest from our readers is absolutely undeniable, and this is who we're here to serve, the readers, not our own opinion on whether cricket has worldwide appeal (for the avoidance of doubt, it absolutely does). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Yes, the ICC has 100+ "members" but only 12 of them are full members. The rest are associate members, a vast majority of which never qualify and have little to no chance of qualifying. None qualified in this one. The controversial choke-hold one particular nation with over a billion citizens has on the ICC ensures that this sport has significantly lower prominence that football. The blurb of the final is justified but ongoing is overkill. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Its silly to list the FIFA Women's World Cup, but not the Cricket World Cup. Cricket is an important sport in the Commonwealth countries. SD0001 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@SD0001: Please see WP:OSE. Doing one thing does not automatically mean we must do the other. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you read the essay yourself and understand in what situations it is to be invoked. The second sentence itself says: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. What's more, it goes on to say When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The fact that FIFA women's world cup is listed right now even though the cricket world cup is taking place at the same time and that's not listed is wrong, as the latter has a greater appeal. SD0001 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually the wrong is that the Women's world cup is listed at ongoing. It's only there to avoid perpetuating the bias against the women's game vs the men's which is (a) explicitly not Wikipedia's job, and (b) only necessary because we posted the men's event, contrary to the purpose of the section, simply because it was getting a lot of coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually no, once again it's wrong in your personal opinion. It's getting around 100k hits a day which demonstrates how readers are looking for it and are interested in it. The fact that it also addresses a tiny bit of the gender bias in this boy's club is a huge bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Makes no sense to have women’s football but not the cricket. As noted above cricket does have worldwide appeal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Olympics is a multi-day multi-sport event with a high level of global participation and appeal. The FIFA World cup is a multi-day single sport event with limited global participation or appeal but with a relentless media circus. Cricket is neither of those things. The results are ITN/R and that's plenty good enough. I don't know or care about the women's world cup, didn't !vote and am not interested in a comparison. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support hugely popular sport and article looks pretty OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Coffee, Laser. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment should this go up, there are some missing refs that need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment should this go up, the requirement for a continuously updated Wikipedia article stands so if it's not getting updated, any party should feel free to nominate a pull. Same goes for Women's WC. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think that is going to be a problem for WC. The Aussie/Italy game was updated seconds after they scored. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Interesting - that's something that is prohibited in Six Nations Rugby Union matches and, I think, all FIFA Word Cup finals matches - you have to wait for the final result before adding the score. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        Martinevans123, the game also ended seconds after they scored. I was saying people are interested enough that they are champing at the bits to add updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. Many thanks for clarifying. Yes, that's exactly how updates should be. And I agree with your point there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This sport does not have a global following. Sandstein 13:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    "Global following" is not required for item to be posted and this line of argument has been preempted already. #Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    However, that is exactly the reason why the Olympics and FIFA WC are added to ongoing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We just posted the the WWC in the interest of gender equality, not on its own merits. I'm okay with that, but we cannot turn around and say this men's event is more important than that women's event, because importance was not the reason we posted WWC. If we post this, must we then post the next women's version? And then any men's event more important than that? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's a fair argument, but the trouble here is that this more important is taking place at the same time. SD0001 (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    There is absolutely a catch-22 in this discussion; there is no satisfactory place to draw the line. My feeling is that we should not have posted the women, because the men is essentially an IAR post - it's massively bigger than anything else. But I also understand that the gender equality argument is grounded in the idea that society (incl WP) is constantly reinforcing the supremacy of men's sports. As much as we are not here to RGW, we are also not here to reinforce them. So I get it. But then to take it a step further and post this BECAUSE we posted the women is a logical leap I will not sustain. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Ongoing. Cricket simply doesn't have the world-wide permenance as the football/soccer does to be ongoing. Results I believe are an ITNR though and that's fine. --Masem (t) 16:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You've just ruled out any nomination for American football or baseball. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
For ongoing coverage. Final result is still fine for ITNR. --Masem (t) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's odd that we post navel-gazing such as the Oxford Cambridge boat race but argue over something like this with a truly global following. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:7C7A:1B6D:32B:F0C1 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Now, now. The Boat Race is exempt from notability standards due to an RFC handed down from King Eadwulf to the Earl of Duffingshire a millennium before your insignificant country was even discovered by her majesty's most honourable and glorious so-and-sos. Let us not speak again of such rubbish. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    It's not navel gazing, it's just following orders. (If you can see anyone’s belly button they’re probably doing it wrong). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Wow, you know I can't remember the last time posted the Boat Race as ongoing. I know my updates are absolutely remarkable, but I don't think even I could argue for a 20-minute ongoing article. But NICE TRY! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sure they'd be 20 of Wikipedia's finest minutes. ....unless it's a bit windy of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well I'll nominate it on 29 March 2020 and see how we go! I love naval gazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think you're onto a real winner there./ Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    !!!!!!ROWING KLAXON!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's obvious you mean !!!!! CANOE KLAXON !!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM and BK. WBGconverse 14:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough global interest for ongoing. The last men's FIFA World Cup got five times as many daily page views.[11][12] The women were posted for equality, not for global interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding any and all single-winner sports events to ongoing per the entire purpose of ongoing. The individual matches would rightly not even be considered for blurbs so there is no reason at all to post this to ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't follow the "individual matches would rightly not even be considered for blurbs so there is no reason at all to post this to ongoing" "logic" at all. Individual matches in the Olympics or at the World Cup aren't ever considered for blurbs, yet both have been posted for Ongoing. Perhaps you could explain your position so at least I can try to understand what you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I can think of several individual event finals in the Olympics that would warrant a blurb on their own. IMO, every match from the quarter-finals and on in FIFA WC receive enough attention to warrant their own blurbs. It is before my time, but I believe that was the original justification for adding them to ongoing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, nonsense. We have some kind of special allowance for ice hockey in the Olympics (per ITNR) but no individual matches other than the final in the World Cup have ever been nominated. This is becoming a bit silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: the Mens ice hockey gold medal winner ITN/R entry was removed. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I forgot that had happened. Well jolly good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict × 2) Individual gold medals at the Olympics would be considered for blurbs if they happened outside that overarching event (they wouldn't necessarily get one, but they wouldn't be rejected out of hand) - it's because they would overwhelm ITN that the Olympics gets put in ongoing. You are right that individual matches at the football world cup (men's or women's) wouldn't get blurbs either, which is why it should not be listed at Ongoing either. If we are including single winner contests that rumble on in the news for weeks in Ongoing then it should also currently have an entry for 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, along with US presidential primaries, general election campaigns in many countries, sports leagues and competitions where the results are on ITN/R (and possibly others), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, your examples are silly. They are local issues. The Cricket World Cup (clue in the title) is global. So by all means have another think. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Global versus local is not at all relevant to my objection (as it is not relevant to whether something is posted at ITN or not). My objection is to any and all single-winner sports contests (probably other single-winner contests too, but there may be exceptions I haven't thought of) being posted to ongoing because they are single-winner contests where the individual elements are not blurb worthy (whether they are global or local). We do not post the ins and outs of any other type of story, as a blurb or ongoing, we wait until the final result and post that as a blurb (subject to article quality, whether they are global or local). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: As I said above, I wouldn't post any of these to ongoing, but if we're going to post the Women's World Cup, why are we not posting something that has a larger global audience? Makes no sense to me at all. Either post both, or post neither. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well you;'re wrong, we do post single-winner events to ongoing, so I'm afraid the rest of your objection is somewhat moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Just because we made a mistake posting other events does not mean that we must repeat the mistake by posting more events that are inappropriate. I opposed the posting of the women's world cup on these same grounds (and I think I did for the men's but haven't checked), and will oppose any other single winner sports events that are proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, your position is beyond doubt, but that doesn't equate to us making a "mistake" I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    If it was not a mistake to post these events at ongoing you would be able to easily refute the arguments made by me and others about why these events do not belong on ongoing. You have not done so, you've merely stated that because we posted the men's football world cup we must therefore post the women's, and that because we posted the women's football world cup we must therefore post the men's cricket world cup. No doubt then you will argue that because we posted this then we must post the women's, and that because we posted the football and cricket wc's we must post the athletics equivalent, and so on. It is not too late to say that stepping on this slippery slope was a mistake and that we are choosing to step off it. ITN is not a news or sports ticker, and I for one am keen to ensure that we do not become one - and that includes by not posting single-winner competitions to ongoing. Ongoing is to prevent a succession of blurbs about the same topic from overwhelming ITN - there is only one blurbable point for a single-winner competition: the result of the final. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    You haven't really made any arguments per se, just offered your personal opinion on the function of Ongoing. I see it is as drawing the attention of our readers to events that they may be looking for, and where they will find high quality information about events that are ongoing. You don't agree with that, that's your personal take on it, and therefore it's not a "mistake" that has been made, just something with which you personally take umbrage. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    You mean I haven't made any arguments that agree with your view about what we should or should post. We are already seeing the posting of the women's world cup used as arguments that any event that is ongoing belongs in the ongoing section - if we want something other than that then we need to have some sort of standards. That standard has always been that we don't post things that would not be blurbed - and nothing other than the final of a single-winner sports competition would get a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support: "but the bulk of fans are in India": Not true: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand, England, the West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Pakistan are not India! This is the most relevant and watched mayor sports event these days! (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The bulk of fans are in India because India has 1/7th of all humans on this planet. I did not say that the sport is not popular in other countries, but those countries have much smaller populations. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Pakistan and Bangladesh has both enough people to be relevant. Cricket is one of the most popular sports in English speaking countries and the Commonswealth. The Tournament is now, for the fith time in England. Also one of the mayor sports events in England in this decade of sports. This is the English language Wikipedia, I guess?! You can't ignore the support of 1/7 people on this planet for cricket. Just because it's India, it doesn't make it not relevant for the English language Wikipedia. India can't be used as an argument against cricket. The place is not limited, is it? (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - essentially there's a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:WORLDWIDE issue going on here. Many people are opposing because they personally don't find the CWC very momentous, but for India and other countries in the subcontinent, (which are all English-speaking countries and part of our community, lest we forget) this is *the* major sport and tournament of the quadrennial calendar. (For comparison - see India's performance in the FIFA World Cup... the world's second-most-populous country was seeded 35th in Asia and then bowed out bottom of the group in qualifiers, below Guam. Football just isn't their sport.) For me it looks like this may not have the legs or consensus to be posted, but I think there's a good case for WP:IAR and with the systemic bias issues factored in, this IMHO has a similar claim to the Women's World Cup for inclusion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't give a shit about the tedious "other stuff exists"/"other stuff doesn't exist"/"other stuff shouldn't exist"/"other stuff exists but this isn't like that" rubbish. The key point for me is that there are barely ten countries in the world that take cricket seriously. The event itself isn't so significant as to warrant main-page prominence for its lengthy duration. The result of the final, assuming it isn't permanently rained-out, suffices. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's not true. More than ten countries take cricket seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I guess you could divide the West Indies up into multiple countries, so fair point. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for undermining your own position, saved me from doing it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    How many countries take baseball "seriously"? Or is that question an "OSE prohibited question"? Or does it depend on the population in those countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Why are you bothering me with an irrelevant question about baseball? --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Because I think your point is a ridiculously inane simplification of what makes news? Very sorry to bother you, but other editors are welcome to respond.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    How many baseball stories are being proposed for "Ongoing"? Zero? That's what I thought, so irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Granted. But do we think "how many countries take a sport seriously" is a useful metric with which to judge posting anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Nope, not especially. I think useful metrics are article quality and is the item "in the news". This event will make a great blurb at it's conclusion. This whole nom is very WP:POINTy, the WWC is in the box so ZOMG cricket. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    The answer: four: US, Canada, Cuba, Japan. No-one else gives even one shit, let alone two, about baseball. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Its watched by roughly 2 billion people, happens once every 4 years, i understand the other stuff exist argument but seems like it gets invoked heavily in items that are non-western. Or other stuff doesn't exist got brought up right above via baseball which is essentially counter argument again with western interests. Meanwhile arguing that there is only 10 countries in it makes no sense. There were qualifications held and many did not qualify. if Fifa WC lowered the number of teams in their world cup post qualification then would we not post it? Also the number of countries vs the total number of viewers argument is also weird as that gives like Vatican equal weighing as India. If you get politically segregated into a country you cease to be seen as important statistics or suddenly become way more important lol. (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please source the claim "watched by roughly 2 billion people". 331dot (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This article cites 2.2 billion people for the 2015 CWC (ref 26), with the India-Pakistan match having more than 1 billion viewers alone. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If this is not posted. I would Strongly Support a pull of Fifa's women's world cup ongoing as it is an incredibly biased precedence to only put items where U.S might win something, i would rather have us set precedence of not putting sports tournament than what is going on right now. From perspective of a person who does not live in US but comes here often i can tell you it really feels like this isnt english wikipedia but rather American wikipedia where a few random non-american stories get approved as charity. There are enough english speaking nations that are involved in Cricket world cup that are simply being ignored because of a few who think its not of global interest which is absolutely wrong. (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait, was the 2018 Men's World Cup not posted? I'm pretty sure the US didn't even qualify...--BoothSiftTalks 00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
WTF are you two talking about? Yes, of course the 2018 mens FIFA WC was posted in ongoing, and as a blurb, and the host city, and what, in the name of whatever God, does the "US" have to do with anything here? You people have America Derangement Syndrome or some damned thing. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The choice of wording maybe poor but the point was if its in American interest then the opposition is limited and usually will get posted. Textbook systemic bias to have WWC up there where US happens to be top team vs CCW where US is not playing even though way more popular. Comparison to Fifa mens world cup would be moot point as that is even more popular and definitely should be posted whether US is in it or not. It is not America Derangement Syndrome, denying the existence of systemic bias and constantly opposing other worldwide events might be some other Derangement Syndrome though. I do not wish to insult your comment so i will stop here. (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Textbook systemic bias" is posting the mens WC but not the womens: regardless of what country is favored to win. The box almost exclusively features male sports (some tennis excepted) and within a day of posting the WWC people come out of the woodwork "OMFG the WWC lets post some cricket". You honestly think the only reason the WWC is in ongoing is because of "American bias"? Did you even read the nom? Probably not, it might contradict your America Derangement Syndrome. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No consensus that there is no consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question is the wall of text long enough that we can close this? The item is ITN/R and will be posted at the conclusion. If the wall of text is not yet high enough, that's fine I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not think there is consensus to close it yet. Large number of opposes seem to be "dont use the other stuff exists", while the Fifa womens world cup isnt something that was posted previously and can not be reversed. Its up right now!!!! So yes other stuff exists really does matter in this case. Im sure someone can/will just close it and form a forced decision pretending to find consensus in above arguments. But it will not be right. (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus for anything here. The arguments mainly are "we posted the women's world cup so we should post this", "football is a more popular sport than cricket" (several definitions used), "we shouldn't post this for the same reasons we shouldn't have posted the women's world cup" and "this is getting more coverage than the women's world cup". I know which arguments I think are stronger, but trying to be as objective as I can I don't think this is heading towards a consensus for or against. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I've seen noms for articles from some countries closed in hours on the grounds that "consensus will not develop". Seems like this one is toast, but if y'all want to keep debating it, I don't think I care. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Yeah, but this is cricket. Games can last for days. Let's keep it going till Thursday at least. Close it, it's a ridiculous decision but it wouldn't be the first time at ITN/C would it? Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per Amakuru. There is no basis to post wayyy less popular sports events but they are anyway. No reason for the equal representation type of logic that is applied to those ITNCs to not apply here. --qedk (tc) 15:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per other supports. If FIFA gets outgoing, then why not cricket? --BoothSiftTalks 00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. A major sport with popular following across a large fraction of the world population. I'm not sure I would have supported in previous years, but if we're putting the FIFA Women's World Cup in ongoing then this should go there too. The CWC easily exceeds the WWC in popular and media attention. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm also sympathetic to the idea of limiting ongoing sporting entries to just the Olympics and Winter Olympics, as they produce champions in each sport over an extended period. If we go down that route, we'd need to pull the WWC. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Or leave it, and not post it in 2023. Interesting we keep hearing about "a large fraction" of the worlds population, I wasn't aware that China, the United States or Indonesia gave a shit about cricket. Is it, then, that one very populated country cares a good deal? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Cricket doesn't produce champions at the Olympics. At least, not for 119 years. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Huge audience worldwide. Supporting even though I hate one-day cricket. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • comment i am not at all fan of watching cricket (i love to play it though). But for the editors who are basing their oppose on "no worldwide following": even football/soccer doesnt have worldwide following. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • All y'all know that the conclusion of this event is ITN/R right? That the winner gets a blurb and even a picture? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The qualifying process for cricket's world cup is pretty straightforward, unlike less global sports of basketball and rugby. 8 teams automatically qualified without playing a qualifying game; 2 other berths are contested via the 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier, of which there were 8 participants, of which two came from the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Two (of six teams that participated there), four came from 2015–17 ICC World Cricket League Championship (out of 8 participants). This meant that a grand total of 14 teams bothered with qualifying, plus the 8 teams already qualified, for a total of 22 countries who cared to participate. Remarkably, 0 teams south of the equator and between the international date line and prime meridian participated in this global event. (For comparison, 2019 Rugby World Cup qualifying had 93 teams participate in qualifying, and 80 (excluding prequalifiers) in 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification, both obviously not global sports as cricket.) Howard the Duck (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • It's a moot point as it has now been posted, but the statement of "This meant that a grand total of 14 teams bothered with qualifying" is incorrect, as the qualification process includes all of the divisions in the 2012–18 ICC World Cricket League, with nearly 40 teams in that process alone. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
          Oh good, it included up to eight divisions of almost 40 countries, that 30 of these had no chance at all of qualifying. Six years of qualifying for a world cup, and all they can show for is still less than the entries for the African qualifiers of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Global game indeed! Howard the Duck (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
          • And all 105 countries that are members of the List of International Cricket Council members can actually qualify. It's just that to get into Division 8, the bottom level of those 40, you have to be good enough in your region. The system is designed to stop mis-matches because in cricket a mismatch is not only unappealing to watch and a waste of time, but fantastically dangerous. The idea of some kid from Vanuatu facing the one of the world's fastest bowlers is terrifying - remember that unlike baseball, bowling aimed at the neck/head is permitted and commonplace. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm well versed in seeing world cup qualifying formats to have the weakest teams play each other (fantastically enough, UEFA doesn't do this). We don't wanna see some random basketball dude from Gibraltar get ran over by Anthony Davis never to walk again. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: