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.


Mohamed Morsi in 2013
Mohamed Morsi

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 19Edit

June 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
International relations
Law and crime
  • It is reported that Roberto Marrero, aide to Venezuela's partially-recognized interim President Juan Guaidó, who was arrested several months ago, has his preliminary hearing completed, with Judge Padilla denying his right to defense and ordering his incarceration. (El Universal)
Politics and elections

RD: Kevin KillianEdit

Article: Kevin Killian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: Award-winning US poet, novelist, playwright, and art critic (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment The substantive content is well-sourced, but not the list of published works. I would assume that wouldn't be too hard to cite, though. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Japanese anime developers report that the industry is in crisis, even as its popularity soars in its native country. Among the reasons are low pay, long hours, and a huge shortage of artists – just as its global popularity reaches record levels. (Japan Today)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections
  • Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, who was ousted in a coup in 2013 and has been detained in jail since then, dies after fainting during an espionage court hearing. (CNN) (KNIF) (BBC)
  • Crisis in Venezuela
    • The Venezuelan government releases deputy Gilber Caro, who had been illegally detained and disappeared for three months as a political prisoner. (VOA)

(Posted) Mohamed MorsiEdit

Article: Mohamed Morsi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi dies at the age of 67.
Alternative blurb: ​Former President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi, 67, dies during his trial.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP, Guardian

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: Recent President of Egypt, "died in court" according to reports. Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Just was about to nominate it myself here. Ben5218 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport - but needs semi-protection first imo. nableezy - 16:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)is semi'd now
  • Comment should be worth a blurb I would have thought. A very well known world leader and his death was in the middle of a political court case.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above, and I would also support blurb since his presidency was clearly transformative and had global effects. Davey2116 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. Because he was an Egyptian politician who served as the fifth President of Egypt. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @MSN12102001: - WP:STRONG. Also, RD nominations are not dependent on notability, only article quality. If you support the posting of a blurb, you should probably specify so, and provide a rationale beyond his former job title. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as written, no "in court" or "according to." GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as written, per GreatCaesarsGhost. Event is still recent and some new details may emerge. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support on Blurb RD is obvious, there's only one current CN I see but that's in a sea of references, so shape is fine. Blurb is of interest as elected leader of a major country and that he died during this trial. --Masem (t) 19:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb the unexpected death of an ex-head of state in court is blurb worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ... Alt1 – I see no reason not to include the fact that he died during his trial in the blurb. There's nothing exaggerated or sensationalized about that; it's an essential element of the event. Consider: "Egypt's ousted president Mohammed Morsi dies during trial" (BBC), "Egypt’s ousted president Morsi dies in court during trial" (AP), "Mohamed Morsi, ousted president of Egypt, dies in court" (Guardian), "Egypt former president Morsi dies after falling ill in court" (AFP). Article looks good. – Sca (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – A major figure in Egyptian politics over the course of the past decade, owing largely to the fact that he was the nation's first (and thus far only) democratically elected President. I prefer Alt1; the manner and circumstances of his death are noteworthy. Kurtis (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The death of a person who was, as Kurtis correctly identifies, his country's only democratically elected leader ever, while on trial for political charges, is clearly a matter of significance warranting a blurb. I also agree that Alt1 is preferable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, prominent figure and unexpected death circumstances. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb "old man dies of heart attack". Not Thatcher or Mandela level of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Still very much in the game at 67. Death actually shaped political and legal history, instead of merely reminding. Not "Gloria Vanderbilt old", like some people have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, June 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Death of a former head of state under exceptional circumstances. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Image? good quality image on his page we can use. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll swap it in a bit, we only just put the golfer up. Stephen 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting blurb support. Clearly huge, Egyptian junta claims another victim (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Gloria VanderbiltEdit

Article: Gloria Vanderbilt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, CNN

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: About 25% unsourced, but in the fixable regime. Masem (t) 15:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the moment - too much is unreferenced. Hopefully that will be fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support citations added, should be sufficiently referenced for the MP now. MurielMary (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There are still an awful lot of unsupported statements/paragraphs there - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
More tidying up done. MurielMary (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 U.S. OpenEdit

Article: 2019 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Gary Woodland wins the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated

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

 Compy90 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. The article is lacking in sufficient prose to justify posting at present. The 2019 French Open was not accepted. So this article does not deserve either. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above and because there's nothing significant about it. Rockin 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The event is WP:ITN/R so its significance is not being debated here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree 2019 French Open was too, but here we are... MSN12102001 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
French Open was not posted due to quality of the article. That event is ITNR, but as we state several times, that only assures importance, the article quality must be there and as pointed out when it was in ITNC, there was nearly no prose in the sea of tables (and there still isn't). This case at least shows some attempt to write prose to explain things beyond the table. --Masem (t) 14:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) That's not relevant. The French Open article wasn't wasn't posted because there was a clear consensus that it wasn't good enough, not that it wasn't significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support Every round does have a prose summary, so it probably just about passes. But it would be nice to have a bit more detail.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per Pawnkingthree. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Would like to see more prose but I think that's the type of thing to come in time, rather than immediately. Otherwise not seeing lack of sources. --Masem (t) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough, prose portion has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Bihar encephalitis outbreakEdit

Article: 2019 Bihar encephalitis outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The encephalitis outbreak in Bihar state of India killed more than a hundred children.
Alternative blurb: ​An outbreak of acute encephalitis in northeastern India results in the deaths of more than 100 children.
Alternative blurb II: ​An outbreak of acute encephalitis in Indian state of Bihar results in the deaths of more than 100 children.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The article might need some grammar corrections. Help! Nizil (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Opppse too short, cause unknown. As a reader it doesn't give me enough detail. I'm unmoved by death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That is perhaps one of the most heartless things I've ever heard on Wikipedia. To say that you are unmoved by the deaths of more than 100 children is quite appalling. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      • See WP:RGW. Is posting this poor quality to the main page going to bring them back? Nope. Will it prevent more deaths? Hardly. The WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN is to highlight quality articles for topics which are in the news, not to think of the children. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
        • You are misconstruing my comment. I was speaking to the lack of empathy and humanity in your statement. I was not referring to the quality of the article. I agree with you that the article should not be posted to ITN in its current state due to being too short, which is why I did not put a 'Support' comment beneath yours. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in stating that, but notwithstanding the quality of the article, saying that the deaths of more than one hundred children is unremarkable is still appalling. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
          • When you've been around ITN for long enough, I suppose it's only natural to become jaded by statistical phenomena, even something that would normally be jarring such as the deaths of children.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
            • It has nothing to do with being jaded, I just don't consider death toll as a factor in these stories (except maybe for a Fish kill). It's either in the news with a quality update or it's not. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose for now: The topic of the article is undeniably noteworthy; however, the length and coverage of the article are not currently sufficient for posting to ITN. Once it has been expanded suitably, I will support the nomination. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – Article requires further development from additional sources. For one thing, it omits any mention of lychees as a possible cause – cited in earlier reporting and in today's BBC story. (Cf. third paragraph of our lychee article.)Sca (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support I just expanded a few things (including Sca's point about lychees), and while still short, is going to be as much as we can probably expect at this point given this is a poverty-stricken area of Northern India where news is slow to come out of. --Masem (t) 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason we're using the spelling litchi when our article uses lychee, AFAIK the more common spelling? Sca (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No idea, the National Post used it, but I see the BBC didn't . I 've flipped the spelling. --Masem (t) 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Great work by Nizil Shah! I've struck my reservations. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Wait / Temporary oppose on quality Clearly a notable story, but it's not ready to be posted at this time. The article looks like it's still developing (and so is the story as far as I know). I'll strike this !vote once the article is in a noticeably better shape, which should be expected as more information becomes available. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's the problem: this has started in early June, and has been a very slow development. There has been very little Western coverage of it, and the bulk of the coverage when I did some additions this morning is India newspapers reporting the same information. This is the type of case where I cannot see it developing any further unless the outbreak spreads significantly or it ends, and review and analysis of the causes will be months down the road. Maybe there will be more this week, but I'm not expecting a great expansion on this. This is where IAR related to article length should be considered. --Masem (t) 03:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • It looks like the article was created fewer than 24 hours ago & was greatly substantiated by you and Nizil Shah, but if the current version is in fact as substantiated as we can reasonably expect, I'll flip to a weak support. The referencing is adequate, and I'd probably rate the article as start class for now, but ideally I'd like to see a little more detail about the event itself (one of the ~3 thorough paragraphs is about the disease rather than the outbreak). I'll see if there's anything I can find to add to the article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • What, except for the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS establishes notability here? The article says 85 dead at one medical center, there isn't even a clear idea of the number of causalities. The lack of western coverage is irrelevant, find some domestic coverage and get a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs:, @BrendonTheWizard:, @Masem:, @Sca:, @ChocolateTrain:, @WaltCip:, and others. I have updated, expanded and reorganized the article. The cause of the outbreak is unclear so I have added details on it. The response section is also expanded. More inputs/suggestions are welcome. Please reconsider your votes. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 – After some language tweaks, article passes muster. (Alt1 corrected to 'northeastern.')Sca (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready. – Sca (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment now that it's up, can someone please perform a copy edit since we're featuring grammar like this on the main page: "The malnourished children lack buffer stock of sugar as glycogen in the liver which put them on increased risk of hypoglycemia" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
  • A group of bandits attack a village in the Shinkafi local government area of Zamfara State, Nigeria, killing at least 34 civilians. The gunmen arrived on motorcycles and opened fire on civilians indiscriminately, later burning down homes. (Reuters)
International relations
Politics and elections


(Posted) 2019 Argentina and Uruguay blackoutEdit

Article: 2019 Argentina and Uruguay blackout (talk, history)
Blurb: Argentina and Uruguay lost all power in a major blackout.
Alternative blurb: Uruguay and most of Argentina lose all power in a major blackout.
Alternative blurb II: ​48 million people are affected by a major blackout of Uruguay and most of Argentina
Alternative blurb III: ​48 million people in Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay are affected by a blackout
News source(s): [1], The Week, El Pais

Article updated

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. The article is now long enough for posting. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:50, 17 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)
Yeah, it's no longer so shocking. Sca (talk) 12:31, 18 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)
    • I would still oppose if it as in the US or Europe under the same conditions. It inconvenienced people for a few hours, it didn't put anyone in at any major risk (it would be different if this were the middle of a terrible winter). (It only affected 43M people so this would be like if the US eastern seaboard felt offline). --Masem (t) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Indeed, if nuclear power stations started going south, it's a story. If beer gets slightly warmer, it's not a story. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's definitely the first time I've ever heard "it only affected 43 million people" as if that's a small scope (side note: it actually affected 48 million people) Additionally, you're saying "it inconvenienced people for a few hours" past tense. Nowhere is there any indication that it's over. Uruguay is recovering but not recovered, and barely any Argentines have power back at this time. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes yes, I understand what you're trying to say. We've had power cuts in the UK for days on end after e.g. weather events. So what? If there's a real consequence, let me know. But otherwise, no need to respond, I get your point of view, I just don't agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard. Banedon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added a new altblurb in response to new details. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Wrong tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man - Thanks. I've fixed it. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A power outage affecting multiple countries and tens of millions of people is very noteworthy. The loss of lives or lack thereof is not the only factor that determines the notability of an event like this, but also the economic damage, international news coverage and reactions, etc. EternalNomad (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Good point, but what is the economic damage, international reactions etc? They're not even mentioned in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. 48 million people is quite a lot. It's kind of a major news story in those countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the Venezuelan blackout went into "Ongoing" without much fanfare at all, I think we can blurb this. The article is actually pretty good too for a change there is no wall of "reactions" or phony "background" to pork it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It's worth noting the significant geopolitical implications of the Venezuelan blackout, was of a longer duration, and had significant impacts. Conversely, the impacts of the South American blackout currently described in the article are: 1. Be careful with water use; 2. Use cell phone lights to fill out ballots for local elections; 3. Go to the hospital if using electric medical equipment at home and don't have a generator. I don't think the comparison between them is fair, but if there are additional impacts for the SA blackout, those should be added to the article. SpencerT•C 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • What "significant geopolitical implications"? Maduro didn't start that brush fire, no matter how badly the rightists want to blame him for every stubbed toe in Venezuela. We posted the Indian blackout too a few years ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – But please no puffery (i.e. "major") on the Main Page. "a blackout" is good enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - there appear to be minimal lasting impacts of the blackout, with power being rapidly restored, and it lacks the extenuating circumstances of the Venezuela blackouts, but the sheer number of people affected pushes this beyond the threshold of significance needed for a blurb for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge blackout, in the news. Opposers fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The blackout is well and truly over, and thus the newsworthiness of this item is rapidly approaching nil.--WaltCip (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yet googling the word "blackout" covers my browser with dozens of articles published in the just last 4 hours. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    And ITN is not a news ticker. It doesn't matter how much it dominates the news cycle, only that it is in the news cycle as a starting point. --Masem (t) 02:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Top story in my news feed here in Indonesia as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major blackout affecting five countries. Article short but covers the basics and is fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Although it was a huge blackout across three nations, and investigations by the Argentine government are underway, most power has been restored and the story is practically over. jackchango talk 06:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready article is ok, and I see a consensus that although it was "short" the scale is significant enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given that it is already over, like others above I don't see sufficient encyclopedic value in this to post it to ITN. This was an interesting news story for the "breaking news" tickers at the time it took place, but now it is more just a footnote in history and there is no evidence of either terrorism or loss of life from the incident. I also dispute that this is "ready" - it seems to be clearly in no consensus territory at the moment and the concerns of the opposers haven't been addressed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Power may have been restored. But the story is still on the front page of BBC World News website: [2]. Energy Minister Gustavo Lopetegui said it would take 10-15 days for the results of the investigation to be published .Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, alongside the other stories, "Iran to breach enriched uranium limit in 10 days", "Indonesia bus crashes as passenger grabs the wheel", "Apology after police threaten to shoot black family", "Magician feared drowned in river after Houdini trick" and lots of other things, most of which are not being proposed for inclusion on the main page. The key point here is that ITN is not a news ticker, whereas the BBC World webpage probably is. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - yes, nobody immediately died, but two entire countries lost power. Not all ITNs have to be double digit deaths or sports events. Juxlos (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - massive power loss in multiple countries, reported on as front page news by WP:RS worldwide, is a notable event. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Was. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see enough long-term significance here for ITN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the name of the article should be changed to "Southern Cone blackout" or "Argentina and Uruguay blackout" or something similar to make it more regionally explicit. This is South America, more blackouts may occurs and if another one happens in another part, we would have to add a more explicit date and more details in the title anyway.--MaoGo (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seemingly a very rare event. If there was another in 2019, the article name could be adjusted then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Martinevans123 and MaoGo: - When creating the article, I wondered about titling, but I thought that it would be unlikely that a multi-country blackout would occur again in South America this year. If it does, we can add a month. See the change in titling for the Gulf of Oman incident. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelan blackouts affected a small portion of Brazil, but they are still called Venezuelan blackouts. I think Southern cone blackouts wouldn't hurt (other options can be considered)--MaoGo (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above, significant event. Davey2116 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, blackout of a significant scale, President Mauricio Macri described the blackout as "unprecedented", a definition shared by some outlets. It should be noted that the blackout also affected parts of Paraguay, and if possible I would like to ask to add this to the blurb. A blackout affecting three countries is news worthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Jamez42 - How is altblurb4? StudiesWorld (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    StudiesWorld Thanks for the ping. I would prefer not to include the population, since I think it may be arbitrary depending on how it is counted, but I wouldn't oppose it and I support it in essence. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support A tough one. It's probably wrong to compare it to the Venezuelan blackouts, since they lasted much longer and had very serious affects because of the poor state of the country (lack of power=no money, no water; there are no generators, so no hospitals or public services), whereas other South American nations (those affected here) are in better shape, with access to purified water, paper money that has value, and generators to keep necessary services running. That being said, it is unprecedented that three countries suddenly lose all electrical power. 48 million people is slightly more than Spain's and a bit less than the UK - I think if either of those countries (which are well equipped to deal with a blackout) lost all electrical power across the entire country, it would be posted. It shouldn't be judged that people die or can't cope, it's an extraordinary situation. Of course, ITN has only seen two blackouts posted, and in both cases there were worse consequences, if we are going by that standard. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as this is a major blackout event. --B dash (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready (again) support is overwhelming at this point, drive-by "not ready I didn't oppose yet" !votes don't change that. Disagreeing with consensus isn't the same as no-consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Getting stale fast. – Sca (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, the NBA final is rather stale now, but some dead kids in India will push it out of the box soon. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • This comment is absolutely unnecessary and truly disappointing. I've come to expect that type of commentary from some of the ITN regulars (no need to name names), but not from you. You're better than that, or at least I liked to think that you were. If you don't believe that nomination is notable enough, that's fine, but there's no need to excessively emphasize how much you don't care about "some dead kids in India." I'm sorry if this is harsh, but that got under my skin. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I had assumed the tone of that comment was one of extreme sarcasm, comparing, as it does, a basketball match with the lives of more than 100 children. I may be wrong, of course, as the MoS still does not advocate Irony punctuation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
In this semi-public venue, it's difficult to understand the motivation for abrasively tasteless comments, even when intended as sarcastic humor to underline a point. Inevitably, they engender offense and resentment. – Sca (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I assume that Laserleg's continued comments (which some find offensive) will be subject to the now-standard WMF unappealable ban of one year on this Wiki only. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not now you've given a reason, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, mea culpa, I meant to remain completely obstinate (as usual). I let my guard down. I should be following WMF's example, my sincerest apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I am out of the country at the moment, which would make this the standard time to complain about me at WP:AN/I. I suggest closing this, it won't be pulled. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 18 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)

(Posted) 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)
@Spencer: Thanks for your comment. Almost all detailed sources about him are in Chinese, and being unfamiliar with the highly specialized technical vocabulary used in sources, I'm only confident with translating a very general summary of his contributions. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 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 to RD. SpencerT•C 22:34, 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): [3]

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): [4]
 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): [5], [6], 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[7]. 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.[8][9] --- 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)
  • To be fair, the relevance specifically to English-language readers never was a factor, nor should it be. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:39, 17 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)
  • Comment I'll hold off on !voting until I look further into the details, but I would not oppose on quality or on lack of updates. The revision history shows a lot of recent substantial edits by several different editors, and the article is neither poorly referenced nor too short. If the story is notable, it's good to go. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:21, 17 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
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) 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)
  • Posted Stephen 23:35, 17 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)


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: