This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
Islamic State militants attack two gas facilities northwest of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, killing at least five people and wounding six policemen. Three assailants detonated their explosive vests and a fourth was killed in clash with security forces. (Reuters)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support. I wouldn't object to more prose, but what's there is comparable to what we posted last year, and there is nothing obviously missing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the blurb mentions "golf" in some way. Too presumptuous to think a random reader would know what the PGA Championship is. -- Fuzheado | Talk13:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the target article now is barely acceptable, I checked the player article, rubbish and tagged as such, but not the target. I guess we'll post with that accepted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted borderline acceptable, but at least we can see how putting the article on the MP will get it drastically improved, it as many always argue. Stephen23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted if that were true; in the six hours since posting and with the US in their most "productive" hours, i.e. early evening, we've had a couple of commas added. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every section has at least one completely uncited paragraph, and the "Becoming Chiyonofuji" section has no references at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until referenced adequately. Just because we can nominate anyone with an article, it doesn't mean we can nominate sub-standard articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some improvements on references, however statements such as "one of the greatest yokozuna of recent times" and "he only improved with age" are not encyclopedic - an objective tone is preferable. Suggest editing for tone before posting to the main page. MurielMary (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some speculative statements such as tying the record of 32 titles was his goal as there was no source for him stating it was a goal (even though it is obviously something he would've been aiming for). But the statements in the lead that you have identified are a valid summary of the subject and supported by sourced facts later on - the second-most championships won in the last 45 years and the most won over the age of thirty. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a relevant policy on this at present, but the point is that an encyclopedia doesn't make judgements on a subject. It reports others' judgements. At the very least, the claim "one of the greatest yokozuna of recent times" should be edited to read "he was considered one of the greatest yokozuna of recent times" for example, and "commentators noted that his performance "improved with age"". MurielMary (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised that his death is not getting more coverage in the western media as this guy was so outstanding in his day - the Muhammad Ali of Sumo. The NYT produced a good report when he retired – The Wolf is gone – but that was 25 years ago and I suppose he's been forgotten by most now. Myself, I reckon he merits a blurb. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, if the person has an article they get an RD list subject to article quality, which is about the only thing you haven't commented on. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
tentative support Citations look ok to me - at least there seems to be only one 'citation needed' template and it doesn't look too controversial to me (as it appears to merely question the date something happened), and as he's dead I think that gets rid of any BLP issues (but I may be incorrect about that?) - if my japanese was better I'd try reference 15 to confirm/deny it, as it seems to be linked to the same event. I'm not 100% on the standards needed but it seems that much stubbier articles have been posted historically, so this seems ok to me. EdwardLane (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top of his field, to the point where we actually post those type of promotions via ITN/R, and former record holder. Quality is okay - covers his career in depth, referenced and no tags to speak of. I'm not aware of any ITN minimum number of citations rule, so I'd suggest opposers (constructively) tag the article if they want to see it improved to their expectations. Fuebaey (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've "constructively" tagged a few lines which need referencing and tone issues also need to be addressed. By the way, we don't have a "minimum number of citations rule", just a quality threshold which means we meet WP:V. If you'd like further information on that, please don't hesitate to get in touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose in current state - has not been updated e.g. "resides in Moscow", several "citation needed" tags, plus the awards list is not fully cited. Also some typos and some rather expansive statements which appear uncited e.g. "the most famous intellectual of Abkhazia". MurielMary (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until referenced adequately, and until the puffery is addressed. Just because we can nominate anyone with an article, it doesn't mean we can nominate sub-standard articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose. Situation seem relatively minor as of right now. While a bad incident, only one dead as of now. I would question if it even merits an article. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is now being reported(including in an update to the CNN story) that Austin Police is stating this was two unrelated incidents, not a mass shooting. Even more opposed now. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two run-of-the-mill US shootings that coincidentally happened a few blocks apart shortly after one another. The target article is now at AfD (nominated by 331dot). Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The deadly, nine-day old Soberanes Fire, blazing south of Carmel-by-the-Sea, has destroyed 57 homes and is expected to grow to 170,000 acres (265 square miles) before it's done. It is 15 percent contained. Six major Big Sur State Parks remain closed through August 6. (Reuters)(Los Angeles Times)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment I'm borderline on this one. The last sentence of the lead could do with a citation, but other than that what is there is good. However, it really could do with expansion - what did he do between 1955 (when the infobox says he became active in his profession) and 1961 (the first date in prose). What else other than Postman Pat (if anything?) did he do since the mid 1980s? Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until expanded adequately. Just because we can nominate anyone with an article, it doesn't mean we can nominate sub-standard articles. The general ITNC rules apply, namely There is a sufficiently updated non-stub article, with credible sources cited.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still a stub. According to the BBC obit, Barrie was known for one major role; the rest of his career was voiceover work, in the ad industry and children's animation, and as a singer of cover versions and TV/film soundtracks. Some expansion along those lines might help. Fuebaey (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: I've only just recently had the misfortune to stumble into this article, I'm not seeing it widely reported, and I read a sentence from the lead, namely The riot police consisting of Jammu and Kashmir Police and Indian para-military forces pellet Guns, teargas shells, rubber bullets and also live ammunition on the protesters, resulting in one policeman and more than 50 protesters were killed and over 1,300 were injured in the clashes within four days which makes little sense, to me at least, not to mention being grammatically incorrect and having a dab link. I daren't go much further into the article. We are really supposed to be quality-controlling articles that we promote onto the main page. I don't think this meets the requirements, neither in terms of newsworthiness right now, nor in quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article keeps getting expanded daily and is in-news at least in India. Am not sure how to gauge its newsyness globally. But if quality is the only issue then I can help clean it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the article quality needs improvement (you could help with that) and I'm not seeing this "in the news". I'm not really seeing significant updates either, is this actually still "ongoing"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's not over, and it's still being updated. Only rationale to remove it is if there's no space to incorporate the Olympics as ongoing, but unless that is the case I favor keep Banedon (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to quality. We have a start, which is referenced. Article will be expandable as more details become available. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'm not sure if "at least" is necessary since it's been confirmed that there were 16 on board and no survivors. --Tavix(talk)21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: In case of success (hope not lethal failure) this will look worthy, so nominating in advance for improvement. The live translation is scheduled at 8 p.m. EDT (5 p.m. PDT). Brandmeistertalk09:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Luke Aikins is a redlink currently and I doubt that this event alone will make him notable enough. I also wonder if more than the success or failure of this jump can be appropriately added to the single sentence already in the Free fall article. So I'm rather sceptical that there will be enough to post. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll support this because 1) it's in the news, 2) it's something that captures the imagination, 3) it's something fundamentally different from the other items currently on ITN, and 4) as of time of writing the oldest couple of blurbs are a little stale. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update, Luke Aikins does now have an article but it is orange tagged for peacock terms and has several {{cn}} templates. It also doesn't have anything more than a sentence about this event so my oppose above still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now article has been overhauled. It's a world record, a first, it's in the news, it's interesting, time to post. P.S. We shouldn't change our criteria for posting just because items are stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a little on the short side, but it's been an article from nothing for a crazy stunt. Stephen
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Sources and death announcements are in Spanish, however translation tools verify statements. There is also an article on Benegas on the Spanish-language wikipedia site. Political lawyer and leader of separatist Basque movements, active until very recently. MurielMary (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, the article could do with expansion but what is there is referenced and there are no glaring omissions, it's just sparse. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where the 17-year gap TRM refers to is? Her two areas of activity, politics and law, were concurrent, so I would assume that when she wasn't making headlines with one, she was busy with the other. She also raised a daughter in there somewhere too. MurielMary (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on expanding the article. P.S. Sca, what's your point? The articles still have to be of sufficient quality, and that (to me) includes comprehensiveness. Your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Died on July 26, death in the news on July 29. Posting here as per discussion on dating of Chief David Bald Eagle's nomination. BBC TV presenter, presented the Queen's Coronation in 1953 MurielMary (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support a sound article well referenced etc. My one concern though an important and groundbreaking role in UK, on a international scale I cannot see the relevence. Edmund Patrick – confer10:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is in good shape and fairly comprehensive. International relevance is irrelevant for RD under the new criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mrs Mangel from Neighbours, article needs considerable work but this should be fixable as more sources report her death. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable Indian author and social-activist. Winner of two civilian awards and top literary award. However, article needs a lot of improvement. Will work on it now, others can also join in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose only because, as TRM says, the article needs to be revised for tenses (is - was)etc. Edmund Patrick – confer
*Oppose for now. Two orange tags and some sections are still not referenced. Looks good to go now. All sections seem clearly referenced. Challenger l (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
probable support. Citations still needed for the sentences starting "Postcolonial scholar Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has translated..." and "She worked in a post office but was fired from there for her communist leaning." The former is only a minor point and not worth opposing over. The is a potentially contentious statement but I suspect it is covered by the ref at the end of the following sentence, if so duplicate the reference to make it clear. When the second of these two is clearly referenced I'll support. I've marked this as attention needed to try and get updated opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No support for this particular story, and a renomination for ongoing with a stronger case and article is recommended. Stephen23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
[Closed] Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination
Closing good faith nomination by an editor new to ITN per WP:SNOW. It is long established that we do not post political news other than changes in government or administration (e.g. presidents or prime ministers). There is no possibility that this will be posted. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi everyone. I'm sorry for not using the template. I'm new to "in the news" and somewhat new to Wikipedia in general. I would like to suggest that we include Hilary Clinton's nomination as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. I believe this is a newsworthy event since she is the first woman to be nominated as a presidential candidate in the USA. If anyone can help me with getting this nomination started, that would be great. Yours truly, Peter. 128.227.82.60 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled out the template for you, but should stress that it is extremely unlikely this is posted because of the non-international nature of this nomination. There are plenty of presidential / prime minister candidates all over the world, and posting this would indicate pro-US bias. We didn't post Trump winning the Republican nomination either. Banedon (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for setting up the template for me. I am surprised that this is unlikely to be posted. I did not think that the story being international would be a reason to post or not. A lot of stories I see here relate to only one country. The rules also say we should not oppose based on this being related to only one country. Also I assume we would not post Trump since he is a white male and it would not be surprising for someone like him to be nominated. Yours, Peter. 128.227.82.60 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow oppose While it is interesting that she is officially the first female presidential candidate, this remains still internal US politics until election day in November, where the winner will obviously be ITN. We didn't post Trump's candidacy, we shouldn't flip here on that. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
British Chancellor Philip Hammond reports that the British economy grew in the last quarter immediately before Brexit, though economists warn that the economy is probably shrinking. (The Guardian)
Prime Minister Najib Razak gets emergency powers amid a widening scandal about corruption. (The Guardian)
Science and technology
Scientists have discovered that the region directly above the Great Red Spot on the planet Jupiter is about 700° F (370° C) warmer than the surrounding upper atmosphere. (Space)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pulitzer prize winner and the first African American recipient of the pulitzer prize in fiction. Andise1 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements Presently 2 CNs and one unsourced paragraph at end of Career section. It probably could have more expansion but its sufficient for main page posting once sourcing is figured out. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the issues above have been cleared up: now it's an adequate article w/ adequate sourcing. Marking as Ready so that other editors can review. Christian Roess (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am continuing to tweak the article for quality, even as I write, just as the other editors above have done. May soon have to mark this "Attention Needed", before this RD gets stale. Christian Roess (talk)
It probably is stale. The RD section is full and another nomination above (having died a day after McPherson) is also marked ready. Tis a bit unfortunate, but that's how RDs go nowadays. An increase in the number of ITN available RDs leads to a fast turnover in deaths and a short, if at all any, feature. But thanks for improving this article anyways. Fuebaey (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your claim of "a short, if at all any, feature"? There has been plenty of time (4 days?!) to fix this, in fact we'd recommend that gets done before nomination, to avoid disappointment! The oldest RD is 27 July on there right now. And a Finnish composer at that, who'd have thought RD could become so eclectic and embracing of individuals other than Americans and Brits? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your "point was that not all nominations get posted"? Really? You needed to make that point? You "cannot see the relevance of [my] comment"? Try reading it again. Plenty of time to fix these issues! We're finally keeping up with "the news" on the recently deceased, that's a great thing, as is the eclectic mixture and improvements made to many articles, some of which don't even make it to the main page. Our readers must be very pleased! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and no hard feelings one way or the other. Indeed improving articles and offering quality ones to our readers of ITN is what it's all about. Anyhow, here is not the forum to discuss changes, but I would propose setting up some kind of "queue" so that the RD's are posted in a certain (agreed upon) order. So for example, once an RD nomination is given a consensus of support, it is placed in a queue (as a kind of "staging" area) for RD's that are marked Ready and then posted in "that" particular order (ie., fair and equitable). In the case of this article for James Alan McPherson, I'd be glad to see it posted if even only for a few hours as it makes way for the next RD that is in the staging queue. Any thoughts @Fuebaey, Thryduulf, The Rambling Man, Miyagawa, Stephen, MurielMary, and Masem: or should this be taken to another forum. Maybe the idea is only good in theory, but too complicated to work out in practice? Christian Roess (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
gotcha, I'll take it to WT:IN in a few days. But the more I think about it, it's too complicated to implement a change like this. There are many potential issues, including that my proposal would probably reintroduce the whole Notability criteria into this process again (ie., which RD should have priority in the queue, which RD is stale, which is more newsworthy, and so on, ad infinitum)...and that's a definite no-go. We don't need that headache again. Christian Roess (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your final thought, Christian - that kind of complicated, prioritized queuing would only require further discussion prior to every posting. The new system seems to be working well in terms of getting quality, updated articles up on the main page quickly, which is a great thing for readers and the encyclopedia. MurielMary (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey and MurielMary: thanks for the feedback. My proposal wouldn't work. It would only slow this process down because (as you say MurielMary) it would require further discussion prior to every posting. When I made my proposal, I thought that James Alan McPherson would *not* be posted to ITN. But it was posted on ITN for just about 2 hours or so (before it was replaced). And because it was a featured item, it increased the page views by almost 500 (more than the previous day) in just those 2.5 hours! That's a good thing. What isn't such a good thing about this process is the inordinate amount of time it can (sometimes) take for an older RD nomination to get reevaluated after improvements are made. In the case of this RD nominated article for McPherson it took 20 hours (nearly one day) for it to get posted. I'm talking about the time period between the time I marked it as Ready, including the time until it could be reviewed by other editors for quality, next given consensus support, and then a wait period up until the time it was posted (by Black Kite). That process took nearly a day. And so by that time, as Fuebaey pointed out, this RD nomination was probably stale. Well, Black Kite makes a good point below. And I certainly agree that the new criteria really is helping to make things better around here. The process is more efficient now, allowing more quality RD's to be posted. But in some cases that's still not efficient enough, IMO, especially for older nominated RD's that need to be reevaluated after improvements and editing revisions have been made. Like the case here for the James Alan McPherson RD nomination: this article (in my opinion) deserved to be featured a little longer on ITN, and certainly could've been featured longer than a few hours. It's just fortunate in the case here, for McPherson's nomination, that we had a responsive and attentive editor like Black Kite who didn't allow it to fall through the cracks completely. Christian Roess (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Why not? Only replacing one from the same day (which has already been up for 3 days), and no other RDs look ready to go to push it off the bottom of the list at the moment. This is the whole point of the new criteria. Black Kite (talk)22:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on sourcing improvements About 1/3rd of the article needs inline cites, particularly on the awards area. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Just finished the major edit to get everything up to speed for a potential ITN RD listing under the new criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Most important Finnish composer after Sibelius. Reasonably written C-class article but *very* short on references. No such user (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not a C-class article without more sources, and it won't be linked from the main page without more sources either. Please add references and I'd be happy to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I found out about his death right now (never edited the article). Let's stop pile-on at this moment, I'll see what I can do tomorrow morning (Europe), or somebody from Wikiprojects I'm going to notify. No such user (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was the one who added them, because it contained apparently accurate text which I couldn't immediately source. I resolved two in the meanwhile and removed an OR-ish sentence to get rid of the last one. Still, I must classify your request as {{shrubbery}}. No such user (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabaab claim responsibility for a double suicide car bombing attack in Mogadishu near an African Union base at the city's airport. At least 13 people are killed, including seven UN guards. (AP)(Al-Jazeera)
Two men armed with knives take a priest, two nuns and two parishioners hostage in a church near Rouen in the French region of Normandy. French police kill the hostage-takers after the 86-year-old priest, Jacques Hamel, was killed by slitting his throat. (NBC News)(BBC), (Haaretz)
Following the murder of the Catholic priest, French President François Hollande vows to wage war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "by every means". The organization released a video showing the attackers pledging allegiance to ISIL during the attack. (Local)
Two nearby boats, responding to a Coast Guard emergency broadcast, rescue 46 people from the sinking 220-foot Alaska Juris fishing boat in the Bering Sea off Alaska's Aleutian Islands. There are no reports of injuries; all on board were wearing survival suits. (AP)
Landslides from torrential rain that pounded North Korea's North Pyongan Province this weekend kills 10 people and injures 55 with four others missing. (UPI)
At least 19 people are killed and 26 others are injured in a knife attack at a care centre for disabled people in the city of Sagamihara, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. A man has handed himself in to the police, according to local media. (BBC)
New York City Police CommissionerBill Bratton announces the arraignment of three suspects in the theft of more than $5 million in cash and valuables, including jewelry and baseball cards, from banks in Brooklyn and Queens, in April and May of this year. (Reuters)
Former president Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton, describes Hillary as a fighter who works relentlessly to make the world better. (The Sacramento Bee), (Time)(NPR)
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 updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose now The new ITN criteria is that the only notability is GNG, ie having an article which isn't up for deletion. This is too short and brief to be featured on the front page. A shame, as this guy seems proper interesting and inspirational '''tAD''' (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion While the article is short and lacking sources, spot checks on Google suggest a lot more can be fleshed out, but this does need to be done before posting. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. I've shuffled the order of the content that is there so it's not all in the lead, but the article is too short and not all of what is there is referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is an underreferenced stub. Let me know if necessary improvements are made and I would then change my !vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just came across this NPR article on the subject, and damn. That's an impressive biography that is not yet reflected in our encyclopedia. With some work, this would be great to post, but it's so far from where it needs to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite busy today, as usual, but came across this item which seemed to have promise. I've since been out seeing someone else off but, on returning spent a few minutes to develop the page. People who want to help should please pitch in, as many hands make light work. Andrew D. (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you repeat that in English? Or are you just here to disrupt another ITN nomination? Or did the 50 or 60 other contributors to the RFC get it and you didn't? Seriously, this isn't the place to re-start this conversation. As I suggested on my talkpage, if you're having difficulty in keeping up or understanding Wikipedia policy and guideline, I'm more than happy to help you out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the diff where I supported it. Or else pipe down and stop disrupting yet another candidate. Do this some place else, like your garage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody says he doesn't "qualify", but look at that article and tell me with a straight face (not that I can see it) that it belongs on the main page as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the bit I suggested you didn't repeat, because it makes you look foolish. You don't understand the difference between a blurb and RD. Oh dear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I leave you to languish in your impotent ignorance. And ask someone else to cap this pointless discourse which isn't relevant, and shows nothing much more than your inability to understand the difference between an RD listing and a blurb. Still, the last word is yours, here you go -----> . The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to be a reasonable allowance that if no one picked up on it to be readily known. Google news time range searching gives the first hit on July 26, 2016 (nothing earlier), so I would argue that we should start the nomination clock there (it gives less time for improvement but it looks like something that an hour of work should get this to main page quality). --MASEM (t) 23:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out (again) that the first source I can find reporting his death was on the 26th, and not picked up across the board until the 28th. This is one of those extenuating circumstances to go by the data of first reporting. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query moving the nomination to the date of the news of the death as opposed to the death itself is setting up a very risky precedent. Obits regularly appear weeks or months after a person has died. Does this now mean we can nominate/post articles of people weeks/months after they died simply because their obit just appeared? I don't think so. Or at least, this needs to be debated as a change to policy rather than just acted upon here without discussion. MurielMary (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Example this person died on 26 July and her obit was published on 30 July. So would I nominate her under 26th or under 30th? Sylvia Peters
There is a potential to use the date that the death is first reported as a news story. Not the date that an obituary is published. Stephen05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs discussing on talk, but the date the death is first reported (confirmed?) in reliable sources is my preference for the nomination date. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose - Compared to several more recent attacks in the world, this is rather small, and given we rejected the recent suicide bombing in Germany, doesn't make sense to support this. It has a tenacious link to ISIS which is what a lot of reports seemed to have jump on, but instead simply looks like domestic violence. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that as far as I'm reading it's not like either had any direct contact with ISIS - one never go out of Western Europe. They might have be sympathizers, but that doesn't make it terrorism, as far as we can tell at this point. ISIS claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing above, too. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -ISIS claims responsibility for everything, even this post by me...and the priest was not even notable, noways anyone can commit a crime and claim they did it on ISIS's behest --Stemoc02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't normally take part in these discussions, and if I hadn't been pinged I wouldn't even know it was going on. I therefor don't feel qualified to opine on whether or not this meets the specific criteria to appear in the news. However, I do believe that killing a priest, in a church, while he is saying mass, takes a terrorist attack to a whole new level. I think it deserves consideration for that alone. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article on the priest Jacques Hamel needs quite a bit of work, until this event he was not notable in the wider world and although horrific, is as mentioned minor. Edmund Patrick – confer06:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article about the priest is currently nominated for deletion and based on the current state of the discussion I don't expect it to be closed before this news is stale. If this is posted, we cannot link the priest's article in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb disputed The original blurb was " A church in Normandy(pictured) is attacked and its priest killed." Stephen changed this to "A priestis killed at a church (pictured) in Normandy, France." I put this alternative suggestion in an appropriate altblurb entry but Stephen is now edit-warring by repeating his change. He claims that original blurb is "patently wrong" but this does not seem clear as we have reputable institutions such as Reuters reporting "Islamists attack French church, slit priest's throat" and most other news organisations talk of a "church attack". Whatever one thinks of the exact wording, it seems better to have the issue out in the open rather than edit-warring behind the scenes. Note that Stephen also nominated the article about the priest for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support for ongoing - by national standards it's pretty big, even if few of our readers and editors are from Armenia. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I opposed this (and still do), there's a clear consensus to post, and it's been marked ready for nearly 48 hours. Is there a trustworthy admin who can actually make a call on this, rather than just ignoring it, hoping it'll drop off the bottom? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion no longer pertains to the article itself but the result of the RD RFC. Continue the discussion on the talk page if you all want to keep bickering. Any issues with the article relevant to ITN can be brought up at WP:ERRORS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
comment the referencing looks good now, however I don't think that a section called "early life and career" should begin with something that happened when the subject was already in their mid 30s. If she did absolutely nothing of interest at all (or if it isn't sourceable) before 1996 then the article should not pretend to cover that period of her life. I can't decide whether this is worth opposing over or not (hence "comment"). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From scanning some sources, I don't think she did anything particularly noteworthy in her early life (there was so little known about it that it was hard to prove she wasn't Jamaican) so I'll rename the section. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me you are not oblivious to the RD criteria being updated. Or are you deliberately positing a false equivalence? Like "Earth's icecaps are melting, but Mars has a mean temperature of 210 Kelvin"?--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're here mainly to try to tell bad jokes, I'm not sure how much gravitas your concerns actually have. Please see the RFC which ran for weeks, and the trial which had precisely ZERO complaints from our readership. But I'm beginning to understand that certain users are not here for the readers, they're here for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only bad joke here is promoting a charlatan, while suppressing a report of a terrorist attack. ZERO complaints? Maybe they didn't know about it. I certainly didn't. All I knew about was a "trial", which had ended. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake then. And no-one suppressed anything, unless you consider a near-unanimous consensus against posting it to be suppression. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I understanding this right? Anyone with a Wikipedia Article that is in decent shape gets automatic RD when they die? Someone please tell me that I am misreading this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new RD guidelines were a dumb idea. If this was subject to proper review it'd never have been passed. Now we get shit like this cluttering the main page. 128.227.15.223 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for a month or so and then propose to return to the old ones. Wait in order for more people to decide whether they like that or not. --Tone18:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a joke. The trial ran for a month. Then discussion over the wording took a week or so, then the RFC took about five or six weeks. To suddenly crawl out the woodwork now and start complaining is taking the piss. In fact, launching another RfC to change it back in a month's time is nothing more than disruptive. The trial lasted a month, that was the whole point of the trial. You all had plenty of time to make your feelings known, plenty of time, so now it's time to get over it and work with the program. Attempting to compare an RD with a blurb which had nearly zero consensus to post is strawman, in fact it smacks of IDONTLIKEIT big time, please don't conflate the two issues in such a lame way. If anyone doesn't believe that this individual is worthy of an article, WP:AFD is the correct process to use. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "trial", I knew about. When and where was it decided to make the "trial" permanent? It appears I'm not the only one that didn't know about it. That's your fault - and probably what you had in mind all along. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC to make the RD thing permanent (presently linked at the bottom of the nomination header) had at least 30 different editors involved, as it was linked at the WT:ITN page (see [12]). Clearly people found it and commented; this is not a Hitchiker's Guide situation where the RFC was in an obscure location. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why I didn't see it. Since I don't like getting smacked around by the BUCTs who control this page, I avoid its talk page. I can't account for the other editors who didn't see it, though. You all failed to advertise it sufficiently. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the RFC ran for about five or six weeks. If you don't keep up with things, or fail to notice things, or can't read notices, unlike the fifty or sixty people who contributed to it, that's your fault. I'm not sure why you harbour this passive-aggressive grudge that I'm somehow trying to do things subversively. If you ever bother to find the RFC in question, you'll note that I didn't initiate it. You'll also actually note that I was one of few who advocated that it stayed running for longer to ensure that "complaints" like your own were rendered utterly impotent. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Does it have to say 16 months? That makes it sound much slower than it is. It was supposed to take 5 months (~4 months of waiting for weather) but repairing a stupid flaw made it wait for spring because it can't fly all night in winter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice info but I'm sure some misled person(s) are going to think "16 months! God, warmists suck!" and never read the article. If they clicked the link the first time they'd see is 25 days (plan A). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a first and so seems a reasonably novel achievement. As we have other contenders for circumnavigation news (see the balloon item below), note that there's a good explanation of the technical requirements at What is a World Circumnavigation?. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, and I'm sure you already know this because you actually read the article you linked, it is at least nine years old and may very well not reflect current thinking. It's also steeped in POV in an attempt to nay-say the attempts of another explorer. Certainly not the kind of source I'd expect to see used in Wikipedia. But I guess that's the problem with blindly following Google search results without applying any kind of quality control before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide car bomb kills at least 21 people and wounds more than 32 at the entrance to Al Khalis, northeast of Baghdad. Most died inside their vehicles while waiting to enter the town. (Al Jazeera)
At least two people are killed after as many as 17 people are injured during a mass shooting at Club Blu, a nightclub in Fort Myers, Florida, with most of the victims reportedly minors. Two suspects and a person of interest have been detained in connection with the shooting. (BBC), (News-Press)
Turkey orders the detention of 42 journalists including well-known writer Nazli Ilicak. Earlier, Turkish satirical magazine LeMan [tr] was prevented from publishing its post-coup edition—a cartoon on the cover showed Turkish soldiers facing off against anti-coup protesters, both pushed toward each other by giant hands. (Reuters)(CNN)
Amnesty International reports detainees in Turkey are being subjected to beatings and torture, including rape, in official and unofficial detention centres in the country. (NPR)(AI)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The story about the coup in Turkey is about to fall off the bottom of ITN, while there are still important developments. ("Retired U.S. General Dismisses Allegations He Masterminded Turkey Coup," WSJ, July 25, 2016 [14]) Propose adding 2016 Turkish purges to "Ongoing" to keep it visible. -- Fuzheado | Talk02:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A heavily controversial figure, one who I personally disliked, but I think the article is good enough to be posted. EternalNomad (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despicable person (but we don't discriminate here, we posted Fred Phelps when he died), but what matters for our purposes is that the article quality seems minimally sufficient for the front page. Improvements can be made overall, but there's nothing wrong with it as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support including him. A great guy who worshipped a great, good, loving, perfect and just God, and more importantly, for Wikipedia, someone who clearly was notable, with obituaries of him in major newspapers. Clearly controversial, clearly notable for inclusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The recent deaths criteria changed earlier this month following an RfC. Now everybody who has a Wikipedia article is notable for an RD entry, subject to their article being of sufficient quality. In this case the consensus is that there are not enough references in the article for it be regarded as being of sufficient quality. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So just to get this straight, the only ways to get an article listed here is for the article to have a high quality. I can sort of understand that, but love him or hate him, I think it would be accurate to say that he is just as notable, possibly even more notable, as the people already listed there. It would be unusual, to say the least, to include certain people there which omitting others who are just as or even more notable. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a yes/no thing, there are no gradations. Some are more well known than others, but notable is notable. This article will be posted if there's consensus that the quality of the article is sufficient, as that consensus was reached for the articles presently posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an awful person to give main page space to, but if we posted Fred Phelps, we have to post this on notability grounds. That said, this badly needs updating in terms of quality.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia had been up and running in 1945, we absolutely would've posted Hitler, assuming his article was up to a sufficient quality. (Sorry for going full Godwin.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's of sufficient quality. I think this "high quality" thing is being taken too far. Why not just say that have to be a GA or FA then? BTW, the RFC said "of sufficent quality", not high quality. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on current state of text. There are a few unreferenced bits, but nothing that couldn't just be excised if references can't be found. Otherwise, it's in decent if not perfect shape. Either reference or excise the few paragraphs that are unreferenced, and this would be main page worthy. --Jayron3217:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on state of sourcing. The vast majority of the sourcing is either primary, from sources that are associated with the subject, sympathetic to the subject, or opposed to him (i.e. the SPLC). There are very few mainstream independent news sources. A number of sections are either unsourced or cited from sources that would not be reliable wrt the subject on their own (and there are a few dead links too). Blogs, opinion pieces and even IMDB appear at various places. Black Kite (talk)20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has already been two days. Are we going to post this or at least make a decision on whether or not to post this soon? Just curious. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wait - the story is still developing (The New York Times is reporting 'at least 15 deaths', not 19) and the story is still something of a 'stub'. But I am leaning towards support after a "wait" period based on the nominator's comments & reasoning (ie., this is unusual and notable under the circumstances, in Japan, etc.). – Christian Roess (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: worldwide coverage of this story and the number of deaths/injuries. It is interesting to note, however, that knife stabbings seem to be the "usual" method of mass killings in Japan (1999, 2001, 2008), whereas the more "usual" method in the U.S. and Western nations is guns. Latchem (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralOppose - We have to ask ourselves what is the public interest value in this story on the front page? A disturbed and disgruntled individual goes on a rampage. If it has no greater significance beyond the personal tragedy for the victims, I'm not sure how we can in good conscience highlight the story. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested, as well as many of the voters are, in the fact that this is the "biggest attack in Japan since WWII." When is the last time we posted any sort of attack in a low-crime country like Japan, compared to frequent attacks in the United States, on ITN? I see the Akihabara massacre was posted in ITN on 9 June 2008, and even though it was tragic, the casualty count for that attack was lower than the Sagamihara knife attacks. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Normally this should go up since it is a high causality incident in a very stable country. However this seems nothing more than a random attack without any obvious repercussions. Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait attack is obviously notable enough, but the article could easily be editted down to 1/3 of its current size; i.e., most of it is redundant. Can't we get an editor who reads Japanese to add better explanations of why the perpetrator was dismissed, what his motives were (lunacy or an expresed philosophy) and why the response took so long, and the prognosis of the remaining critical victims. If we just want to go ahead with "19!", then fine, but I think Aum Shinrikyo is a much more important story than incompetent defence force allows lunatic to pick off easy victims. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Among the greatest Turkish historians, one of the most respected scholars in Turkey. Highly influential in the historiography of the Ottoman Empire. GGT (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supportbut only after some minor clean-up duties are accomplished (ie., does the style sheet approve of a citation placed immediately after the birth date & year in the lead section?). The article also needs citations added fo corroborate various unsubstantiated claims (ie., that his PhD thesis "constituted one of the first socioeconomic approaches in Turkish historiography.") Also, since some of the sources are in a Turkish language/dialect (unfamiliar to me -and many of our readers-), I'm not sure if those particular citations "backup" the information presented in the article (ie., perhaps we should find some additional 'English' media resources before posting to RD?). Otherwise this a short but pretty good article about an important intellectual who seems to have gained a certain canonical status in Turkey. – Christian Roess (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Double-checked the reference mentioned above and although the source is in Turkish, I could still tell that it had all of the info mentioned in that paragraph. SpencerT♦C07:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Articles:Verizon (talk·history·tag) and Yahoo! (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The American broadband telecommunications company Verizon announced its intent to acquire the American multinational technology company Yahoo for 4.8 billion USD. (Post) Alternative blurb: Telecommunications company Verizon announces its intention to acquire the core internet operations of technology company Yahoo! for 4.8 billion USD. Alternative blurb II: Verizon announces its intention deal to buy Yahoo!'s core internet operations and land holdings for US $4.8 billion. News source(s):http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/yahoo-sale.html Credits:
Weak support From a standpoint of the industry this is a major acquisition and certainly will have some shakeup, but the value is (relatively speaking) dirt cheap, considering that MS bought LinkedIn a bit ago for $26B. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional fact I learned: this is about a year after Verizon bought out AOL for about $4.4B, which we did post [15]. So to not post this while we posted that deal (barring article quality) would be very inconsistent. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Need to go beyond the $ amount of the deal, as Yahoo is one of the top five most popular web sites. The story here is that for such a large and influential site, it cannot get more than $5 billion dollars among $10 billion to $100 billion companies. In short, the relatively small dollar amount is news in itself. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fuzheado. However the blurb is incorrect: Yahoo isn't being bought in its entirety, only a part of it is ("core internet operations and land holdings", as in the source); in fact the part of Yahoo that's not being bought is bigger than the part that is. Adding Altblurb 2 for that. Banedon (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting and emphasizing the ludicrously small value Yahoo has at this point after they brought Marissa Mayers 4 years ago and gave her more than $270M to save the ship. The remaining stuff is strictly pertaining to Asia. Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2. Yahoo is one the the giants of the Internet, in terms of page views, ranking higher than Amazon, Twitter, and even our beloved Wikipedia. Both target articles are in good shape. --Tocino16:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was going to nominate this myself but forgot. This is a major deal between two major companies and as mentioned above Yahoo is one of the top companies on the internet. Andise1 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, but "announces its intention"? Really? Like Manchester United have "announced their intention" to buy Paul Pogba? This sounds seriously like we need to wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost every corporate finance transaction (merger, acquisition etc.) occurs several months after the announcement of an agreement to enter into a transaction. This is no different to many other transactions covered by ITN in recent months, such as Microsoft's intention to buy LinkedIn. Stockst (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Latchem if you read the PR, it clearly states "The deal is subject to customary closing conditions, approval by Yahoo’s shareholders, and regulatory approvals, and is expected to close in Q1 of 2017." The deal has not occurred. Having said that, it is customary for ITN to post these types of acquisitions when they announced, and not when they occur. Stockst (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Of the three blurbs posted above, one has already been crossed out. However the original blurb "The American broadband telecommunications company Verizon announced its intent to acquire the American multinational technology company Yahoo for 4.8 billion USD." is also incorrect because it is only some of Yahoo's assets that Verizon plans to acquire. Of the three blurbs proposed, the only accurate one is altblurb2.
Comment/edit - Altblurb2 changed to "deal" rather than "its intention" to buy Yahoo. Feelings mixed about Yahoo! vs Yahoo, as most every news headline has omitted the exclamation point. -- Fuzheado | Talk21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the vast majority of our readers would be more interested in the fact that this deal includes Flickr and Tumblr, which probably accounts for the majority of the value; Yahoo's web presence is effectively worthless. Black Kite (talk)21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 Even if you consider a laughing stock, Yahoo is still one of the three major U.S. web searches along with Google and Bing. Plus, as Black Kite pointed out, the deal also includes sites such as Flickr and Tumblr. Furthermore, as others have said, we posted Microsoft acquiring LinkedIn, which isn't as significant by itself as Yahoo, Flickr, Tumblr, etc. combined. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2. While the monetary value is not particularly high, Yahoo! is a historically significant company and a household name, so this is very significant. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Verizon has wanted Yahoo as an email portal since Verizon was incorporated. Back when we had free Yahoo with Verizon DSL and Yahoo frisbees at Verizon sales meetings, it was a joke. That was well over a decade ago that people just didn't care about a company that had blossomed and died in the 90's. Before Verizon's failed "synergy" with DishTV. BTW, how many hotmail, netscape, and cs users are still around? μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your oppose rationale. Are you saying the deal is not likely to go through (first part) and that even if it does, no one cares (second part)? Banedon (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the support rationales, I understand that Tumblr and Flickr fall under the umbrella of Yahoo, I even understand Yahoo's history in the formation of the Internet as we know it. But I just don't feel like this story works for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is not possible to add a 3rd altblurb. I deleted the old inaccurate altblurb (which incorrectly suggested Verizon was acquiring all of Yahoo!) and wrote an alternative blurb, which describes what Verizon and Yahoo! are. Although many people outside the US may have heard of Yahoo!, Verizon is not a well-known company outside that country. I also added strikeout format to the original blurb, which incorrectly suggests that Verizon is acquiring all of Yahoo! Stockst (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I see consensus against posting this because it's a big business deal, and no consensus either way about whether it should be posted based on being a deal between two big name companies. I'm not going to close the discussion though as consensus may still arise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It means that some people think this is important, and others don't. That we have summarily rejected such paltry business deals on spec prior to this needs to be weighed up with the affection and nostalgia associated with elements of Yahoo being purchased for pin money. This is so far out of the news already, it's a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose Shooting in the US is now a cliché..no longer news worthy..unless someone important gets killed and he gets and RD or a blurb...--Stemoc10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Comment The only death that I see being reported presently is the bomber themselves, with 12 others injured (3 critical condition). Blurb updated. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose SupportNo major injuries and seems to be relatively minor compared to the Munich attack and the current suicide bombing featured in ITN. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although there weren't many major injuries (four were serious injuries), it seems that this being the first suicide bombing in recent German history seems to be quite notable. The last suicide bombing was in 1980 in Munich, Germany, according to Terrorism in Germany. Sources don't specify when the last suicide bombing was other than saying "in recent memory" or "in years". —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the attack headlines on many newspapers and it is being called the fourth violent attack in Germany in a week by various WP:RS, including Reuters. Also, one should point out that measuring an article's newsworthiness strictly by body count is fairly grisly and one is appalled by this sort of criteria. Instead, it should be noted that the string of attacks is likely to have deep repercussions in Germany, and consequently in EU policy.XavierItzm (talk)
Weak oppose Given the multitude of terrorist attacks around the world there should be some editorial judgement. In that sense, this is run-of-the-mill fortunately, as no one died. Brandmeistertalk08:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fortunately, nothing too serious happened. I feel like media attention is already coming back to Munich again even here in Germany. It's dark times... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose - not because of the low bodycount but because this does not seem to be terrorism or connected at all to any of the other recent violent events in Germany, rather just one desperate individual. If this had been the gas explosion it was first thought to be it wouldn't even be nominated here. If I'm wrong about this, or there are wider implications than there appear to be at present, then I'll likely change my mind. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps we could put all these terror attacks into one blurb? For example, "Three terrorist attacks strike Germany, [item 1], [item 2], [item 3]." Or "At least ___ people die in three attacks in [place 1], [place 2], [place 3], Germany." Banedon (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because although in the context of things, one failed suicide bomber isn't particlarly newsworthy, a disgruntled asylum seeker gearing up for and conducting a terror attack is news, particularly as Germany has agreed to process so many of these individuals, this is probably the tip of a nasty-looking iceberg. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose this, strong oppose any merged blurb. The recent attacks in Germany seem to have little to do with one another beyond happening to take place in the same country. Smurrayinchester11:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Saidly not newsworthy enough for an internationally-geared news-selection. However cynical it may sound, but the absence of multiple deaths and what has been seen in the region is the reason for that, and the asylum-seeker circumstance doesn't make that different. L.tak (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this leads to a change in German or European policy, then that would be worthy of inclusion. Even then, this would hardly be the only incident that would have contributed to the rough atmosphere these days. MikeLynch (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite a fair comparison. European and particularly German (public) attitudes towards the handling of refugees (the main point of contention) have been evolving rapidly in a short span of time, and a change in policy would be a surer sign of changing attitudes.
Besides, that was not my only point. Certainly, if the attack was more serious (in its intensity and the amount of victims, an unfortunate statistic), this would probably have merited to go up IMO. MikeLynch (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly fair comparison. American gun laws will not change for the foreseeable future so your argument that a change of policy is required to post such items means we shouldn't post any more mass shootings in the US. The fact that the attitudes in Germany have been changing means this is more newsworthy, not less. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that the change in attitude (a political demonstration of it) is worthy of posting. If this incident led to that, then surely it would be worth posting in association with such a change. As a single incident I wouldn't think it so because it looks minor in itself. And I don't mean "change in policy is required" as a general principle; just that I would wait to see if there were further repercussions of this particular incident, failing which it seems not siginificant enough for ITN. MikeLynch (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post "changes in attitude" at ITN, we post verifiable news stories. This is a watershed moment, Germany has gone to massive lengths to accept inordinate numbers of refugees and migrants, and yet this is the first ISIL suicide attack in that country. It's been headline news all day on the BBC international site, more than eclipsing the daily mass shooting in the US (today, Florida), and has been generally accepted as highly significant in the current climate. I won't expect you to change your vote, but you should understand that your position is peculiar, demanding a change in policy for this to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in support of this. we've had a defacto policy against posting these stories in the US with people lining up to label it "run of the mill gun murder in America", so yeah, until Europe implements some gun, bomb, machete, truck and immigrant control, this is just run of the mill European terrorism. --107.77.232.40 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an alt blurb that describes the attack as the first of its kind if recent German history. This statement, however, is disputed. Please discuss the statement here. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
At least 21 are killed and more than 35 people injured in a suicide attack at one of the residential entrances to district Kadhimiyah, in northern Baghdad, Iraq. ISIL claims responsibility, as published in its official media. (CNN) (Iraqi News)
The leader of the Australian delegation says the country's athletes would not be checking in at the athletes' village because it's unsafe for human habitation. Australian athletes have been staying at nearby Rio de Janeiro hotels. (The New York Times)
Nepal's Prime MinisterKhadga Prasad Oli resigns minutes before parliament was to vote on a no confidence motion he was likely to lose, after allies of his multi-party coalition leave the government accusing him of not honoring power sharing deals that helped him assume office in October 2015. (The Hindu)(Reuters)
The International Olympic Committee states it considers all Russian athletes tainted by the country’s state-run doping scheme but individual athletes can compete in 2016 Games if they are able to convince individual sports federations of their innocence. A daunting task for these organizations to handle hundreds of appeals just 12 days before the start of the Rio Games on 5 August. (The New York Times)(AP & NBC News)(rt.com)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
(edit conflict) Not in my opinion. If the article is not of GA or higher quality (iirc this article is assessed as "start" class) then I really think that the requirement for a consensus that there are no problems with the article quality needs to be taken more seriously. Nom+1 after less than an hour is not a consensus. @The Rambling Man: Please remember that the the criteria for RD explicitly says that the quality is judged based on a consensus, not just on the posting admin's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I judged article quality and that was sufficient for me. Article classifications e.g. "Start" are bullshit and worthless unless it's GA, FA or FL so I'm afraid that cuts no mustard with me at all. We had three supports in total, as by posting I supported its inclusion. If that's a problem, I'll stop doing ITN right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that one support + nom + admin supervote in 24 minutes = consensus, then perhaps it would be better to stop doing ITN. What I'm saying is that there was not a consensus when it was posted. The fact that the article is in good enough condition to be posted (and is probably C class) is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the ping last night. FYI, I will not be told to make an administrative edit (i.e. one that requires admin privileges to do). If I make an administrative edit, I will do so of my own free will. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Basically hits not two but three birds with one stone: DNC email leak, DNC chairwoman resigning, 2016 DNC in Philadelphia ongoing; all newsworthy by itself. bender235 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Internal American politics (even considering Wasserman's resignation), while likely will be discussion all this week, is not yet significant at the larger scale. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Fairly specific to internal American politics at this point. Increased scrutiny of Russian involvement could change my mind, but for now, doesn't seem to rise to the level on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose with regret. Looking at last year's article, we had a great "race overview" section which covered, in prose, the race. I'm not seeing that here, so despite British cyclists being indisputably the best in the known universe, I can't currently support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea got to agree with you it it's not complete enough. I'd planned to get it all sorted like last year, but unfortunately didn't have the time. There's always next year! BaldBoris23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a flurry of major news stories you will likely have 4-5 days although the oldest blurb on the template currently is 8 days old. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind you only need now two or so good paras (likely broken at the same place the two legs pages are broken apart at), and you can readily borrow from those pages to fill in the major points. It should be easily doable as it looks like its all there, just a matter of summarizing what's there. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously - We had it last year. This is the premier professional bicycle race in the world. Featuring the article on the front page may be the exact thing to find that cycling enthusiast to help improve it. "In the news" should not need this high a quality bar. -- Fuzheado | Talk10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on WP:ITN/R so there is already consensus that it is significant and should be posted when there is a sufficient update. The consensus for sporting events is, and has been for as long as I've been contributing to ITN/C, that a prose summary of the event is a minimum requirement before posting. This relates to the function of ITN to showcase encyclopaedia articles related to current events, rather than just tables of facts that people can find on any sports ticket (which we are not). Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have enough detail to be posting the item and should strike while the iron is hot. Myself, I'd like to see details of the bicycles used – Froome used a Pinarello Dogma again – but there's no mention of this in either this year's or last year's report. But such additions are nice-to-have and not a reason to hold up posting. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we will add anything along those lines though... It would be hard to include information that is actually informative and not drift into WP:PROMO. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the page tells us that Froome was part of Team Sky. Sky is a commercial sponsor who does this to give their name publicity and we seem happy to oblige. Putting in details of the bicycles being ridden seems more relevant. Zwerg Nase also works on pages about F1 such as 2016 British Grand Prix. These are likewise full of reference to Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and other car marques which also participate as a form of advertising. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose. One dead body, while unfortunate, is hardly grounds to post something to ITN; otherwise we would be a dead body ticker. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sadly, these fires are a fairly regular occurrence and unless there is a larger impact, it doesn't rise to being front page, global, material. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk11:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
We are definitely not going off the Daily Mail as the only source. If this actually happens, yes, it's big news, but all indicators suggest it's limited to track and field. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there's nothing about it on ESPN.com or CNN.com or BBC (international) .com. If the story were true, it would be a huge headline. Certainly it's being talked about behind the scenes, but there's no indication of a decision yet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Post-closing FYI spec: It turns out the rules set for Athletics will be applied (maybe even in more stringent form) to all athletes. That will probably mean the Russian team will be very, very small (only 1 in athletics...). Sources here and here, and an update at here. L.tak (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BBC article explains it well in "plainspeak" - Each sport's oversight committee (20-some in all) will have 12 days now to review each Russian athlete that has applied to participate at Rio 2016 to make a determination if they should be allowed or not; only the track & field team is already outright banned. In twelve days, this might be a worthwhile ITN story if the #s are > 50% or so of Russia's planned team. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Munich Police Chief Hubertus Andrae identifies the attacker as a dual national, 18-year-old Iranian-German who apparently acted alone. He was found dead of a suspected self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. (Reuters)
Chief Andrae reports there are "no indications" the teenage gunman, who killed nine people and apparently himself, had links to ISIL or any other terror group. The attack injured 27. (NBC News)
Floods kill at least 154 in China and 300,000 people are being evacuated in Hebei province. Villagers have accused local officials of covering up the extent of the damage. (AP via The Daily Mail)
Hawaii GovernorDavid Ige declares a state of emergency as Tropical Storm Darby is on track to reach the U.S. state's Big Island today with maximum sustained winds approaching 50 mph (80 kph). The storm, which previously was a Category 3 hurricane, could produce up to 15 inches (40 cm) of rain. (Reuters)(NHC)
A bus from Wales carrying 50 people, including 41 teenagers, tips over in eastern France, injuring 13, two seriously. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: We posted Stephen Sutton, a similarly selfless person who helped others when he himself was in the direst condition. This article is well-sourced and the now relaxed notability criteria as it has been on Wikipedia since February 2015 '''tAD''' (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in good shape. (It should be noted that as long as the person has a reasonable standalone article, we don't have to worry about justifying importance anymore for RD). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I am aware of this, but I know that things can't be posted if there's a general notability dispute or nomination for deletion. When "non-celebrity" people like Granger are put on Wikipedia, there is often a nomination for deletion. If a reviewer didn't look in the history and how long this page has been on Wikipedia, they may have debated the notability of the entire article '''tAD''' (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting - came here to nominate the article for RD and found it already posted! Have tidied the article up a little. MurielMary (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Swedish politician. First non-socialist PM in over 40 years. Legendary involvement in the U-137 crises. Next to Olof Palme, only Swedish genuine statesman in modern political history; they both dominated Swedish political life during a decade. Article not in perfect shape (yet)... Bruzaholm (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged this earlier and the article still has five left. Could tenuously argue that the first 30 and last 30 years of his life have not been mentioned, but I'm happy enough if those cn tags on his political career (the basis of his notability) are addressed. Detailed sources are in Swedish, so I'm not much help here. Fuebaey (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: The blurb is kind of awkward, happy for it to be changed if someone can make it more concise. Currently updating the article. ¡Bozzio!06:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only after Fyodor's article is significantly improved. This is a long-standing world record and global circumnavigation attempts are few and far between (as opposed to, say, premier athletics events which take place monthly), and the record was not broken by 0.1%, it was broken by 20%. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The circumference of the earth is about 40K km but this Australia-based route is only about 34K km because they stick to much the same latitude and so it's not a full circumnavigation As the craft is quite passive, just being carried by the wind, the speed doesn't seem a significant achievement as that will mostly depend on the vagaries of the weather. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the chosen latitude, technically that's still a valid circumnavigation. To my knowledge, there's no formal requirement mandating a longer equatorial route, it's just the harder and more admirable way to do it. Compare this to various ascension routes to Everest. Regardless of the chosen route, an experienced alpinist would still ascend the summit. However, previous attempts might be incomparable due to different routes chosen. Brandmeistertalk11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good explanation of the technical issues at What is a World Circumnavigation?. The Vendee Globe route does indeed make a tight circumnavigation around Antartica and that's why they have to cross the equator too, to make it a decent journey. Note also that that page exists because that group seems to be in a bitter dispute with others about their route and record. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Al-Jaz says the route this man took was longer than Fossett. This is being reported as having broken the record. I don't know if we need to wait for the Air Sports Federation to confirm anything(Al-Jaz says they couldn't reach them for comment) but I think posting now is OK. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was near unanimous support for the hurdles record, and that wasn't (and still isn't) ratified, so I think we should maintain some level of consistency on this, based on the reporting of reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements - the "Awards" section needs a citation and the "Art" section is completely uncited and atrociously written. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - The BBC story says, "If his record is confirmed by the World Air Sports Federation..." and "There has been no immediate comment by the World Air Sports Federation." The lead sentence indicates the record is only according to "his support crew." In terms of WP:V, we should wait. If confirmed, then it should be a front page story. -- Fuzheado | Talk12:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More There's another circumnavigation story up at the BBC: Solar Impulse completes historic round-the-world trip. That one seems more recognised by the FAI, which does not seem to have ratified the balloon trip as it hasn't added it to its long list of balloon records. I reckon that circumnavigations are too commonplace for us to report them all and so we should only be picking out the most exceptional ones. Perhaps this solar circumnavigation qualifies as a first. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article:July 2016 Kabul bombing (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Two Islamic State suicide bombers blow themselves during a peaceful protest in Kabul killing at least 61 and wounded 200 others. (Post) Alternative blurb: A peaceful protest in Kabulis disrupted by two Islamic State suicide bombers, killing at least 61 and injuring 200. Alternative blurb II: Two ISIS suicide bombers blew themselves during a peaceful protest in Kabul killing at least 80 and wounded 260 others. News source(s):BBCAljazeera Credits:
Support, with a bit more time for stability - I've added an altblurb. Significant event, just would give this a few more hours to let details firm up to improve the article. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One thing wiki is good at is acknowledging terror attacks in the third world equally with the first world. This is something the MSM has allegedly failed to do. (I don't watch them, so don't know)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support story as this stands out from recent mass death events with the exception of Nice.
Maybe I'm being a bit nit-picky here, but I feel both blurbs are a bit loaded. We didn't feel the need to mention that the crowds at Bastille Day were peaceful, despite the origins of Bastille Day and the fact that France has had a turbulent couple of years (Charlie Hebdo, the November bombings, Nice, the trouble at Euro 2016, widespread and quite significant protests at the labour laws, large scale trouble at Calais and so on). It reads to me as though we are conveying surprise that people in Kabul were behaving peacefully before being attacked. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning that the attackers in either case attacked where there was a mass gathering is a significant part. In the Kabul case, they were gathering to protest, but obviously not in a violent manner, so it is necessary here to make that distinction that it wasn't like hundreds gathered with guns and were fighting. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be not to use something that requires a qualifier. I think using what our article is called makes sense. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but change blurb "blow themselves" is a double entrendre, "disrupt" is a bit of an understatement. Perhaps say Suicide bomb attack in Kabul kills at least 80 and wound 260 others. 108.12.164.219 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Use first alternative blurb, but change the number of supposed casualties to 80, and the number of injured to 260. -Ano-User (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN doesn't give the results of the US presidential nominations race for the two major parties, so the name of a running mate isn't the stuff of ITN either. BencherliteTalk10:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Surprised not to find it here. The vice presidential pick is generally assumed (although there is contrary evidence) to have a significant impact on the race. In this particular case, the selection of Pence has a significant impact on the ability of Clinton to either unify the party or reach out to those outside it. His selection will likely dominate the news for the next few days and will be referred to in any significantly detailed analysis of the election. Chris vLS (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a breaking news ticker; this is not the sort of event that is typically posted(the selection of lower-ranked officials); they all have to choose someone and this choice isn't groundbreaking or unusual. We didn't post Pence. If Clinton/Kaine wins the election, it will be posted then. Posting the selection of the ticket would be a slippery slope. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As surprised (and added rationale above). Vice president is often considered useless, but not minor. In the U.S. system, there's no slippery slope danger, I wouldn't think. That said, if it wasn't done for Pence, probably shouldn't do it for Kaine -- unless we have done it four years ago . . . Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope I refer to is that of posting the selection of lower-ranked officials(vice presidents, cabinet officials); if it's done for the US, it will need to be done for other countries, which turns this into a political news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still think that it's distinguishable from a cabinet post. Fortunately for non-U.S. politicians, there aren't a lot of offices like it. But fair enough. Cheers.Chris vLS (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thousands gather in Istanbul's Taksim Square in a show of support for the new powers that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has received in order to crackdown on dissent following the attempted coup. (The Telegraph)
China begins demolishing buildings and evicting residents at Larung Gar in Tibet, one of the largest religious institutes in the world. Officials put forward overpopulation and security as the leading reasons for the planned action. (BBC)(AP via ABC News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Please offer news sources indicating this is in the news, and an article to evaluate for its quality. Typically, the template given at the top of the infobox is copied with the appropriate information filled in. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous record stood for 28 years. The Olympics is a special cluster of sports news and so will presumably go into Ongoing. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, we do regularly post breaking of 100m and marathon records. And perhaps some other long-standing records in athletics, I don't remember, was it the pole vault? --Tone10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did we post the London Marathon record? The 100m records haven't been broken since 2009 and 1988 respectively so when did we post them? In any case, for a more professional blurb, we should be including Women's 100 metres hurdles world record progression as a link and state the record has been 28 years in the breaking, not some pointy flimflam about not being selected for the Olympics. Oh, and the time hasn't been ratified, but that's not a major hurdle... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have posted some previously (based on a search for world record in the candidates archives so not necessarily complete):
solo around-the-world sailing record in 2008 (I think because of poor article update and/or disagreement about the word "fortnight" in the blurb)
world record in men's 10 m Air Rifle in 2008 (because it didn't meet "the ITN sports criteria for a WR?: "that is broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event" ")
800 metres world record in 2010 (mainly because it was his own record from a matter of weeks previously)
@Thryduulf: Yes, we did post all the records listed above but none of them have ever stood for almost 28 years. The women's 4x100 relay world record was broken at the London Olympics after 27 years and was posted with a separate blurb because of its rarity and greatness of achievement. I'd have definitely not supported this had its progression been on a year-after-year basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I'm unsure what your point is here my post was just a factual listing of what was and was not posted in response to a question asking what had been posted previously, I have expressed no opinion either way on whether this should be posted or not (and currently have no plan to express such an opinion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Well, sorry for that. I've apparently made a misunderstanding of your comment while reading the whole discussion. It's fine having that listing in a chronological order. :)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breaking a world record that stood for nearly 28 years is a big and notable accomplishment. I'd still prefer a clearer blurb without mentioning other results from her recent career (see altblurb).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that was a new record long overdue. Support also the -news-y- proposed blurb as that is part of what makes it all the more interesting. L.tak (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for alt 2. It is the long-standing nature of the record which tips the balance for me, and oppose any posting which doesn't mention this for fear of setting too easy a precident. Would recommend bolding the athlete's article ahead of the event's, as the former is in better condition and is the one which actually has a text update. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2. Outdoor athletics World records in Olympic events are some of the most notable World records in sports. This is the first one since August 2015, and it broke one of the infamous records by Eastern European women during communism (widely believed to have been systematically doped). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 and bold the athlete article, which is in much better shape and more or less ready. Breaking a nearly three decade long record in a track event seems to be enough for posting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I maximized the resolution and uploaded a 4:5 crop. The result is far from ideal, but it makes for an adequate 100x125px thumbnail. —David Levy03:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed. If you sincerely believe that this looks bad enough to justify leaving up the six-day-old image corresponding to the oldest blurb, so be it. If the next addition (likely pushing off the golf item) lacks a suitable image, I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is better than nothing. —David Levy04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is awkwardly worded, it reads like it's a record for 28-year olds, not a record which is 28 years old. Not sure how it could be changed though. Maybe In athletics, American sprinter Kendra Harrison breaks the world record 100 metres hurdles world, which stood for 28-years. That may not be much better...--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Imbrium Basin formed as a result of an impact with a proto-planet
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.
Nominator's comments: In the period between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, the so-called Late Heavy Bombardment occurred during which the inner solar system was blasted by asteroids. But we don't know a lot about the nature of these asteroids, whether they were comets, if water was brought to the Earth via these impacts. The newly determined size of the Imbrium impactor being so much larger than the previous estimates will lead to a different pciture about the late heavy bombardment. The breakup of a large impactor when it collides with the Moon or other planet causes large chunks of it to escape back into space, these will then impact planets later. So, some considerable fraction of the smaller impacts due to kilometer sized asteroids were in fact due to chunks blasted off the larger impactors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't get the significance. Why don't you just go back to tmz/gawker, to see whether they have anything you can nominate. 79.193.104.97 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still not getting it. tmz? gawker? Sorry, I prefer the BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of ITN, my anonymous buddy! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As in 'Ahem there has been a BBC article since the 20th July, two days before this was posted' ahem. (I dont expect you to go searching for it, I would have expected the person posting to have used a BBC source if one was available). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this is listed under the wrong date? Should be moved down to 20 July. I'm still failing to see this as a major landmark moment, the BBC article concludes that the estimate of the size of the item hitting the moon was three times larger than previously estimated. And...? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I could state the significance in another way - this early period in the formation of our solar system had a huge impact (pun intended) on the development of the chemistries, atmospheres, and life formation processes of our planets (and their moons), but there are so many things about this period that we still don't know. The discovery suggests that this period was very different than we thought, with huge, planet-like objects, no longer present today, flying around and colliding with other planets and moons. That's a big deal, and that's why the topic has gotten so much coverage in the press in the last 48 hours. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is an important discovery and there has been substantial coverage in the media over the last two days. The notion that planet-sized objects were flying around our solar system and colliding with existing planets and their moons, just when life and associated chemistries and atmospheres are beginning to form, is surprising and interesting. The discovery would also go a long way towards explaining why the moon still looks the way it does to us today. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The interest factor here is the sheer size of the colliding object, and – given the probability of fragments re-colliding – speculation as to its composition. That is significant and (provided the speculation is of a scientific rather than media-led nature) encyclopaedic. But given that it was already known that celestial objects collided during this period, and therefore, logically, this impact crater would have been caused by one of the larger ones, I struggle to see how the upgraded estimate of the object's size falls into the bracket of news. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to think about importance, but on the blurb, can we make sure to reflect that this is a proposed, peer-reviewed theory? (eg instead of "formed", use "is postulated to have formed..." or the like). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - it's been a while since we've posted a science-related item. This item however I am not sure about. It seems pretty dull. That the basin was formed by a collision is obvious. The LHB period is also well-established. Significance here seems to be about the size of the impacting object, which is fine and all but is interesting only to specialists (hence the narrow nature of the sources cited). As an evolutionary bit of science I am not convinced it is worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Covered by the BBC. I will say the BBC article does make it sound quite a bit more interesting than the more science-specific coverage. Probably out of necessity. Personally I found the explanation for why the man in the moon has an eye at all a bit interesting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, completely incoherent. The news media can barely describe what the difference is between the previous state of knowledge and the "improvement" brought by the finding. I suspect there is no substantive difference, and this is simply a case of academic boosterism. Abductive (reasoning)16:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a huge difference, it explains where your great great great......great grandparents came from. The cross section of the Earth is about 13 times larger than that of the Moon, so it implies that the Earth was hit during the late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) period by more and larger pro-planets (objects like 4 Vesta or Ceres (dwarf planet)), which means that life could not exist, or would have been wiped out after it first emerged. But we do know that right after the LHB, life flourished, so this makes it pretty much impossible for life to have evolved on Earth, it had to be brought to Earth by these impacts in some way. Life could have evolved inside water-rich proto-planets, and as the research article points out, after a collision, huge parts break off and veer back into space. Life inside these parts can survive being in space for a long time as has been demonstrated in other research articles. These parts will eventually be scooped up by the inner planets, so life could have made it to Earth via this route. Such a scenario, which was considered to be one of the many possible scenario of how life arose on Earth, now pretty much become the only possible scenario. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The large impacts of objects substantially larger than about 100 km in diameter were thought to have stopped long before that time. It was already a bit difficult to explain how life could have arisen and survived around 4 billion years ago, with impact that are much larger than thought possible during that time, the picture changes completely. Count Iblis (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[Closed] MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced beforehand
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:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced suicide routes deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean on his home flight simulator. (Post) News source(s):NYMAG Credits:
Nominator's comments: "The document presents the findings of the Malaysian police’s investigation into Zaharie. It reveals that after the plane disappeared in March of 2014, Malaysia turned over to the FBI hard drives that Zaharie used to record sessions on an elaborate home-built flight simulator. The FBI was able to recover six deleted data points that had been stored by Microsoft Flight Simulator X program in the weeks before MH370 disappeared, according to the document. Each point records the airplane’s altitude, speed, direction of flight, and other key parameters at a given moment. The document reads, in part:
"Based on the Forensics Analysis conducted on the 5 HDDs obtained from the Flight Simulator from MH370 Pilot’s house, we found a flight path, that lead to the Southern Indian Ocean, among the numerous other flight paths charted on the Flight Simulator, that could be of interest, as contained in Table 2."
Taken together, these points show a flight that departs Kuala Lumpur, heads northwest over the Malacca Strait, then turns left and heads south over the Indian Ocean, continuing until fuel exhaustion over an empty stretch of sea." Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Speculation by correlation. (Especially as it seems NY Magazine is breaking this ... NYMag is not the National Inquirer or the Daily Mail, but they're not the NYTimes or BBC either...) --MASEM (t) 20:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Single source information, and not of the highest caliber. Needs other news agencies pick it up and have more firm proof and response from officials/investigators. -- Fuzheado | Talk20:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article:2016 Munich shootings (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Police hunt attackers after shootings in Munich (Post) Alternative blurb: Police hunt attackers after at least six people are killed in shootings at a shopping centre in Munich. Alternative blurb II: At least eight people are killed in shootings at a shopping centre in Munich. News source(s):BBC Credits:
Lean support but wait on details There is word people have been killed, which would be easily a support, but its not confirmed when I just checked the BBC. I would lean oppose if it is just shots with no injuries. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an accurate observation of previously prematurely posted articles. There was no spirit of comity or collaboration when those were made, this is not a personal attack, it's serious and hard-hitting advice to any admin who wants to post this item before it's mature and before there's a consensus to do so. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for further pot shots, if you're unable to communicate behavioral concerns civilly and in the appropriate forum you should refrain from commenting at all; you discussed this issue at length at AN were advised by the closing admin to "learn to let it go"; I will reiterate the advice that per WP:NPA you should not be derogatively commenting on other contributors, and this is doubly unacceptable from an administrator. Please continue conducting yourself according to the standard that is expected of you and leave the dire "advice" to be given by users with a less emotional involvement. Swarm♠20:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the place to warn people to stop behaving like other admins (and WMF employees) and an explicitly important message to all of those with an itchy trigger finger. Your attempt to berate me is pointless and is insulting to those who actually actively work hard as admins with the trust of the community, who act in line with the community consensus. You're a poor apologist for a rogue admin who should be de-sysopped. My post here is intended to remind other possible rogue admins that such actions will not be tolerated. Not one personal attack has taken place here, it's all pure fact. If you don't understand that, perhaps you should do something else instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but I don't think we'll need to wait long. See the 19:53 update at [18] which cites "local media" saying the police are describing it as an "acute terror threat". Media is also coalescing around a figure of 6 deaths, I've added an altblurb with this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote on a breaking news article already provides a clear warning to any reader. "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable." We've had this back and forth before - the value of a news box is that we highlight... news! That we would intentionally not inform front page visitors that we have an active article about the topic is reducing our relevance and usefulness. (And as in previous conversations, let's not debate WP:NOTNEWS) -- Fuzheado | Talk19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't a ticker, there are problems with the article, we need to get a consensus to post and that the consensus agrees the quality is sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The event is almost certainly significant, but the facts are very confused and our article is poorly developed with few details yet and very scrappy writing and structure. I would help improve it but don't have time right now. Fences&Windows19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since just saying wait seems not to care anyone. Please everyone remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just have some patience. --bender235 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS carefully and you'll discover that it's about original research, notability and reliable sourcing. It is not an argument against timeliness. -- Fuzheado | Talk19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please recall that recent events just here have seen rogue and subsequently admonished admins making rash and hurried decisions against consensus and without due care and attention. There is no need to rush into this, so stop harassing those who think a pause is a good idea here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to and quoting policy is "harassing someone?" That's a very warped definition of harassing, which I think explains a lot. -- Fuzheado | Talk20:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to and misusing policy is harassing people. Now I'd advise you to stop that please, after all we'd hate to see another admin lost to the four corners for lack of competence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information We aren't going to post breaking events if WP:V and general base quality standards can't be met by the articl. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now. The article is in a terrible shape, and it currently has an unacceptable title ("2016 Munich terrorist shooting attacks", seriously? we don't use "terrorist" in most titles even when it's a known terrorist attack, partly because of WP:TERRORIST, and here we go ahead and use it in the title even though we hadn't know anything at all about the events or their motives at this point?). It might be of limited worldwide interest, too, depending on the direction it develops in. LjL (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another alt blurb added. We need to ensure the article is reflective of this, but otherwise I see no reason to delay now, eight people in a Western European city have been killed by gunmen, that's rare as, regardless of the perps. Get the article up to snuff and it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You complained about early posting against consensus, but to be honest, I almost only see "wait"s and some "opposes" here, followed by your "to me it's ready to post" and shortly followed by your posting it. I'm just saying... LjL (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I checked the article, made a few edits, checked the reliable sources, made a few changes, checked the votes, assessed that eight people shot to death in a European city was news, and posted it. So I respected all parts of the process. Next question? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the parts except the one called WP:CONSENSUS (which is not just "checking the votes", but you know, respecting them), which IIRC was the thing that you most accused the aforementioned "bad admin" of breaking. LjL (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being deliberately funny? The ed17 posted the previous story inside SEVEN MINUTES. Get a grip. We have a known number of victims, we have established, verifiable sources, we have a number of the community saying "wait" until something concrete (well, eight dead in Munich is concrete). If you wish to continue this debate, take it to my talk page, or ANI or Arbcom or somewhere, because this is becoming a little tiresome. Learn the difference between rogue playmaking with the main page, and respect for Wikipedians' opinions and how ITN works, then get back to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support TRM's WP:BOLD admin decision. There are stories that ITN runs regardless of what the hard vote count says. This is one of them. If he believes that the article referencing is up to snuff, I trust his judgment.--WaltCip (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support TRM's WP:BOLD admin decision. As one of the people voting "wait" I intended my vote to mean "I support the significance of the story, but do not post until there is enough concrete information for a reliable blurb and the article is in good shape. If those criteria are met before my next visit to the page there is not need to wait for my return before posting." In this case TRM spent 20 minutes assessing and improving the article a couple of hours after a very major news story first broke before posting, after explicit support for the significance of the event. This is very significantly different to what Ed did. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious this was going to be posted. Not a terrible call to post when TRM did, though I was also following the article at the time and personally would have waited a bit longer. At the time, the number of shooters, number of locations, and other details were still in flux. The amount of material based on weak sources (e.g. twitter and speculative reporting) was still higher than I would generally like. As it happens, another 90 minutes or so did a lot to clarify what happened. Dragons flight (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been there for about a week. The main news now is that it is becoming available in more countries, which are not updates strong enough to make it still relevant for ITN ongoing. We posted it as ongoing as we could not agree on a blurb, a blurb would roll off the Main page by now. Suggesting to do the same now. --Tone17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – Still circulating the news quite a bit and it remains a huge sensation; the article is still getting hundreds of thousands of views daily. However, things do appear to be calming down and editing is getting less frequent. Most of what I have done is small statistical updates, the biggest news appears to have passed. I do have a personal bias toward keeping the article (huge Pokémon fan and I've invested a lot of time improving the article) but objectively it's getting close to that time for taking it down. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It ran its course. If a particularly crushing news story comes up claiming it's the most widely used mobile app in the world, we can maybe consider reposting it.--WaltCip (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Indian Air Force plane gone missing, article is only a paragraph right now but I am sure will be updated more as more information is added. Andise1 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even if mostly military personal , still a significant aviation incident. I just would give this a few hours to make sure details stablize or if more can come out, as the article is a tad short. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that AIRCRASH is only describes cases where there is reasonably clear presumption for a standalone article, not when there should not be an article. While there is no case in this story that meets AIRCRASH, it still appears to be getting sufficient coverage to pass NEVENT even if there are no notable persons aboard. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that I'm not sure I understand your point beyond the fact that this "article" should be a one-line update in the standard list of military aircraft crashes for 2016, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is not nominated for deletion, isn't in too bad a shape, and this is in the news. WP:AIRCRASH has never been a particularly good predictor of AfD outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is very much still a stub. If formatted properly, it might be a paragraph long - no where near the three decently sized paragraphs ITN update guide for new articles. It should detail the ongoing search operation, but no prose has been added to article since the second comment on this nom. Fuebaey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Time to report the death of another historic figure, the VCR . Leaving jokes aside, it is a very notable technology of the past that I think is worthwhile pointing out. Nergaal (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with a proper blurb, this is only in Japan, not worldwide. And with physical-based distribution, there will be a huge tail before it "dies". --MASEM (t) 15:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's not Japan that stops producing, but rather the last existing producer of VCRs (who happens to be Japanese). Obviously notable, a once a groundbreaking and gamechanging technology dies. 79.193.104.97 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this has been re-opened. I expect it to be re-closed in the next hour or so. This is tech-trivia, not ITN in any way, shape or form. Regardless of the malformed nomination and the subsequent actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose ... and? This are findings that allow them to initiate full-on investigation towards the athletes in question (as per the IOC statement), which will likely end up with various bans, medal stripping, etc. (since a lot of these were medal winners). This also appears to be something they plan to keep ongoing (the 3rd and 4th waves mentioned) through Rio 2016. The final results will be of note (as in the case of the Russia doping, the announcement they were barred from an international event). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That they will be (most likely) barred or stripped off medals is rather an expected and natural consequence based on findings. Tomorrow or the day after IOC also plans to decide what to do with Russian team anyway. Brandmeistertalk14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they are being given the nature of a trial, so innocent until proven guilty and all that. At the point they are banned/stripped is when we should post. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every athlete in this current finding is Russian, though. I saw across the board of nationalities represented. From what I read, the doping by the Russian track + field team is a separate investigation (across all track & field competitions) while this IOC is specifically looking at the 2008 + 2012 Summer Games. There might be overlap, but we should be careful to conflate. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. On top of the previous finds, almost 10% of the selected samples for reanalysis points to doping. That number is huge, but this is not very obviously covered in the news, nor it is well covered here (in the linked article). Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait - Agree this is huge in terms of scope and profile, but as @Masem: points out, we need to know the fallout and not just the findings before it's a headline story. -- Fuzheado | Talk16:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Following the Nampala attack, the government of Mali declares a three-day mourning period for the 17 soldiers killed in the attack, as well as a state of emergency for three months across the country. (Reuters)
Breitbart tech editor and outspoken conservative gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos with more than 338,000 registered followers is "permanently" banned from Twitter. (Guardian)
A Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) ship rescues 209 people, including 50 children, from two dinghies in distress in the Mediterranean Sea but finds 22 dead bodies, 21 women and a child, lying in a pool of fuel in the bottom of one of the boats. The dinghies were 17 miles east of Tripoli, Libya. Cause of death is unknown, though an MSF official says it could be that fumes from mixed fuel and water rendered the people unconscious. The MSF ship is expected to arrive in the Sicilian port of Trapani on Friday.(Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I couldn't find any claim online and in English that supported the sentence, so I took the liberty of removing it. It can always be put there again if it turns out it was true. Yakikaki (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominated RDs must still be shown to be In The News- that has never changed. I'm not necessarily saying that the sources you have given mean otherwise- just that some more mainstream ones would make me feel better about it. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per331dot, the requirement that nominations actually appearing in news sources has not been removed. What has been removed is people's personal likes or dislikes, awareness of or lack of awareness of, and other similar criteria based on people's opinions of "importance" or "merit" or "notability". --Jayron3216:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The person is already established as being notable as they have a WP article (non-notable = no article). The article is already cited to reliable sources. Not sure of the basis of the opposition vote? MurielMary (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response WaltCip. However, the place to discuss notability of a subject is in a "article for deletion" nomination. The new RD criteria only deal with quality of article. MurielMary (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have added two further sources, from NY and the UK. Jayron and 331dot can you direct me to where the criteria of "mainstream sources" is recorded in the RD criteria? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article length and sourcing is good. While this death happens to be on the NY Times front page, I agree that even if the death is mentioned in a very smalltown newspaper's obituary section, as long as we have a quality article it must be posted under the new criteria. Mamyles (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose while I agree with the majority of the previous post, this is hardly a comprehensive article, it's just about avoiding having a stub tag. 36 years of her life are completely overlooked, presumably when she was most active as a socialite and making the most of life, so I can't support the article in its current, incomplete state. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except for her husband having an affair, what is missing from the article? It seems pretty much in line with the NY Times source. She was known primarily for hosting parties with a lot of powerful friends, and writing books about it. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mamyles - how is the article incomplete? What is missing? Her whole adult life is covered. Well above stub status. MurielMary (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I reviewed the article, there was no mention of anything that she had done (besides having three kids) between 1946 and 1982. That's what I considered incomplete. It's marginally better now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See, this is where the criteria fall down. Having a Wikipedia article = Notable. Why? What is she famous for? Holding parties, buying clothes, and being friends with some famous people? And people wonder why Wikipedia has a gender bias. This is not an important person. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Therefore all the bios of socialites and philanthropists should be deleted from WP? This simply raises the inherently subjective question of "important to whom" or "notable in whose eyes". If someone is reported on internationally, both while alive and on her death, how does that fall below notability? MurielMary (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste my time. This is an inherent failing of Wikipedia, not of ITN, that unimportant people who have achieved nothing apart from being friends with other "important people" can merit articles. They certainly shouldn't be given the dignity of an RD. But, for the sake of WP:GNG, the article still doesn't explain why we should care about her. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up the article. Was born. Married someone. Bought clothes. Got fined for importing clothes with fake prices. Was in a bit of a scandal with her husband's mistress after he died. Threw parties. Was friends with a First Lady. Did a bit of charity. Died. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the location to question the existence of the article. One person's 'unimportant' is another's 'very important', hence the change in RD criteria. I've said what you can do if you feel this person does not merit an article- but you declined to do so. If you do not wish to suggest the page for deletion, please move on. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, opposes about importance don't carry any weight now. If anyone wants to change the ITN/DC, there's another page for that. The article is of sufficient quality to post, marking [Ready]. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point While well-sourced, the article is very poorly organized and not Main Page ready at present. Her "adult life" section is not organized uniformly chronologically or thematically, and could do well with some sub-sections delineating how the article should be organized. Additionally, the introduction of the article states that "[s]he was considered a fashion icon" without providing any description of what this means in the rest of the article besides "Bloomingdale began travelling to Paris regularly to view and purchase haute couture clothing. Over the coming decades she amassed a collection of over 100 gowns and outfits" and that there was an exhibit about her at a college. Finally, and perhaps a more minor concern compared to the other issues noted, is that she is noted as being a "philanthropist" in the article's opening sentence, but the article provides only sparse information about what she actually did as a philanthropist. Removing ready. SpencerT♦C15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed analysis Spencer. I'm confused though by your comment that there is only sparse information on her charity work, as there is a complete paragraph describing this? Also the statement on "fashion icon" being unclear is odd, as the mention is followed by cited facts on appearing in best dressed lists, and supported in the article with a mention of the exhibition based on her fashion collection. MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only information I'm seeing about her charity work in the article is a brief two sentences ("she was involved in fundraising projects for the Los Angeles Cathedral, and also contributed to the funding for the development of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. She was also a member of the elite charitable group The Colleagues, which funded homes for unmarried mothers and their children.")...quite a bit of a stretch to call that a "complete paragraph" IMO, especially when the first half of the paragraph has seemingly unrelated information about Nancy Reagan. What was her role in those fundraising projects? Is there nothing more to say about her work with The Colleagues besides simply being a member? Given that this is what she is notable for, I would be expecting a more information than what currently exists in the article.
I definitely don't have an issue with the citations, those are fine. It's just that she's listed as a "fashion icon" without any in-text explanation of what that means...how did she impact haute couture in the United States? I guess I'm looking for more detail of her impact on broader culture, more than simply being on a list or having an exhibition of her dresses (which certainly are good starting points). Hope that adds some more clarification on what I meant. Best, SpencerT♦C18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Short article that really needs some work to match the proper tone - it reads like a series of bullet points, instead of a biography. Challenger l (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps editors would benefit from reviewing the new RD criteria. This nomination is at risk of becoming stale and un-postable as it has been derailed by discussions of irrelevant points such as the type of sources considered acceptable for the death announcement (no longer required - or at least, not described in the RD criteria) and the notability of the subject (no longer required, and the "articles for deletion" process exists if editors want to pursue that discusstion). MurielMary (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we post an article describing someone as a "philanthropist" when the paragraph describing her activities there is two sentences long and only contains sources showing she supported one charity? I would expect someone who was a genuine philanthropist to have sources showing far more than that. Laura Jamieson (talk)12:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there are reliable sources that describe her as a philanthropist (which there are in the article, although none of them are adjacent to where we use term that is something that can be fixed easily). Source 8 for example also gives details of a couple of other major charities she supported. I am not posting this at the moment, but that is because the observations by Spencer and Chalenger have largely not been addressed. The argument about this not appearing in mainstream general news media was not irrelevant - the new RD criteria explicitly did not change the requirement to be in the news, and as nothing is mentioned about how that is to be determined it is judged on the consensus of commentators, however ITN has historically given more weight to coverage in mainstream than in specialist publications; however as this has now appeared in mainstream sources the argument is moot. The argument about notability is irrelevant here, if the article exists and is not nominated for deletion then they are notable enough for RD. If you disagree they should have an article then you should nominate it for deletion, if you disagree with the GNG or how it is interpreted for specific fields then you need to gain consensus to change it at the relevant talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Well-known Romanian theater actor, the oldest one alive in Romania and one of the oldest in the world. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support on improvement This is a tough call, because we normally don't place Congress members in RD, even incumbent ones (such as Alan Nunnelee). However, his election in 2014 was hotly contested, with Takai winning by 51–47, so his death might have a bigger impact. I think we could get this posted if we can get the article up to standard.Support based on new RD criteria; the article still has a couple of "citation needed" tags, but I don't see any glaring flaws. EternalNomad (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EternalNomad: Remember that the RD criteria changed, so now we're back to posting articles as long as the quality is sufficient, regardless of our interpretation of their "super notability". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. His spouse and children were referenced in the infobox, I added a simple mention to the body of the article (using the same reference) and didn't see anything else in the way of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With nothing particularly remarkable or groundbreaking about this deal, it seems unlikely it will gain consensus. SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Question: I'm not too familiar with the shaving industry--is this a record-breaking deal? In the Dollar Shave Club article, it says that the company has 2 million subscribers, which doesn't seem that large in the grand scheme of things, but correct me if I'm wrong. This seems like a routine corporate acquisition. SpencerT♦C17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US$1 billion is fairly small in terms of business acquisitions. Unilever is a massive multinational company but I don't think purchasing a startup that has yet to turn a profit meets the bar for ITN. Also, each article only has single sentence updates. Fuebaey (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mohammed Shahid Indian hockey legend of the eighties, who was part of 1980 Moscow Olympics gold medalist team, died at the age of 56.
Oppose The article makes an uncited claim that he invented a novel hockey stroke. I played field hockey myself at school and am not convinced – it seems to have been a regular push pass with a good strong technique. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
2016 Nampala attack: At least 12 soldiers are killed and 27 others injured after unidentified militants briefly overrun a government base in central Mali, near the border with Mauritania. The attackers also burn and loot the adjacent village of Nampala. (Reuters)
26 people who were mainly from China and aboard a tour bus die after it crashes into a highway railing while en route to Taoyuan International Airport and bursts into flames. (Reuters)
Three people are killed, including the male attacker, in a shotgun shooting outside a swimming pool in Spalding, Lincolnshire, U.K.. The victims are reported to be a 40-year-old mother and her 20-year-old daughter; both apparently knew the suspect. (Daily Mirror)
A Kansas City police captain has been shot dead in Kansas City, Kansas. One suspect is in custody and two others are possibly at large. (Breaking 911)
Angela Eagle drops out of the race and announces her endorsement of Owen Smith, the last remaining candidate to challenge incumbent party leader Jeremy Corbyn. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The follow up to the coup story, in some ways even bigger than the coup itself, since it reshapes Turkish government and entrenches Erdogan. About 3.5 million people work in the public sector in Turkey, which means that one in every hundred public servants in Turkey has been arrested or fired, and a third of judges and every single university dean is gone. Smurrayinchester10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first blurb is succinct enough, but the 2016 Turkish purges article needs fleshing out first. The actual updated content (after the background section) is mainly a timeline of events. Multiple headings proceeded by one sentence shows how sparse the article is. Fuebaey (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to clutter up the blurb with "alleged Gülenists." Let them read about that in the story. Sca (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is too restrictive, since these are biggies, but he had much more down: 24 TV stations had their licenses revoked, all public servants and all academics are restricted from leaving the country, and the latest is that 626 educational institutions were closed. We shouldn't mention specific portions of these, because the sum is much, much greater than the parts here.
Support. I made some updates to the article, and I think it's in a decent enough shape. The original blurb is reasonable, and since Gülen is being insisted on so much by Erdogan, I think it's worth mentioning. LjL (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb or second alt-blurb. This is a massive story, and I think it should be posted as a new blurb rather than just an update of the existing one so it doesn't drop off prematurely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary movie and TV show director in Hollywood. Creator of "Happy Days," and director of multiple films. Fuzheado | Talk03:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inducted into multiple entertainment hall of fames, he was a well respected director and actor who created some of the most iconic sitcoms in the 1970s. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the rest of the article is adequately referenced. I keep adding {{cn}} tags where I think it needs to be addressed but a pathetic IP editor keeps removing them, and I can't be bothered to fight with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three policemen and one civilian are killed in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in an attack on a police station by a radical Islamist. One gunman is reportedly still at large. (RT)
Four people have been injured after a man with an axe attacks people on board a train near Würzburg in Germany. The axeman has reportedly been shot by police and is reportedly a 17-year-old Afghan man who pledged allegiance to ISIL before the attack. (BBC), (Indian Express), (Daily Mail)
At least one person is reportedly killed and others are taken hostage after an armed group seized control of the police headquarters in the Erebuni District of Yerevan, Armenia. The gunmen are demanding the release of jailed opposition figure, Jirair Sefilian, according to Armenia's National Security Service. (RT)
UN-backed talks are underway in Tunis regarding the future of Libya, including discussions on forming a unified army for the Government of National Accord. (RTE)
Local officials report eight people were killed on Friday when their elevator fell 18 stories in an under-construction apartment building in the port city of Longkou in Shandong province of eastern China. (AP)
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.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I don't think this !vote should be taken into consideration because, as this is ITNR, we are not looking at the notability article but more the quality. This is borderline trolling and no help to the ITNC. I recommend the closing admin disregards this !vote. - YellowDingo(talk) 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Fair enough WaltClip; you are right so have strucken the comment. - YellowDingo(talk)05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to say support or oppose at all with an ITNR item. Discussions on ITNR items are only to determine if the article is adequately updated and agree on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. I think the article is in good enough shape. The "Field" section could be better formatted but that is not a blocker imo. I do agree with HandsomeFella about the picture - we only have the one of him outdoors (see right) and that's from 2008 but I still prefer it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to see more prose in the earlier rounds, similar to Test cricket/NBA finals/World Series ITN/R articles (4 rounds/matches/games, 4 paragraph summaries). It would also help if prose was cited. The "Field" section is standard across golf major articles - I don't see a reason to change the layout to suit ITN. There's either a 2-year old picture of Stenson at an awards ceremony or an 8-year old one of the Swede at a tournament. If there's no obvious change in his visage, we could go for the latter. Fuebaey (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the record literally cannot be broken again (perfect score or something, note that I'm not really familiar with golf), I don't think it's necessary to include this information in the blurb. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only way a "perfect record" could be scored in golf is if somebody would ace all holes, which is of course impossible. The only person ever to come close to that is the former North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, who in 1991 (or 1994) posted a 38-under-par round of 34. The round included 11 holes-in-one, at least if you believe North Korean media.[1] Humor aside, this was the 145th Open Championships, arguably the world's most prestigious tournament. The record has received much attention in media, and is thus notable. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whilst the prose is a little sparse this could have been posted, except that the final round prose is entirely unreferenced. Stephen04:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stenson is on the front page to embarrass Americans, notably Phil Mickelson, who has the largest number of second place finishes in major tournaments. I'm sure if most other golfers had finished second to Stenson, a mediocre golfer until this tournament, nobody really would have noticed. But the Swedish and other Scandanavian editors want to sitck it to the United States, a very unpopular country to many in that part of the world. DavidSteinle (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Consensus is against posting this, at least for now. I'm closing the nomination to stop any more off-topic political discussion. If there are major developments or an article is written that would be suitable for ongoing, these can be brought to ITN/C's attention via a new nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Second major attack against police officers this month. I personally lean against posting because of the risk of copycat incidents. However I will leave the discussion to the community. 116.216.0.49 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Police relations with black people / Black Lives Matter / whatever you want to call it, it's coming to a head in the U.S. Especially with the Dallas shooting having fallen off the ticker, this story is appropriate for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately, we can't post every violent event to ITN. While it is one of the day's leading stories, only three were killed. Especially after the Dallas attacks, this number isn't quite as noteworthy. --AmaryllisGardenertalk18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though Dallas is obviously very fresh, multiple shootings of police are usually very rare. Aside from the Dallas attack, I believe that it has been several years since the last time at least 3 police officers were killed in a single incident in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If this is connected to the previous shootings/protests from last week, then we should post; on the other hand, if this is just a random crime, then it's a sad domestic crime and not ITN appropriate. I know they have pointed out Baton Rouge was one of the sites where there was protest in response to the shootings, but that only indicated a coincidence, not a consequence. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment. People being shot in America, even policemen these days, is commonplace, and if this is supposed to be somehow related to the previous issues, I would seek to find an appropriate "ongoing" news story to post, otherwise this, in isolation, is not newsworthy for the whole of the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's clearly a cultural issue going on in the US, so an article should be written, I don't think it's necessarily about angry people (per se) but yes, there's enough evidence now to construct an article reflecting these commonplace events, i.e. police shoot black people, police get shot, police shoot black people, police get shot cycle. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I do think this is going to end up on ITN especially if this is politically and or racially motivated. But the situation is very fluid and we just don't know enough to say much beyond that a shooting has occurred and three police officer have been killed. We are not a news network and there is no urgent rush to get this up. Let's wait to get enough verifiable details to actually write a decent blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But somehow, innocent people being ruthlessly and recklessly killed by police has seemingly been "normal" in the US for a long time, with little more than some social media +1's and shrugs. So far, anyway, there is nothing in the present article clearly stating that this was an "ambush" or that it was related to the Dallas event or that it was an actual planned attack against cops rather than an exchange of fire between police and criminals as, you know, police are meant to have. Post if/when that becomes clear. LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were other incidents before and after Dallas. I supported the posting of Dallas because the shooting occurred during a protest. Ambushing the cops is more common than you might think. Abductive (reasoning)04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Masem, oppose for now. If this is another revenge and/or somehow related to the Black Lives Matter, then yes, but an isolated incident isn't worth posting, just like killings of police officers in countries like Iraq or Pakistan. Brandmeistertalk19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. This is plain and simple. In the USA, People. Get. Shot. All. The. Time. Because the pro-gun lobby won't institute any sort of sensible laws. This is literally old news.--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with political motives. It's a fact that these shootings are happening on a constant basis in the USA because the gun control is non-existent. That, regardless of your political beliefs or motives, is utterly and totally indisputable.--WaltCip (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strict gun laws didn't protect the people of Paris (several times) or Nice, did it? Your logic is not quite indisputable. If you wish to continue this, please just email me instead of continuing this here. --AmaryllisGardenertalk22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? The weapon of choice in Nice was a truck. What's your point exactly? But, as you say, we shall not continue the discussion on this thread.--WaltCip (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is America we're talking about. I know that some users are borderline WP:SOAP when they mention this, but you need pretty extraordinary circumstances to post an American shooting. For example, take the Umpqua shooting, when an individual nihilist killed a dozen people. That would be remarkable in Holland, Ireland, Denmark but not in America. If there is discovered to be a terrorist organisation that is behind all of these cop-killings, I would reconsider, but at the moment this is just everyday Americana '''tAD''' (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least 265 people are killed as a faction within the Turkish Armed Forces launches an attempted coup. An attacker drives a cargo truck into a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, France, killing more than 80 people. Sca (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Misconceptions aside, mass killing of police is still rare even in America. Dallas was unfortunately recent, but aside from that event it has been years since as many as three officers have died in a single event in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sigh, it's just another shooting in the United States. I also don't agree with the comment immediately above that killing of police officers is "still rare" in the country, as this is the second such incident in a timescale of only ten days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two events in ten days, how many in the previous ten years? Happening twice doesn't mean it's not "rare". And again, since when does an event have to be "rare" to be ITN? Where's that in the criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've never posted an item solely based on its "rarity" but on its general significance and potential impact. Having seen that the frequency of these incidents in the country increases and the authorities do absolutely nothing to change anything means that all these events are highly insignificant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Letting the access to weapon be one of the freest pleasures that anyone could afford even after all this is repeatedly happening for years doesn't give me any insight that someone is worried about it. Sorry if you find this "extremely offensive" but the reality cannot be healed with grief and sorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the article currently makes no claim (except for vague suggestions) that this may be either related to the Dallas attack, or generally speaking a planned attack or "ambush" against police, as opposed to an ordinary (if particularly bloody) exchange of fire between cops and ordinary criminals. LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fourth multiple killing of US law enforcement officers this year, third in the last ten days. Two multiple killings last year including a triple homicide, three multiple killings the year before. Martin45100:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the problem is that ITN is stuffed with high-impact items right now. If one compares this item vs. the Nice attack (with 25 times the death toll), the Turkish coup (80 times the death toll, plus it impacts the entire country's government) and Theresa May becoming UK Prime Minister (effects the entire country, with spillover to EU), this item pales in comparison. These other blurbs aren't that stale either. If this item continues to generate news - all three of the items mentioned above do - then I will change my mind. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it bumps the Euro 2016 final (which is also continuing to generate news items by the way) and replaces it at the bottom, I could support it. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose posting this(but would be open to Ongoing if there was an article to post) but can we please stop the political comments about gun control or lack thereof which aren't relevant to this discussion? Every state and the federal government have gun rights in their constitutions and it's just the way it is, no one here is going to be able to change that. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Historical context between the rise of social media celebrities and traditional practice of honor killings; the new and the old. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated Baloch's article for an RD listing, but this has been removed and replaced with a blurb nomination. Can editors comment on whether they support an RD or a blurb - it's not clear which would be more appropriate here. She was a notable person (hence her article in WP), but also her death is newsworthy. MurielMary (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. A notable, sudden death of a controversial celebrity -- but I don't think she meets the requirements for a blurb. The article is in a decent shape. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't nitpick what people say, just for the hell of it, it's not very becoming. David Bowie, Prince, Michael Jackson did not bring down apartheid, but their deaths were covered wall-to-wall on all corners of the globe and certainly I can remember where I was when I heard each news story, despite only having a passing interest in any of the three '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I wrote Bugs, because what you said makes no sense at all. I'd leave it if I were you because it's only you that looks really foolish right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: Wouldn't be opposed to blurb, but I think RD is more appropriate based on more limited notability than the sort of celebrities whose deaths we tend to feature. That's counterweighed somewhat by the circumstances of her death, but I still lean toward RD on balance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The death criteria note that where the cause of death is a major story a blurb may be appropriate. Here the shocking nature of the death is undoubtedly a major part of the story (and can only be explained in a blurb), so I think a blurb is justified. However, I don't object to RD if there isn't the support for a blurb. Neljack (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb but not opposed to RD. Aside from world-transforming figures at the very top of their field, a blurb is for deaths where the death itself is the story, as Neljack states. I support his reasoning. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD – The only thing making her death blurb-worthy is the nature of it, her accomplishments and general notability do not warrant such in my opinion though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly support sufficient for RD posting, so marking as such. Discussion should now focus on whether or not a blurb is deemed appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb If it was only an ordinary death of a notable personality than I'd say RD only, since the nature of the death is so sensational however, I support blurb. Vegemighty2 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erdoğan declares that the coup is over with over 1,500 members of the Turkish military in detention. (CNN)(AP)
General Ümit Dündar reports at least 194 people were killed: two soldiers, 41 police officers, 47 civilians, and 104 alleged coup plotters. An official later adds that 1,440 people have been reported wounded. (NBC News)
Secretary of StateJohn Kerry says the United States would consider an extradition request for the cleric blamed for the attempted coup. Fethullah Gülen left Turkey in 1999 and now lives in Pennsylvania. Gülen denies any involvement. Kerry adds no request has been received. (NBC News)(AP)
Comment This has been going on for the last 10 days, looking at the article. Posting with an arbitrary death toll would not make much sense to me. Perhaps Ongoing is a better idea here. --Tone13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/pull There has been unrest in Kashmir for about 70 years – see Kashmir conflict. The current unrest is an uptick but I'm not content with the quality of the article that we're linking to. I read a bunch of stuff about pellet guns there which didn't make sense because of the links suggesting that air rifles or pistols were being used. I check elsewhere and find that the authorities are using shotguns, which makes more sense. I don't think we should have this until it's clearer what we're trying to report and then we should do it with a regular blurb. Andrew D. (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose I read in the intro that he was one of "the greatest rebounders and shot blockers ever" but the article quality is appalling, and really doesn't help this claim. It needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of "the greatest rebounders and shot blockers ever" does not necessarily imply one of "the greatest NBA players of all time", and the career highlights and awards section is very poor to justify that claim. For example, he has never been on the championship team and has also never won any individual award such as the league's most valuable player.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artice doesn't really explain how he meets RD criteria, and whole sections are unsourced. Would need a massive amount of work to appear on the main page. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there is nothing really notable about the death and while the person is notable he looks like a far cry from ITN level. Just look at what we have in the section these days for an easy comparison. LjL (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@91.52.232.167: as long as Baseball Bugs is not currently evading a block (they are not), topic banned from ITN and/or the subject of the nomination (I'm not aware they are) or interaction banned with the nominator or other significant contributor to the discussion (again, I'm not aware they are) then their having been blocked previously is not at all relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvement, and I don't see this as a hopeless cause. His statistical accomplishments are impressive, and easy to verify. He ranks fifth all-time in rebounds per game, he was the first guy to get a quadruple-double[21], and the NBA named him one of their 50 Greatest Players of all time: [22]. He played before the internet era, so his article has never received a massive amount of attention, but he had a very respectable career. I can't promise I can do much work on the article myself, but I figured I should chime in so that this discussion doesn't get closed prematurely. Zagalejo^^^00:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like (and play) basketball and watch a fair bit of NBA, but I can't agree with posting Thurmond. I think if we do we're effectively willing post anyone in the HOF, which I don't agree with. Jenks24 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Authorities identify the attacker as a 31-year-old Tunisian resident in France, who was killed during the exchange of gunfire with police. The man was known to police in connection with petty crime, but was not on the French intelligence service watch list. (Reuters)(BBC)
The death toll from the coup is reported to be at least 42 in Ankara and 60 across Turkey. 130 soldiers have been taken into custody and one Turkish Army general has been killed. (Reuters via Trust), (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: No article yet (and its prudish here to make one) but this is earth-shaking even if it fails. (on live tv so no sources yet) the region is run amuck! Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)![reply]
Support - The coup will most likely fail, but this was expected for quite some time. Gunfire was heard in Ankara, bridges across Bosphorus in Istanbul were shut down, and low flying jets were witnessed in both major cities. Very notable regardless of whether it succeeds or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, with the knowledge that we will have to update the blurb as news unfolds (thankfully this is Wikipedia, so we can do that ;-) ). Will be news whether or not the coup fails. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. One "wait" and one "support" and once again you're too quick to post. The "discussion" lasted for seven minutes before you posted. Pull. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the news, which doesn't exactly wait for us. People will be coming wanting this news, and it's abundantly clear that this will be posted whether or not the coup fails (see Lihaas and Fitzacarmalan). Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But the article isn't ready. There are bare url's and a statement by the military that they've taken over, but no confirmation of that. I'm not arguing that this is newsworthy and should be posted, but that it should be posted only in due course, which this was not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What has happened to Wikipedia? Why do we need to outrun the news media? For god's sake, this is an encyclopedia, folks! We could've easily waited a day or two to post this event, rather than posting the dubious "news fog" that this article is right now. ITN needs some soul searching. --bender235 (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. This is Wikipedia. We are not CNN or The New York Times. We do not have to carry "Breaking News" as it happens. This is nonsense. The coup article, as of right now, basically says we don't know anything. Why does this have to be on the Main Page? --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not CNN, but we have an ITN section. So to claim that Wikipedia is not news is incorrect. And this is not some random story, it is a coup of major proportions. Get some perspective.BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not the WP is a bit more than an encyclopedia nowadays. In crisis situations it has also become a source people turn to for info. w.carter-Talk22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you take a look at the page views statistics you'll see a tremendous spike in views for any article that appears in the ITN section. These spikes usually surpasses views of any other section on the main page. This would not be the case if people weren't interested in the ITN articles. w.carter-Talk01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled we don't post stubs, we don't post without consensus, we don't post without bold target articles, we don't do this kind of thing, time and time and time and time again. STOP it. If you don't understand how ITN works, don't pretend to admin it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It was pulled, correctly (not by me), and Ed posted it again. Not good. Even setting aside that T:ITN is not "things in the news" but "Wikipedia articles of reasonable quality about things in the news", you don't edit war on the main page. The ed17, please revert yourself and show a modicum of patience. —Cryptic20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN criterion: There is a sufficiently updated non-stub articleThe ed17 please stop pissing around here, this isn't nearly funny. You don't know what you're doing. This isn't a ticker. Perhaps you aren't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quit the condescension will you? "Maybe you don't know how Wikipedia works; it's not your playground". You're not a teacher or a parent. Be civil.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @TRM, please calm down. I know exactly what I'm doing. We're certainly not a ticker, but there's no reason to wait for waiting's sake—although I appear to have read the tea leaves incorrectly here. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to carry on here on ITN. The 97th time you say his judgement is flawed on the discussion page isn't going to change anything the first 96 times didn't.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article is no longer a stub. Surprisingly, as we talk here, people are adding to the article. @TRM: I can take any attacks you'd like to throw at me, especially the ageist-sounding condescension, but it's a bit overwrought. We disagree on how to interpret the ITN criteria, but I'm certainly not going to insult you over it. Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the other comments, this is a mistake, and not the first one. Ageist? WTF? I couldn't care less how old or young you are, just stop believing you can ignore the ITN procedures. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A scientific paper could be writen on psicology about the correlation between subjective relevance of the piece of News and the level of strictness with which criteria for ITN are aplied before consensus anyway. Cato censor (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and keep pulled. The admin repeatedly posting it should relent in the face of consensus against posting. I would like this posted ASAP but ASAP means as soon as possible, not sooner than possible, when there isn't even a blurb ready. Wikipedia is not a news agency. LjL (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait an hour or so, too early to post. I am pretty sure even the parts of the Turkish military won't know that there is a coup in there own country. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Wikipedia is not a news site, we don't need to be the first to report on it. We need to make sure the details clear up a bit about the situation before we post it, like for example, who comes out as the leader of Turkey. --AmaryllisGardenertalk20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Stop edit conflicting me!) Ed's Pokémon Go posting reflected good judgment in IAR. His posting of this without a consensus is unfortunately a blunder. Reposting it again is extraordinarily ill-advised and risks desysopping. WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wait until it's clear what is happening. Something is, and that something should be posted, but not before we know enough about it to say what something it is. @The ed17: If you do not want to agree, now, to a voluntary topic ban from editing the ITN template I will be formally proposing one at WP:AN. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is such an incredible step so far beyond what just happened here that I don't know how to reply. I'd love to see your rationale other than reverting TRM once (... but then reverting myself minutes later, when I realized my mistake). Also please note that I will be offline for most of tonight (US time), so I'm not going to be able to reply to much. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you failed to notice the dismay at all but a couple of your recent posting decisions, perhaps you should re-visit some of the things you do here to get some realistic feedback. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give me concrete examples. I'm just reading your comments on the RD I posted; Pokemon Go was fine (unless you're seriously going to count "[Closed] Remove "Pokémon Go" from ongoing?" [no link, it doesn't work with the brackets, sorry]), attack in Nice was fine, Euro 2016 was fine once I added a prose summary, Sydney Schanberg was fine, I admittedly missed the "RD" part of Abdul Sattar Edhi (but that was an easy fix), China floods was fine. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one, Hadžić, Wimbledon, Euro 2016, Abdul Sattar Edhi, all errors in posting. Just stop it. It appears that you have attracted enough attention to ask you to step back for a bit to avoid being made to remove yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Wimbledon, my apologies for missing that—it wasn't intentional. I'd argue that that had enough support at the time I posted it, but of course that could be debated. I improved Euro 2016 myself, so I'm not going to count that as an error. Note that I'm going to be forced to step back for the evening for a long-planned dinner with several family members, but let's discuss more this weekend (perhaps not in this thread to avoid derailing further?). And thank you for toning down the rhetoric—this is a much easier discussion to handle. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No further discussion required. Please let others handle the promotions for the time being until you get to grips with consensus, quality, and the other ITN guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk more. I'm headed offline or I won't make dinner in time (it's a lengthy drive), but if you want to preemptively start a discussion on my talk page, please do. Best, Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's not an "incredible step" at all. Editing a protected page, let alone one that's part of the main page, is an administrative action; what you did was wheel warring. I don't follow ITN/C closely enough to have an opinion whether a topic ban is necessary, but you definitely should be taking this more seriously than you seem to be. —Cryptic21:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it was a rash action done without enough forethought, and I've already admitted it was a mistake, but it wasn't done in malice and I reverted myself (and you have my thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that). I'm taking this very seriously, in case that wasn't clear, but I don't think my actions here—which are not part of recurring pattern, mind you (that is, wheel warring anywhere, much less on that main page)—rise to the level of requiring a topic ban, sanctions, an AN discussion, or an arb case. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Wikipedia:Competence is required: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover your limitations." This applies to all Wikipedians, including administrators. There are certain Wikipedia tasks that I usually avoid performing – not due to lack of interest, but because I struggle to complete them efficiently and without screwing up. I'm sure that you harbor no malicious intent, but you seem to commit serious errors (sometimes several simultaneously and/or in rapid succession) almost every time you edit ITN – even when the posting itself is reasonable. Perhaps this is correctable, but the main page isn't a sandbox in which to practice. The above "disagree[ment] on how to interpret the ITN criteria" illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Seriously, Ed, this wasn't even borderline. The posting was wildly premature. Your belief to the contrary leads me to question your judgement only marginally less than if you'd purposely ignored ITN's rules because you felt like it. I want to stress that this isn't intended as belittlement. As noted above, there are areas in which I probably would perform similarly poorly if I were to dive in like you've done at ITN. The key difference is that I don't dive in. I leave such tasks to those who know what they're doing. I implore you to act in kind. You owe it to the community that entrusted you with the admin bit. —David Levy03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on pull - I agree that it was best to pull this and agree that The ed17 should always wait for consensus except when an item is ITN/R, and should not revert another admin without clear reason. Please just take some time and learn the general rules of ITN. Andise1 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait For further info. I think regardless of what is actually going on, it's likely to warrant posting at ITN, but we need to know what it is first. Once the article is above a stub then I agree with a Support.Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now support Article is up to 2500 characters, seems to be a stable yet developing verrsion, IPs are prohibited from editing, I think it's ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 30-45 minutes purely so that we have a good idea of how to blurb this appropriately and to eliminate any doubt about whether the article is developed enough. Obvious support on importance regardless of outcome. I suspect within the hour we will have a clear enough idea of what is going on to provide an appropriate blurb - that would be the appropriate time to post. No concerns at all on quality, articles on events of this magnitude always seem to evolve well, and it's growing by the minute. Probably long enough already.
Comment There is no harm in waiting for a while. As I type this, it is currently ~21:20 UTC. There is no loss in waiting an hour or two until say 23:00 utc or even an hour later. Doing so allows time for the situation to develop, and the article to develop too. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question have we ever posted an "is underway" blurb at ITN or is this precisely what "Ongoing" is about? We need an appropriate blurb or else I suggest Ongoing is exactly where it belongs... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting this historic event now. Though a coup may always fail, it seems clear now that it is a coup and not a mere attempt – though it would be newsworthy either way. The article has substantially improved and expanded, gives some background, is largely sourced, and is further developing. --PanchoS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clearly major event of international significance. The article is in decent shape given this is a breaking news event and is far beyond stub status. On a side note, if we don't get a break we are going to have to annex the "On this Day" space to keep pace with all the breaking news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we just drop the last one off the ITN section, or move stuff to Ongoing, if indeed it's ongoing. E.g. the Nice attack is over now, it can drop off today if four more news items are posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the reason this section is anywhere near as long as it is was due to admin error, which would lend support to keeping the blurb discussion here where people are most likely to find it. Point taken though - perhaps if those parts relating to the early post were collapsed, the length would be more acceptable. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty obvious why the closure was reverted as the posted blurb was completely unsuitable and needed further discussion on how best to fix it. Thankfully it was wholesale adjusted. However even now it appears out of date. Another good reason that rushing to post this kind of thing is the wrong thing to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is clearly major news but, as the event is still fresh and unclear, there needs to be a place to discuss the blurb, which may require further adjustment. This should be that place and so this discussion should be left open while the dust settles. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to PBS News Hour & others Monday, Turkish gov't has arrested 7,000 or so alleged coup participants. Sca (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: This was added to ongoing for seven hours. I see updates in prose format on releases, statistics, and online development. However, I am unsure whether those updates justify the featuring of the article in the Main Page. The July 14 news is about requesting newer gyms for Pokémon that players possess. Other ones on the same day are about raising a share price and a UK release. Other news on July 13 are just downloads statistics and German release. While this looks ongoing, I am not confident that this would interest a lot of readers, especially with so many Pokémon video games. Furthermore, an idea of presenting a video or mobile game as ongoing doesn't cross my mind. George Ho (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nomination rationale is deeply flawed. This has already been demonstrated as being in the news globally, with stories and features being added in an ongoing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, the proposer claims I am not confident that this would interest a lot of readers..., um, nope. P.S. The link is here, clearly showing more than 4 million hits in the last 8 days.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What Cyclonebiskit says. IMO the ongoing thing is not so much about the game itself, which is fairly basic, but the social impact it has and the groundbreking new tech behind it. w.carter-Talk07:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there's any reason to take this off Ongoing, it's because it's not something that typically shows up as "ongoing" (how can a Pokemon Go be ongoing? "Pokemon Go craze" or "Aftermath of Pokemon Go launch" maybe, but "Pokemon Go"?). However, there's nowhere else to put it. It's hard to come up with a suitable blurb after all (see nomination). If it doesn't come under ongoing, where can it go? Banedon (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nomination shows a clear lack of understanding about what Ongoing is for, and no understanding at all about why this particular story was added in particular. I very nearly snow closed this, and if I am edit conflicted saving this comment I will, as it's clear that it's not going to happen. However as it's only been open 2 hours, I'm giving it one last chance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
A suspected militant of Al-Shabaab shoots and kills four Kenyan police officers at a police station in Kapenguria, Kenya, where he was being held. The militant was later killed following a shootout with police. (Reuters)
The French government calls on former European Commission chief José Manuel Barroso not to take a job with investment bank Goldman Sachs, after some EU politicians demanded Barroso be sanctioned for accepting the new position that raises questions about the EU's conflict of interest rules. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
support when better sourced there is a citation needed in the "About him" section (which could be better named) and the only sources in the biography section are in the last sentence. Expansion would be good too, but I'd be happy to post when what is there currently is sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I've added two sources and tried to re-write the article into a more encyclopedic form. I'm considering removing the sections "Works published in English", "International awards" and "Membership" as there are few (or no) sources to back them up. At the same time, they may not be wrong and perhaps could be accepted in good faith? I see no particular reason myself to disbelieve or challenge them, but maybe it's better to be on the safe side? Let me know what you think, and if the article could be promoted with or without these changes (or if you think there is need of a bigger overhaul, which I'm not sure I can produce). Thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article length and citations; really only one paragraph plus a few sentences of prose, remainder is lists. Needs citations and detail for the awards that were won, as it's these awards which determine the RD criteria of "significant in their field". MurielMary (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added sourcing also to the "International awards" and "Membership" sections. About the article length: personally I think it's succinct rather than too short. An expanded version, although of course always welcome, could focus on an in-depth biography or an extensive analysis of his work. At this point I don't think that's necessary as the outlines are described in an encyclopedic way as it is. IMO. Yakikaki (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is in the public interest to put it in the most prominent location on Wikipedia's front page so people can find it and track the story. It is in a very accurate and readable state and will continue to grow. -- Fuzheado | Talk23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is huge news, we should not be waiting to post. Regardless of what ITN does, we are a first port of call for many readers when these events strike. Let's not make it harder to find the article. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post Posting Support conditional on article being in decent shape. Given the nature of the situation, it's breaking news, perfection is not required. But it needs to meet minimal standards in sourcing etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we update the blurb to a wording that does not necessarily imply all were killed/injured by being driving into, given the reported gunfire. -- KTC (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only just heard about this tragedy here on ITN/C. This is a significant death toll, which means posting it is a no-brainer. Kurtis(talk)23:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update - are we going to mention it was committed by an Islamic terrorist? All the news agencies are reporting it: it is an important part of the story. 94.119.65.149 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems relatively minor aspects of privacy compared to the larger picture (court of appeals so only applies to that federal district, not nation wide or international). --MASEM (t) 16:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Europeans do not see it as a "minor aspect of privacy." They saw the earlier ruling that was overturned as gravely undermining the EU Data Protection Directive. The government of Ireland and two European parliament members filed friend of the court briefs, as did most American internet companies. And while the ruling is law only in the second circuit, other appeals courts generally give weight to such precedents. Conflicts end up at the Supreme Court, but these are the exception not the rule. As a practical matter it will be many years before the effect of this ruling is overturned by any such conflict.--agr (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The death toll from anti-government protests in the Indian state rises to 36 with over a thousand more being treated for injuries. Chief MinisterMehbooba Mufti has called for calm. (BBC)
In a report by Amnesty International, the group documents findings of Egyptian officials forcibly making hundreds of people disappear and face torture in the past year in an attempt to crack down on dissent in the country. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support upon sourcing improvements. He was sort of a head of state, but not of an internationally recognized state, so how he fits into the superfluous "death criteria" isn't clear in that regard. But, he seems to have been important and I see obituaries in all sorts of leading publications. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually a bit surprised at how quickly it was posted myself. I had agreed to fix the sources and Ed said he'd post it afterwards, but I thought there was a de facto holding period to gather a consensus before an RD is added. I didn't feel compelled to raise any objections, seeing as it's just an RD and Goran Hadžić was a major figure in the Yugoslav Wars. Kurtis(talk)20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, albeit after-the-fact. I take Kurtis's and of course The ed17's comments as supportive of posting also, even though they didn't type "support". Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're seeing IAR invoked far too frequently at the moment. If it continues, we should re-visit the "rules" so we don't have to "IA" them all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Normally not international news, but given Boris' reputation for "gaffes", it has generated headlines from newspapers everywhere. Midnightblueowl in particular has done a significant amount of work cleaning up Boris' article recently; it is now tag free and if there are BLP problems, they are not obvious from a cursory glance. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while it is a curiosity, I don't think the ITN section should become "In The Conservative Party News". Let's wait until Theresa tells us it's all a big joke and she had us all going there, didn't she? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Selection of cabinet officials is standard with a new government. This selection is not groundbreaking in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Mirror, Facebook, Twitter, and the "water cooler" at work are not at all reliable sources, more people seem to be talking about Boris than Theresa today, for whatever reason, and it's groundbreaking principally for reasons that TRM has implied; it is a, well, interesting choice to pick a man who called the Turkish President a "wankerer".[25]Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very highly speculative news (in that it seems to beg if he will be able to perform the role now that he's confirmed for it), bordering on BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on notability, Oppose on article quality. In addition to the dozen or so {{citation needed}} tags I've found it necessary to add, there are unreferenced paragraphs and a few instances where more specificity is needed. Some of the missing citations can probably be provided by existing references, but for claims of the seriousness of those in this article sourcing needs to be clear and explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Pokémon Go (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Pokémon Go surpasses Twitter in popularity following its release in the United States and Oceania, and breaks records for mobile downloads. (Post) Alternative blurb: Pokémon Go(players pictured) becomes the most played mobile game in the United States. Alternative blurb II: At its release, augmented reality game Pokémon Go(players pictured) surpasses major social media in popularity. Alternative blurb III: Phenomenon Pokémon Go(players pictured) breaks mobile download records at its release and surpasses other social media in popularity. Alternative blurb IV: Pokémon Go is released, breaking mobile download records. Alternative blurb V: Pop culture phenomenon Pokémon Go because the most active mobile game ever in the United States, surpassing Candy Crush Saga. News source(s):The Guardian, CNCC Credits:
The New Yorker – Pokémon Go Will Make You Crave Augmented Reality
USA TODAY – Police, agencies issue 'Pokémon Go' warnings
BBC News – US Holocaust museum asks Pokemon Go players to stop
Daily Telegraph – Pokémon GO addict stabbed while playing, refuses to get treatment
The Guardian – Senator Al Franken demands Pokémon Go release privacy information
The Guardian – Pokémon Go becomes global craze as game overtakes Twitter
Evening Standard – Commuters' fears over use of Pokémon GO on London's transport
The Economist – “Pokémon Go” shows how the real and virtual worlds are merging
Wall Street Journal – Pokémon Go' Craze Raises Safety Issues
New York Times – Times Reporter Descends Into Pokémania
God, I'm REALLY torn on this one. As someone who follows pop and tech culture, it's a bit hard to deny the impact that Pokémon Go is having on society. At the same time, we don't want to make ourselves look like a pop culture news site, when there's really no seminal story or statistic we can pinpoint as being newsworthy (or verifiable). So, regrettably, I have to weak oppose as WP:CRYSTAL.--WaltCip (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak oppose (per WaltCip), but I would think there's a DYK here if certain milestones on the article can be met. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As with movies, I don't think that we should post a product just because it is getting attention. As an encyclopedia we should not seem to be advertising. I'm sure an important record will be broken sometime in the next few months (most players online at once, most revenue, a video game award, etc), and we should consider posting it at that time. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The underlying technology may be groundbreaking in the sense that it'll emerge more in the future, but this specific game will have its moment and then fade, like all other fads. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing to point towards for a news blurb. The success of this app is still intangible. We need tangibles.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: "Pokemon Go surpasses Twitter in popularity following its release in the United States and Oceania." "Pokemon Go successful enough to raise Nintendo's stock price." "Pokemon Go becomes the fastest game to top the App Store and the Google Play." Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which had been fixed in the last patch for the game. And the concern would be more if there was a breach of these did (ala the iPhone nude photo thing a few years back) which even then begs ITN-worthiness. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nomination. Yes, pop culture can be ITN worthy, but I don't think this rises to that level. That said, I think it would make an excellent DYK nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not just something that has to do with pop culture, this is a phenomenanon with much wider implications [26][27][28][29]. I had not heard of it before, and learned all about it from the seven o'clock version of main news programme on Swedish Television tonight. This has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL, this is just reflecting what is going on right now. w.carter-Talk18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not averse to including popular culture at ITN, but I don't see any specific element that I consider suitable for a blurb in that section. Given the continued proliferation of smartphones and tablets, a new release becoming the most-played game on these devices (with sustained usage impossible to predict) doesn't strike me as sufficiently noteworthy. —David Levy18:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but oppose current blurb. We have bosted some CoD or GTA braking records, but the current blurb is very vague. Find a better blurb that does not compare to Twitter. Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as there seems to be some degree of support: the game just got released to European regions today. It is anticipated to have as much of an impact there as it did in the States. As such, it might be worthwhile to wait a few days and see if the EU size use is just as large, as that would make this a much more significant story than just the US one. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We might as well get the article up to standard because judging from the media coverage it already has in Europe, the interest is huge. Just looking for examples like something from France I got 5 mil hits with Le Figaro taking point and same in Germany and Der Spiegel. w.carter-Talk20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - notable news for being the first truly successful augmented reality & location-based game. (I'd also support changing the blurb to reflect that - saying a link to both of these articles somewhere in it.) I'd vote oppose if it was just another game - the thing is that it's a new type of (popular) game. However I'm also really hesitant when it comes to linking products in the news section - got to say I still find it more appropriate for that section than every fourth entry or so. --Fixuture (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - notable news for being the first truly successful augmented reality & location-based game. (I'd also support changing the blurb to reflect that - saying a link to both of these articles somewhere in it.) Do you have any wording in mind? (Assuming that reliable sources describe Pokémon Go as the first truly successful augmented reality and location-based game, how should we communicate this in ITN's format?) —David Levy03:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful with this description. Niantic, the company that developed this title, also made Ingress (video game), which was also considered "successful". It's the wildfire-like popularity here that we really need a good assessment or number here to support this fact. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support mainly because i'm expecting this to have quite a 'death toll' with stupid people chasing pokemon's on streets or near rivers or oceans or off buildings....biggest thing since The Last Starfighter--Stemoc23:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was leaning neutral but was convinced by The ed17. I'm seeing a lot of coverage, and while this kind of item will never dominate headlines, it is always in the background. To say that this is a fad is a bold statement (and WP:CRYSTAL is relevant too): if one really believes that, then one should short Nintendo stock. Having more users than Twitter still isn't that impressive to me, since after all we don't post iPhone releases in spite of the total number of iPhone users being greater than the number of Twitter users, but it's still a nice milestone of significance. Comparatively the Andria train crash will not affect this many people. I'd say there are good reasons not to post this, but there are also good reasons to post it, and it's a net positive to me. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready – Marking as ready as support has clearly grown and it is flooding the news (and streets). The popularity of this game is incredible and is only expected to grow as its released in more countries. Although I could post, I'm a lifelong fan of Pokémon and probably have too much of a personal bias to make the decision to pull the trigger. I've also added a possible photo for usage that I took over the weekend, but it could easily be replaced by a clearer one if anyone takes the time to photograph people playing during the day. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is gonna be posted, I think there should be a better blurb. Both current blurbs are about US and Oceania only, which doesn't look like a gauge of worldiwde popularity, and is systemic bias. Brandmeistertalk08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: it's only been released in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. Niantic is not releasing it elsewhere until they're comfortable their servers can handle the player load. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only inclusive blurb I can think of at the moment would be something involving "phenomenon", "craze", or something along those lines, but buzzwords are a bit out of place...could just be that my brain is fried since it's 5:40 a.m. though. Other topics would be excessively general to be of much use (i.e. popularity) or the ones involving hard-facts are either US-centric or boringly financial. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I gave a new blurb a shot. It might be a bit vague, but it is tweakable. If you let it sit for a couple of more days, you will probably be able to add a "world-wide" somewhere in the sentence. w.carter-Talk11:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - This is clearly a big deal, given how many people are participating in it. It's just an unusual subject for ITN, which is why my support for it is about as strong as a freshly-caught Rattata. Kurtis(talk)14:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We're really not going to get this story posted. There really isn't any kind of blurb that we can point to as being a core embodiment of the phenomenon. Does this need to be an ongoing item?--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The game is free, therefore it probably should not go on a list of best selling video games. Else there would be many other games there, like Temple Run with over a billion downloads. Mamyles (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and unmarking Ready Different blurbs with various claims that are not properly sourced information in the article. All the fanboys of this game first have to add properly sourced information to the article. And for many of the claims like more users than Twitter this also have to include information whether that is unique or whether other games also have more users than Twitter. After the facts are established and sourced, the discussion can start whether this is major enough for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is concensus for posting, just a disagreement over a blurb or ongoing, plus the article is properly sourced with all major achievements mentioned. Also no-personal attacks on calling a bunch of ITN regulars "fanboys". If it was editors who doesn't get involved in this area of the project, then it's a different story. Prevan (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Manners LoveToLondon, manners. I for one am a lady who've never played a mobile game in my life, but I'm very interested in things with a major inpact on society and I like the WP to reflect and inform about what's going on in the world. w.carter-Talk16:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you write the article is properly sourced with all major achievements mentioned you are a liar - and this is not PA but a provable fact. If you disagree with being called a liar: Three of the four suggested blurbs are referring to the Twitter comparison, one of them even mentioning Twitter by name. Whether or not you are a liar can be objectively judged by searching for the word Twitter in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LoveToLondon: the claim has been displayed in the article and cited for nearly two days ("By July 12, the average daily usage of the app on Android devices exceeded Snapchat, Tinder, Instagram, and Facebook.", supported by a reference from USA Today), I think it's pretty easy to tell who is the one lying here. "After the facts are established and sourced, the discussion can start whether this is major enough for ITN." -- You clearly aren't even trying to be neutral here. At least try and make it look like you're not going after people enjoying this game. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that means is that people who have downloaded PG use it for more minutes a day than they do the other 4 apps, not that more people are using it. Careful with those stats. Black Kite (talk)18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One lone editor angry at pop culture does not a consensus to unmark as ready make (are you going to start claiming the people playing the game should get a life and a job now?).--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing clearly a serious news event with major implications in several areas from business to technology, not to mention millions of page views the past few days. But there isn't a suitable blurb for this type of content. Every potential blurb that can be written on the topic is either US-centric, NPOV violating, dull business transactions, original research, trivia, and the likes. The only option here is outgoing. Prevan (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The only concrete bit I've been able to find that's blurb-worthy is that it's the biggest mobile game ever in the United States with 21 million active players by July 12. However, this is obviously problematic as it excludes other countries where the game has been a huge success. Maybe "Pokémon Go becomes the most active mobile game ever in the United States and sees exceptional worldwide activity." would work? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. We post news about major national things all the time, so within guidelines and based on solid facts. The worldwide thing is just a bonus. w.carter-Talk17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we can find a decent blurb. Alt1 is the best, but are we going to post this story every time a new supergame is released? Meanwhile, the main blurb, 2 and 3 are inaccurate or misleading. Black Kite (talk)18:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually still not out in Japan (this is a US-produced Pokémon game), and the Oceania release was about 12 hours before the US release. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing a pop culture phenomenon that has broken activity records, is all over the news, and has essentially taken over the internet (for the time being at least) qualifies as jumping on a marketing bandwagon? Yes we ignore tabloid headlines because they come and go, but this has not waned in the least after being out for a week, it has only gotten more and more popular. Not to mention it's presently the most viewed article on the English Wikipedia and has averaged more than 800,000 views per day for three days straight. This story is objectively "In The News" across the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the latest addition to ITN, I'd also be a bit unhappy about topping the Nice story with one about a computer game. I realise there's no actual policy behind this, but I'm sure you can see what I mean. Black Kite (talk)23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The news is the news and we post it as it comes. Tailoring it to highlight particular stories based on personal interests undermines the desired objectivity of the project—this kind of idea has been shot down time and time again. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, this reads like reaching for any reason to not post this? Right now we have attack -> new prime minister! -> crash -> Portugal wins! -> election victory. Personally, I'd put it below the Nice attack, but it deserves to be posted. Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't get me wrong, I was talking about ITN vs ongoing. It's been posted to ongoing now, which is fine. (I don't think it'll last very long there once the initial hysteria has died down, but we'll see) Black Kite (talk)00:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I IAR posted this to ongoing given the support above for that option and the lack of consensus on a blurb. I know I voted, so I'm okay if a neutral admin comes in and reverts. Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose ongoing, support blurb. For me, posting this as "ongoing" is an ugly precedent that diminishes the typical meaning of ongoing. Pokemon Go is essentially a media property. The new "news" about it will largely be a matter of record keeping as it sets new records for users, money, etc. and expands into additional territories. This has direct parallels to things like movies, books, video games, etc. I wouldn't want to see "Ongoing: Star Wars" or "Ongoing: Grand Theft Auto" or "Ongoing: Winds of Winter". A popular movie, for example, may rack up records for several weeks and generate news stories for at least as long, but would that really qualify as an "ongoing" news event? For me, I would say no. For me, I would say ongoing should be used for events like wars, the Olympics, disease outbreaks, etc., where the ongoing series of updates continues to follow new and evolving headlines and are not just a matter of counting how much money / users / etc. have been captured. That said, Pokemon Go is plenty impressive, and I have no objection to posting it as an ITN news item. I would just say that we should pick one of the records that it has broken, and use that as a hook to post a blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything about ongoing that specifically prohibits this item being posted, and incidentally, this was posted as ongoing since there were too many variant statistics to post in a single blurb. They are all equally citeworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the criteria for ongoing that prohibits pop culture events/happenings from being posted. The main requirement is that the topic should be in the news and the article is receiving steady updates, both of which are present for this. The game still hasn't released worldwide so there are more developments to come rather than just statistical updates. The issue with posting a blurb is mainly with systematic bias since this is a global story but the most pertinent blurbs are US-centric. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-support posting as ongoing - The fact that nobody can agree on a blurb indicates that there is no apparent milestone or reference point to indicate the significance of this story, yet nobody has denied the significance. This has been a reoccurring theme in the news here for over a week, despite not being officially released in Canada as of yet! I see dozens of people walking/biking/busing around blindly playing this game; it is only bound to grow exponentially in the following week or three, in part due to success, in part due to Darwinism. - Floydianτ¢01:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, given that the game is considered a worldwide phenomena, we should have a blurb that reflects a quantitative assessment of that. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to follow up and say that this is a good idea for a blurb, it's just the US element that I disagree with. Having re-read my initial response it seems a bit snippy – this is certainly the best rationale for a blurb yet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most people will miss this discussion being buried so down. I agree with a worldwide blurb, but all I could find about "best game ever" refers to USA only. Nergaal (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Theresa May confirmed Tory leader/Prime Minister
(As an aside, when we post this we should probably remove "UK EU membership referendum aftermath" from ongoing, since it will probably be the high point of that story for a while)
Support altblurb2 only, we need to mention that it's because Leadsom withdrew, we don't need to mention Cameron, and we definitely don't need to define May by her gender. Laura Jamieson (talk)14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but support in general From the BBC article this is not confirmed yet, in that a committee needs to formally declare her to be the next PM; Leadsom's withdrawl only makes it the most likely outcome. Once the committee approves, then posting is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - suggest waiting until tomorrow (Tuesday) to allow some more work on the article, and maybe only posting when it has actually happened? Not suggesting that it won't, but waiting until she is actually PM (on Wednesday) seems like the right thing to do here. Also, the blurb won't need constant rewriting for tense if we wait until it happens before posting it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Leadsom withdrawing isn't necessary. And May 'won' the contest by default so I'd rephrase the blurb to emphasise she is the next PM, something like: 'Following the leadership election....'. Maybe post this tomorrow at the earliest. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until she becomes PM. We wouldn't report the outcome of other party leadership races. Once she becomes PM, then we can say she has become the new PM. Obviously that hasn't occurred yet so we should wait. I would not expect the outcome of UKIP, Green or Labour leadership elections to be featured on the front page. Theresa becoming the Prime Minister is worthy of front page featureship, winning the leadership election is in my opinion not worthy of front page-ship. Calvin (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Typically we post changes in an office like this at the time it becomes clear, not at the inauguration/date they actually take office. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a known event to happen in two days, rather than in months (like the US presidency), I can see the fair arguments to wait until the day itself. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Wednesday, when she meets the Queen and formally becomes PM. At present she is only a party leader. There is no need to mention Leadsom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, and based on past discussions you should have known better. Like in large parts of Europe only the King/Queen is ITNR, and the Prime Minister is not. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Of course the blurb should be updated on Wednesday (or any other time as appropriate), but the event is sufficiently definite that I don't see the value in waiting to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Does ITN ever post events with the word "will" in them? I don't recall any past occasions. Let's post what happens, not what's going to happen. So far, all that has happened is that May has won the leadership election, and the change of party leadership by itself would not merit an ITN entry. (This is not a general election, where the result is posted before the constitutional consequences are followed through). The significant event here is that party leadership in the UK system for the governing party is combined with the post of Prime Minister, and that change of office-holder can be posted in the past tense in less than 48 hours. That version (my alt 3 above) doesn't need mention of who she beat in the leadership election, as it's of less importance to the change of Prime Minister. I also agree with the earlier suggestion about removing the UK Brexit fallout from ongoing when this story is posted, since this is by far the main fallout. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencherlite: I understand your point, but really any election-related item could be drafted in an alternative form with that word. After all, "John Smith is elected President of the United States" is exactly equivalent to "John Smith will become President of the United States next January 20th." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If John Smith dies on January 19th, he never becomes the President of the United States next January 20th. Whatever happened in the elections still happened. Same dice for Theresa May. Anything which says "will" could always be wrong as unlikely as it seems. (In the US election, there is the complication of what actually happens on election day. Still I think we've settled on a wording that people feel accurately reflects the situation as understood by most of those well informed about the US election. In many elections there's also the added complication of the results actually being unofficial media predictions rather than final results which can take days, but perhaps that's a discussion best left for another day.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarking as silly, an assessment of quality will need to be made, all sorts of crap could be added between now and then. Leave it as open, and trust admins to assess the nomination as appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump could hypothetically be hit by a meteor between November 8 and January 20—or perhaps a better analogy, the Electoral College might go rogue in some way. "Something unexpected might possibly happen" is not the best standard for us to use for this type of discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just wait until it happens, it's ITNR after all and then we can judge the quality of the article (please, please remember to do that, don't just post it to make a point). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. As I've now mentioned above, there's a big difference between accurately reporting something that has happened, and claiming something "will happen" which as unlikely as it seems, could not happen. This doesn't intrisicly relate to whether we should post however you said '"Something unexpected might possibly happen" is not the best standard for us to use for this type of discussion' when it's actually an important standard. Because something unexpected happen we need to be careful and make sure we get the wording right. (Personally I think there's also a valid question whether to post something iffy which will be resolved in 24 hours, but I've always been a strong supporter of the NOTNEWS/norush philsophy and not just on ITN, but that's largely an aside to my main point.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness' sake don't use Alt3 because she didn't win anything, she became PM by default because Leadsom withdrew, that's a fairly clear factual error. Laura Jamieson (talk)22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose altblurb2 There is no good reason for mentioning Andrea Leadsom. Cameron and Brexit could be reasonable additions for the blurb if it should contain more context. Mentioning some semi-obscure politician does not make any sense, this is a minor detail that belongs to the linked article only. Mentioning Leadsom but not mentioning Cameron or Brexit is simply absurd. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is clear support for waiting until she actually becomes PM, I've changed the main blurb. It's now based on the one we used for the Australian leadership spill, and it sidesteps the contentious issue of whether she won the election or not. Smurrayinchester06:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a significant article quality issue relating to her alleged deputy, George Osborne (until he was removed from her infobox after I added a 'citation needed').. Every recent leader of the Conservative party has one or more deputies in his/her infobox, seemingly based on a list recently removed from the article Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) for lack of citations (that article currently has no citations whatsoever). The issue can be swept under the carpet by removing Osborne from her infobox as a quick fix, but doing that will just leave the quality issue unfixed in many of the articles to which our readers can be expected to link from her article. I have neither the time nor the interest nor the competence to fix it myself, but I'm mentioning it here (and in her Talk page and that of the Deputy leader article) in the hope of bringing it to the attention of those who will know what to do about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the meantime I've now added the possible Original Research tag to the Deputy Leader article as a warning to our readers and to encourage a proper fix. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - definitely wait until May is in post. I had a dream that the Queen refused Cameron's resignation, appointed someone other than May as the new PM, and/or dissolved parliament (then found out she can't do that any more). Ironically, if parliament (at some later stage) voted against the Brexit referendum result, that would be a possible reason for the Queen to dissolve parliament, as from Royal_prerogative: "A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation". But again, the Fixed-terms Act abrogated most of those powers. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the consensus is to post tomorrow. In which case the original blurb is fine. Marked as such. --Tone13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support waiting - So many things we thought we knew in UK politics a few weeks ago turned out to be untrue. Who knows what this afternoon might bring? GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the plan to post this ~16 UTC (if this comment even matters by now). I think UK has still had relatively little place in the media about upcoming heads of government compared to the US. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add that Cameron is due to meet the Queen at about 1700hrs so the new PM may be appointed by about 1900hrs, given previous transfers. Calvin (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - historically important worldwide news, I was almost going to full-protect Theresa May for edit-warring, but I can't be sure I will be online to unlock it the minute she is officially confirmed in post. Anyway, yes, stick it up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb explodes at an outdoor market in Baghdad, killing at least 12 people and injuring 20 more. Bombings elsewhere in Iraq kill five more people. (Al Jazeera)(AP)
AMC Theatres is purchasing London-based Odeon & UCI Cinemas Group in a deal valued at about £921 million ($1.21 billion). AMC has 385 theaters with 5,380 screens, most in the United States. Odeon & UCI has 242 theaters and 2,236 screens in the U.K. and Ireland. AMC noted its $1.1 billion (£835 million) acquisition of Carmike Cinemas (276 thrs/2,954 scrs) (of Columbus, Georgia) is still in the works. (AP)(USA Today)
Evan Mawarire, the most visible leader of the protests in Zimbabwe, is arrested and charged with "inciting public violence and disturbing peace." (BBC)
Citibank notifies the Venezuelan government it will close the accounts of the Venezuelan Central Bank and the Bank of Venezuela in 30 days after conducting a "periodic risk management review." Venezuela relies on Citibank to conduct foreign currency transactions due to the country's strict currency controls. (UPI)
Support on improvement Significant transportation incident, but would like to see more stable details in place (like # of ppl on trains before collision, any preliminary reason for the collision, etc.) --MASEM (t) 14:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going to happen while the target article is fully protected because of NPOV content dispute. -- KTC (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support: The article is already in good shape, and it looks like people are adding reaction as it comes in. However, I don't like either existing blurb: it's tricky to come up with a layperson-readable blurb, but formulations like "reef/shoal features are not entitled to exclusive economic zone" seems overly technical and downplays the interesting part (namely, that this means China loses a huge chunk of oceanic territory), while blurb one feels a bit general. Have suggested altblurb II (which also links to Great wall of sand, which I think is a pretty interesting article), and am open to improvements. Smurrayinchester10:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on serious improvements - No question on the subject being important, but while the article is sourced, it exhibits a lot of problems. First, I don't seen anything in the body on the actual decision, including a summary of the ruling; it would also be nice if possible to get initial statements from the reps of both countries and other directly involved parties. Second, the reaction section is one of those things that while we don't explicit disallow them, should be handled with care (see this recent VPP discussion. While important to list all the countries on which side they support, the use of flag icons goes against WP:MOSFLAG. And the proseline approach for the rest with the International bodies is really lunky. It is cleanup work that can be done in a reasonable short time. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt I. preferably, then the Original as EEZ is hardly a technical term and Alt. I makes it clear that the ruling invalidates the expansiveness of all claimants, not just those of Beijing's. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. No summary of the decision in the article, one orange tag (including a neutrality issues tag at the top now), and several citation needed tags hanging around. These all need to be fixed before posting. Oppose Altblurbs II and III because they blur the line between the maritime claims rejected by the PCA and claims of land-based sovereignty that the PCA did not rule on. The original blurb is confusing in this respect, so unless the martime claims or EEZs were put into it, I would oppose that as well. Preference is for Altblurb 1, since that seems to be the most technically accurate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd about the syntax of islands "supporting" claims. Islands aren't sentient and aren't capable of supporting anything abstract. How about this streamlined version of the orig. blurb? —
The problem with that is that "Territorial disputes in the South China Sea" refers to both the maritime and island claims. The PCA only ruled that maritime claims via EEZs from the islands was invalid, but did not rule on the sovereignty of those islands. Something of a combination between the original, which indicates which country won more of their positions before the court, and the altblurb, which is the clearest and most technically correct on the ruling, would be my preferencebetter although my preference is still for Altblurb I, since per CaradhrasAiguo, the ruling negates all EEZs claims derived from the islands and other features. 17:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC).
Oppose on article quality and inaccurate blurb The ruling did mention about sovereign rights of coastal states over their continental shelf or EEZ:
647. With respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 5, the Tribunal concludes that both Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are located within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ coast on the island of Palawan and are located in an area that is not overlapped by the entitlements generated by any maritime feature claimed by China. It follows, therefore, that, as between the Philippines and China, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.
716. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal finds that China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels with respect to M/V Veritas Voyager on 1 to 2 March 2011 breached Article 77 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the non-living resources of its continental shelf in the area of Reed Bank. The Tribunal further finds that China has, by promulgating its 2012 moratorium on fishing in the South China Sea, without exception for areas of the South China Sea falling within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines and without limiting the moratorium to Chinese flagged vessels, breached Article 56 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the living resources of its exclusive economic zone. Source: PCA. --RioHondo (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal do not generate their own 200 nm EEZ, by 1203(A)(2)(b) and others. Since that is the case, when considering maritime boundary, you do not have to take those reefs/shoals into consideration. Ergo, Mischief Reef / Second Thomas Shoal would be considered "enclaves" since they are surrounded by EEZ of Philippines. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps21:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 1. This was a ruling principally on the basis of maritime claims, not territorial claims. The court rejected to consider who actually owned the features, though they did decide that they are rocks or low tide elevations not granting an exclusive economic zone. Mamyles (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure you read the ruling, specifically the one posted right above your vote? The ruling did award the maritime entitlements to the coastal State over those rocks and low tide elevations that it said "form part" of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of the coastal State. And that China violated the sovereign rights of the coastal State. Thats tantamount to ownership under the Law of the Sea.--RioHondo (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sovereignty lies in their being part of the continental shelf and EEZ of the coastal State. That is crystal clear in the wording of the award. Those features are not islands hence their "sovereign rights" belong to the coastal state. So i Oppose the inaccurate wording of the first blurb, "without ruling on sovereignty", because it did.--RioHondo (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporally opposed due to POV issues The article in its present state is still too biased, although several editors (full disclosure: myself included) have just recently tried to bring it closer to center. It might be just a few hours away from being acceptably close enough to neutral. Hammersbach (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Medeis. I'm also seeing follow-up news articles on the consequences of this decision. Only reason to oppose this is quality issues, but I'd even say that posting an article with an ongoing content dispute "emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource" (from WP:ITN as a description of ITN's purpose), as one can see consensus form in real time. Banedon (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we can't post articles that are inherently unstable as a result of lack of neutrality. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the main page is where we put our "quality" items. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Rebels in Aleppo launch an assault on government-controlled areas in the city. This comes after the Syrian Army blocked off the only road leading into opposition-controlled areas. According to state media, at least eight people have been killed and dozens more are wounded. (BBC)
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.
Yes, it was just TV rights, so imagine the value of the "product". The deal was for just three years, not everything for ever, so yes, it dwarfs the value of this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were comparing deals that actually happened. If your boring product ever changes hands, I'd support it, because both sides get something huge. The Premier deal just saw Sky overpay and not care since it has bottomless pockets. A few million Brits watched football on a new channel. Meh. Anyway, can you at least not close this till more North Americans wake up? InedibleHulk(talk)10:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you needed to descend to that kind of commentary, where's your evidence that William Morris Endeavor haven't overpaid for something which has flash-in-the-pan popularity? And note, that Sky deal was just the UK, the worldwide rights added another £3bn or so. It's a global sport with global popularity, the most popular sport on the planet, so it's not quite "A few million Brits" or "a new channel". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More people worldwide watch Premier League than UFC by far, and my hat's off to it. But that deal was just for the right to air the games as far as Sky reaches. I'm not comparing the organizations' values here, just the transactions. Zuffa gets a lot of money and WME gets a lot of stuff. Premier League got a bit more money and a Sky got a lot less stuff. So this one's bilaterally bigger. WME did get a tad ripped off, but at least it can resell its stuff for something if fighting ever goes out of style.
Weak Support (if confirmed) - UFC items generate news in mainstream media quite regularly, so a transaction for the entire franchise should be worth posting. As far as corporate deals go this isn't that big - Skype for example was bought for $8.5 billion. However Skype also almost never generates news in mainstream media, and it's not a sports organization either. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a sports story but a business story that happens to involve a sports-related company. As a business deal it really isn't very significant in terms of, monetary value, number of people impacted or degree of change. If you look at just sports company transactions it is more significant, but if we post this based on that we will have to post bignumber transactions for every business sector (with arguments about what constitutes a sector and which one a given company is in) which is a rabbit hole I think we can really do without exploring. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. I had never heard of the UFC before InedibleHulk started nominating it here left and right. It is never in any media in Germany, and I do not see it on English speaking news websites I visit either. From what I read, viewing figures are at around 1.6 million households, which is a joke compared to other sports events. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I wrote about English speaking news as well, which should cover much of the globe and especially the region of the world of particular interest to the English Wikipedia. The fact remains: This is a business and not a sports story (see the section the NYT put it in). And for business news, this is just not notable enough. For sports, even less so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I am persuaded by Thryduulf's argument about the effects of this sale, which seem limited- though this is being covered in mainstream news. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We rarely post business deals, which this is. $4bn is indeed a lot of money, but not earth-shattering in the great scheme of the sporting world. Laura Jamieson (talk)10:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works here. Nor do you know the nationality of many of those who have already participated. Why should Americans have a special right to comment to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because more of them would get it. Brazilians, too. Not a special right, just a right. I know some of your nationalities. Can these things be removed and resumed later in the day? Cultural differences aside, this hasn't even been announed yet. I think it'd be fairer to wait and see how "in the news" it gets when it's official. InedibleHulk(talk)11:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We all "get it". It's a business deal where a sports organisation has (nearly) been purchased for $4bn. That's what everyone here has noted. Can you elcuidate what it is everyone here "has not got"? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Now you are kind of turning the ITN rulebook upside down. On the one hand, as 331dot pointed out above, we should not oppose items because they are not covered in one country or region. But this is not a one-way street. We should also not support items because some parts of the world are more inclined towards them than others. And this isn't even cricket or baseball or American Football (you know, that kind of football you play with your hands for some reason?), where the general interest in the affected countries are a lot higher than for UFC. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked if there was a rule. I'm not trying to stack the vote; those with a tendency toward F1 and stuff would be free to opine then, too. Snowclosing now would just exclude a huge chunk who are still getting ready for work or asleep. If we want a global perspective, we need the other hemisphere. I'm about ready for bed, though, so maybe just leaving this die would be the easier thing to do. It'll still actually be in the news. InedibleHulk(talk)11:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we don't do that, for any time period, either for snow posting or snow closing. So if you want to attempt to mandate that, you need to propose it. In the meantime, we'll snow close this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I suggest if you believe in what you've been writing for the last couple of hours, you start a discussion to enforce a 12-hour moratorium on closing any nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Though I'm opposing this particular nomination as IMO relatively insignificant, I agree we should have a 12h minimum period for closing an otherwise reasonable nomination based on relative insignificance. That would still allow obviously insignificant or otherwise ineligible nominations to be closed earlier. --PanchoS (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even considering within the US, the UFC is not really that popular of a sport, and $4B for an entire league is relatively small when considering the value of individual teams (eg NY Yankees were $3.something billion last year). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Made the change to July 2016 attacks in the South Sudan Civil War article. I'm fine with redirecting it to 2016 Juba clashes instead as well. Banedon (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source from the Voice of America regarding the UN Security Council meeting. According to the source, "The latest fighting in Africa's newest nation was the first major outbreak of violence since Machar was reappointed vice president in April". The violence is only just breaking out; don't know yet if it will be sustained. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not give any reasonable overview of the general situation in South Sudan as bckground.
It is also to a large part a timeline instead of a proper article.
Every single claim in the article has to be double-checked - I just looked at the source of the first footnote, and it does not support the Approximately 10,000 civilians have fled parts of the city due to the clashes. claim in the crap article.
There are decent prose summaries under each date, so this isn't the conventional one-sentence timeline. Marking as ready per consensus. Brandmeistertalk09:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An estimated 272 people have been killed between rival Sudan People's Liberation Army factions as clashes in the capital, Juba, continue. According to a spokesman for rebel leader and Vice President Riek Machar, South Sudan is "back to war" despite a peace deal being reached last April. (Al Jazeera)(BBC)
Protests continue in multiple cities across the United States following the death of two black men by police. Numerous confrontations and arrests have been reported. (Reuters)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Even though it is still unclear how much they will win by, it is clear the Opposition will not win and the Coalition has won. Bill Shorten has conceded defeat and Malcolm Turnbull has claimed victory. Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Article says results "may remain unconfirmed for weeks." We should be chary of posting unofficial results. However, due to the special bureaucratic circumstances of this election, it might be acceptable to insert "apparently" before "wins" and go with it. Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The word 'apparently' or other qualifier is unnecessary, given that the opposition leader has conceded defeat. Yes, there is a greater than zero chance of the Coalition losing the election, but this is extremely unlikely. In my suggested alternative blurb below, there is more focus on winning the highest number of seats than winning the election itself.
(edit conflict) Comment Added altblurbs. I would be against the use of "wins" - elections are (debatably) not sporting events - or "apparently" which casts unreasonable doubt on the overall result. The main opposition has conceded and no one is officially challenging his attempt to form a government. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb, presuming the article is in good enough shape. This is a done deal now. The Coalition will be in government, either in their own right or with independent/minor party support, and that's why Labor has conceded. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. 3 – Fills the bill. Suggest these changes to shorten:
If we can't go with "wins", we should go alt2. We don't know whether they will have a majority and I don't really like beginning with "loses" when we're trying to say they won, either. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 I think alt 1 is the safest option as they are guaranteed to have the most seats. I feel that using "wins" as in the original blurb implies a majority, which is uncertain. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Should point to UEFA Euro 2016 Final, which needs updating with a match report once it is finished. Maybe the main article could use some prose as well, but here I would accept just the tables as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it should be a "floor", but I do think it should be a point of comparison. 1kb isn't enough prose, is my point. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull until a prose summary of the match is included in the bolded article. One or two paragraphs at a minimum are required. The is the same reason the Wimbledon blurb was pulled. Calidum¤02:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the Copa América Centenario was nominated but didn't get posted, a combination of crap article and lack of consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Regional tournament". Ah, so on that basis we could exclude pretty much every single tournament only open to entrants from a certain part of the world? That's the Superbowl gone, baseball, NBL, the Premier League and every other major football league ... etc. The Centenario was an exhibition tournsment. Please feel free to comment again when you understand the concept of sport. Laura Jamieson (talk)18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least three people are killed and dozens more are wounded when protesters clash with Indian Army soldiers. The protesters defied an army curfew and took part in the funeral of a top rebel commander of Hizbul Mujahideen. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
This week, the Gambia and Tanzania outlawed child marriages. Friday, the Tanzanian High Court — in a case filed by the Msichana Initiative, a lobbying group that advocates for girls' right to education — ruled in favor of protecting girls from the harms of early marriage. And during a feast ending the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on Wednesday, The GambianPresidentYahya Jammeh announced that child and forced marriages are banned. Jammeh called on the National Assembly to quickly take up the issue. (AP)(BBC)(Human Rights Watch)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Pulitzer Prize, two George Polk awards, two Overseas Press Club awards, and the coveted Sigma Delta Chi prize for distinguished journalism for his work on Cambodia – Muboshgu (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. The article looks OK but I've only skim read it (for reasons of time) so I may have missed something. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I think the whole ITNR emphasis was on linking the sporting event(s) rather than the individuals' articles. In any case, you don't want to start linking articles of such magnitude, they are rife with BLP issues, lack of refs, POV, etc etc. Better we get a summary of the final on the original target page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Williams' notability is largely in the Internet era, so I'd imagine that could be fixed. I ran through Serena's article earlier and while I wouldn't pass it as GA, there were more sources than typical BLPs. Although IPs have gone nuts on it this afternoon. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the point is that the finals article is incomplete. It needs a summary and a decent one at that, then there's no problem. Better to stick with that than target the player's articles which are generally average and weakly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The record should certainly be included in the blurb, but it is not necessary to target Serena's article to do that. Doubles finals are not usually mentioned. Neljack (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless someone prepares a good summary of the ladies match now, then we can post then and append the men's final tomorrow. But right now most of the articles nominated are just left to fester by the nominator, I guess it's an attempt to gather editing forces in order to make the updates, but it seldom works and mostly ends up with the item being swamped in procedural diktat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but without mentioning any records. This win just eqalises the record for most Grand Slam titles in the Open era and doesn't set a new one; in addition, Margaret Court's ultimate record of 24 titles is still inviolable. I'd support mentioning the record when she wins the 25th Grand Slam title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inviolable? Serena's only two wins away, and she's favored in the next two majors this year. I'd say she's better than 50-50 to break the record. Of course this has no bearing on the actual headline used, just wondering about your word choice. :) -- Fuzheado | Talk00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make any predictions on what may happen in the future but this win doesn't break any record that is worth posting. She may need less than a year for accomplishing it but her age shouldn't be undermined. It's interesting to see if she's going to do it, though.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unposted because I just saw what the summary looked like in the 2015 article - there's nothing of that quality in this one, and posters above did ask for summaries. Smurrayinchester17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still object to that approach I'm afraid. It would set a trend which would mean a one-line update in each player's article would be sufficient. Right now the ITNR is placing an emphasis on improving the event article and it should stay that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as you said (or at least implied) above, most articles are nowhere near the quality of these two, so I would imagine future cases would be shot down with simple arguments such as "unsourced BLP violations" or "major tags". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we always post the results for Grand Slams. Surprised this isn't up already. And if the main article isn't yet up to snuff, this will provide extra ammunition for people to improve it. — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See that's where I think we're mistaken. Is there any evidence that people actively improve items that aren't bold linked in ITN blurbs? I would think it would act contrary to that, i.e. the blurb is posted, why bother working on the other articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think part of the problem is that the editing activity in certain sports articles is split between sub-articles and the main article (there may also be less active editors in the tennis articles at present, but not sure about that). In this case, the editing activity is split between 2016 Wimbledon Championships and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles. To those doing updates, it is not clear what level is needed in the main article and what in the sub-articles, and how much duplication/summary is needed. Having a picture from the Men's final is a real bonus here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose once again this is premature and misses the point, that point being ITNR isn't about the individual player articles, it's about the finals articles. Seriously, stop making these posts if you don't get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, in the Murray article, we have a description of the final as follows: "In the final on 10 July, Murray defeated Canadian Milos Raonic in straight sets to win his second Wimbledon title and third Major title overall" one sentence. Even the odd 2016 Andy Murray tennis season article is better than that. Then Serena's article features a whole paragraph which is entirely unreferenced (actually, the whole section of that article has no reference whatsoever). Seriously, this is bollocks. Pull please, and stop playing games with ITN now, it's becoming a serious problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I've pulled it, no referencing on Serena at all, and now tagged as such, this isn't how ITN works. Please remember that we may have "prose" but it has to be referenced, and we should be following norms, i.e. where is the description of each final? There isn't one. So this is not ready to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the pull I think TRM is right. The Wimbledon article is not up to shape to be posted as ITN/R, and having a quick glance at Serena's article, it's not either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate. This is getting ridiculous. As Ed says, this is news, and ITN is supposed to report news. The article is good enough, and there si a clear consensus above to post. — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the Serena article has a maintenance tag relating to this very story so it's hardly "good enough" to use a target article in the blurb now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready the target article should be the one for the championships, and that has a short lead and one short paragraph of prose then only table after table. There is no summary of any individual matches nor any links to summaries. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Nigerian Army spokesman, a Boko Haram suicide bomber kills six people inside a mosque in the town of Damboa, Borno State. A second suicide bomber attempted to enter the same mosque but failed to gain entry and detonated his belt, killing only himself. (Reuters)
Typhoon Nepartak hits eastern Taiwan causing three deaths so far, 124 injuries, thousands of people to be evacuated, disrupting transport and power supplies. (Reuters)(CNN)
The death of an elderly Utah woman with a Zika virus infection in late June is the first reported Zika-related death in the continental United States. The woman had traveled to an area where Zika is spreading. The exact cause of death has not been determined; the lady had an underlying medical condition. (NBC News)(Time)
Police kill Micah X Johnson, the gunman believed responsible for the killing of five police officers and shooting of seven more in Dallas, Texas following a standoff. (Los Angeles Times)
#ThisFlag protest leader Pastor Evan Mawarire says the movement, which uses WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, will hold a two-day strike next week if demands, that include sacking corrupt ministers, payment of delayed salaries, lifting of roadblocks that residents say are used by police to extract bribes, etc., are not met. A drought has aggravated the country's situation as have banks that have a daily withdrawal ceiling as low as $50. (Reuters via CNBC Africa)(Ventures Africa)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on improvements - Specifically the first para of Charity Work is unsourced, this needs at least a couple based on the prose. Importance given the various figures of recognition from across globe. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements per Masem. He would be a shoe-in for RD with only a fraction of the notability he has, so it's just article quality holding it back now. I've done some updating of tense, and think that's all sorted, but more sources are needed still. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Improvements – Masem is correct (above), there are too many unsourced claims made (specifically the 1st para. of Charity Work section does stand out). And IMO there are some other statements, awkwardly worded, indicating (perhaps) that a non-native English speaker edited some of the page (ie. and that could be revised, too). Christian Roess (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. I didn't see that. I'd love to get other opinions on this—being called "the greatest living humanitarian in the world" makes it seem like he'd awfully worthy of a full blurb. Ed[talk][majestic titan]00:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to fix this up before commenting. Apart from ignoring consensus and posting out of process, this reeks of WP:INVOLVED. An admin doesn't take it upon themselves to post then improve, when 4-6 others say improve then post. And no, I removed that statement earlier because the source did not explicitly state that. Fuebaey (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey:, as I said, I missed the "recent deaths nomination" line. Invoking involved is a little strange there, but if you want less content-building admins, that's the way to do it. I'm not going to apologize for trying to improve the article. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]01:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between acknowledging a mistake and fixing it. If using administrative tools to employ your own personal preference against consensus is not the definition of involved, please enlighten me to what is. Fuebaey (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD instead of blurb I think since there was no consensus for posting a blurb, it should be removed immediately. Discussions on whether this should get a blurb and on Ed's editing of the article can take place later. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD only please, there was no consensus for a blurb here. I saw the blurb and immediately thought "how did this person I've never heard a thing about get a blurb?" --AmaryllisGardenertalk01:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, just because you, personally, haven't heard of the person doesn't make that a criteria for blurb-ness. I'm hoping that people see things in the blurbs all the time that they weren't aware of or don't recognize. That's the value of that news box. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I looked at his article, I didn't see much importance either. And I'd never heard of Jo Cox before her death, but her death was news-worthy because it was an assassination. This guy was in his 80s, and thus his death was not a surprise. --AmaryllisGardenertalk
Many people in the world have never heard of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile e.g Australia MP Bob Katter. so by this logic Dallas shooting doesn't deserve a blurb ? --39.46.6.156 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - As Fuzheado said above, "just because you, personally, haven't heard of the person doesn't make that a criteria for blurb-ness". Sources use some grandiose text to describe him. That's an indication of strong noteworthiness, and not having heard of him before simply means one is ignorant (or biased, which isn't that different in this context). Banedon (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded and better formatted. At present a viral photograph is given equal prominence and more words than 186 deaths. The story is undoubtedly notable but the article is too far below main page standards currently. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've started expanding this but there's a tremendous amount of information to cover since the flooding is so widespread and affecting so many people. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements/stability - Obvious major natural disaster, no brainer that it should be ITN once the article is expanded sufficiently (granted it will take time due to the regional lack of news coverage) --MASEM (t) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in downtown Dallas, Texas, after a shooting during a peaceful protest. (Post) Alternative blurb: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in downtown Dallas, Texas, after a shooting during a protest against racial discrimination by law enforcement. Alternative blurb II: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in a shooting in downtown Dallas, Texas, during a protest against racial discrimination by law enforcement. Alternative blurb III: Five police officers are killed in Dallas, Texas, during a protest against the shootings of Alton Sterling and of Philando Castile. News source(s):CNN, FOX News Credits:
Support, not because of the numbers but the circumstances, and part of a larger story (increasing police brutality in the United States) that we inexplicably haven't featured yet, to the best of my knowledge. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support But "peaceful protest" is not neutral language, and it makes little sense in context (was it peaceful or were there multiple homicides?). - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with changing that initial copy to be more neutral and I can remove the adjective "peaceful". Nakon05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to removing "peaceful" from the blurb candidate. The sources I'm watching still show 11 injuries and 4 fatalities. Nakon05:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Four police officers are killed and seven are wounded at a protest in Dallas, Texas. Eliminates all cruft and potential for error, as everything in that statement is unequivocally true (adjusting numbers per updates). Additional information can all go in the article where it has full context and virtually unlimited room for adequate explanation. - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mass shootings in the United States may not be rare, but shootings targeting police are. The blurb needs to be tweaked. The officers were not shot "after" the shooting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that just pointing out the shooting of the cops is not really giving the whole story, given that the protests were in response to the two shootings by police (elsewhere in the US) in the last two days. I think both of those events Shooting of Alton Sterling and Shooting of Philando Castile need to be included too on the blurb because not explaining the nature of the protest doesn't show the reason for the resulting tension and shootings. That siad, I would weak oppose this, as it very much a narrow regional story with no clear larger impact, and given how we haven't really posted any of these other shootings from the past couple years. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Masem, "it very much a narrow regional story with no clear larger impact, and given how we haven't really posted any of these other shootings from the past couple years". I think the Medina bombing is more worthy of posting than this (for now at least, as this is a developing story - if this continues to be covered in mainstream media I'll switch to support). Banedon (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this will ever become an item of worldwide significance, since it after all only involves the US police force ... adding alt blurb III anyway, to include the two articles mentioned by Masem. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying an issue as having only local or regional interest is not against ITN rules - it's bias on nationality that is not supposed to be argued. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (alt 3) – escalation of violence in an already tense situation. Local significance is quite clear which is sufficient for ITN. For the sake of context, the shootings of Sterling and Castile should also be included in the blurb as suggested above. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 9 people die every 5 seconds. If you're going to get all hysterical about it and offer some kind of strawman, please get your facts straight IP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - if this had been a "radical Muslim/Islamic terrorist group", then it would certainly be posted. I would argue that, in a way, this incites (or incited) fear and terror of people on a widespread scale, far beyond the "regional" impact of Dallas. And it is not clear whether in fact this is actually some form of domestic terrorism. 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:A00A:3F33:77D5:507B (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Nepartak is expected to make landfall on mainland China on Friday and will make flooding worse. Nearly 200 people have died in flood waters in China in the past week with 41 people missing, 1.6 million relocated and almost 50,000 houses collapsed. (The Telegraph)
Germany's parliament passes a new law saying that it is rape to have sex with a person who says "No" to the sex. Under the previous law, sex was not considered rape unless the victim fought back. The new law also classifies groping as a sex crime, makes it easier to deport migrants who commit sex offences, and makes it easier to prosecute assaults committed by a large group. (BBC)
In a so-called VatiLeaks case, a Vatican City Court dismisses charges of publishing confidential information against two Italian journalists stating it lacked jurisdiction in this case. Emiliano Fittipaldi and Gianluigi Nuzzi wrote books on the inner workings of the Vatican. The court did convict a Vatican priest to 18 months, and assessed a 10-month suspended sentence on an Italian communications expert, for conspiring to pass documents to the journalists; a fifth defendant was cleared of all charges. (AP)(The Guardian)(Catholic News)(Vatican Radio)
Gov. Dayton says, "Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver and the passengers, were white? I don't think it would have. So I'm forced to confront, and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront, that this kind of racism exists." (NPR)(Wall Street Journal)
Eleven police officers are shot, with five dying of gunshot wounds in Dallas, Texas during a protest against two black men killed within a day of each other. Police kill the shooter with a bomb delivered on a bomb defusing robot. (New York Post)(KTLA)(NBC DFW), (ABC News Australia)
Scientists manage to extract one last image from the Hitomi x-ray spacecraft, which broke up last March while orbiting Earth. Before it died, the spacecraft captured an image which measured the X-ray activity of the Perseus cluster. (BBC)
Twenty Philippine Army soldiers are under investigation after they are suspected of mutilating the body of a New People's Army member. The communist militant's eyes were gouged, his tongue was cut off and his throat was slit. (GMA News)
Business magnate and former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi sells leading football club A.C. Milan to a Chinese consortium for an eventual €400 million. (BBC)
A report about the United Kingdom's involvement in the Iraq War is released. The chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, said that the invasion was not a "last resort" and was based on "flawed intelligence and assessments". The inquiry was announced on 15 June 2009 by then-Prime MinisterGordon Brown. The final hearing was held on 2 February 2011. (The Guardian)(BBC)(BBC²)
Article:Iraq Inquiry (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Iraq Inquiry, commissioned in 2009 as a public inquiry into British involvement in the Iraq War, is published. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Chilcot Report is published, examining and criticising the actions of the UK in the Iraq War, its lead-up and its aftermath. Alternative blurb II: The Chilcot Report, commissioned in 2009 as a public inquiry into British involvement in the Iraq War, finds that there was no need to go to war at the time. Alternative blurb III: The Chilcot Report into UK involvement in the Iraq War finds that peaceful alternatives were not exhausted, that intelligence was flawed, and that there was insufficient planning for the its aftermath. News source(s):BBC, reams more Credits:
Nominator's comments: Landmark decision that has been on hold for years, similar to the Hillsborough report which we posted '''tAD''' (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There is not really any point discussing this until the findings are known (which will be around 10:20 UTC). Could totally reshape understanding of the war, could just repeat the Butler Review.Strong support. Findings are extensive and damning. Smurrayinchester09:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have added an altblurb based on its main findings. Probably a bit long, but we should say something about the findings beyond a bland "The report is published". Smurrayinchester10:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on two factors. First, I think the update required here is going to need more than one para. It should document the findings better in a new section. Ideally it should also include critical analysis of that, but as a news story, that might not be available. Second and more importantly, is this binding? What is the implication of this report? I would suspect there are legal cases being crafted on the announcement of the findings to sue UK decision makers for monetary damages and loss of life from the bad decisions in the report, but that doesn't make the report authoritative until the courts rule on that. There does not appear to be any actions specifically set out by the report to be taken. As such this just appears to be the publication of findings without any immediate effects. Interesting, yes but not ITN appropriate at this point. --MASEM (t) 11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as absolutely major news that will have long-term ramifications in the UK - although exactly what those will be is not immediately clear. All the blurbs look a little long for my taste, but I can't think of any better. "Chilcot Report" should be in the blurb somewhere though as that's by far the common name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Shocking, game-changing, groundbreaking... All terms which describe the report and its outcome. Strongly support Alt III. If we're going to right a great wrong, let it be this one.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons. The Iraq war involved multiple combatants, of which the UK was but one. Even among invasion forces the UK was only the third largest contributor to the war effort, significantly behind the US. I also don't see anything that might lead to long-term consequences in this report. The war's already over (for the UK). Unless Tony Blair is charged and convicted, in which case that can be posted as a blurb, I see this more as an internal UK matter that is neither very interesting nor will have great impact on its citizens. Banedon (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is much like the Hillsbrough Inquest, a massively significant case that's taken years and years to provide some kind of conclusion. Complaining about it being an "internal UK matter" is against the ITN rules, and what level of contribution the UK made to the war effort is entirely irrelevant. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it, remember? Plus proportionally, the US didn't pull its weight. P.S. who was second? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's internal to the UK is irrelevant at ITN, but it's even more irrelevant because the story is being covered worldwide, as a quick look through foreign news sources will show. Post posting Support. Laura Jamieson (talk)13:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – "Examining and criticising the actions of the UK in the Iraq War" is vague and uninformative. The coverage I've seen contains words such as "highly critical", "mistakes," "flawed intelligence" and the like. Further, some mention of Tony Blair seems essential. (AP headline: "Scathing report slams Blair over botched Iraq war.") Sca (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I tried to get across with blurb III. However, I don't know if mention of Blair is essential. He was the head of government at the time, so he is of course a major target, but he is by no means the only person mentioned in the report. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Attorney GeneralLord Goldsmith are also heavily criticized for a start. I think it can be assumed that a criticism of UK Government will include criticism of its head. Smurrayinchester15:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright as it stands: no-one expects Wikipedia to summarise the Chilcot report in one sentence. Reporting its bare release and its subject is enough. If we select what is important in it, then we risk our blurb being less NPOV; in particular, Blurb III could be read as putting an anti-war spin on the report. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the war should have happened to begin with is a matter of political dispute in the UK following the report; look at what Tony Blair's said today, and at some of the debate in the House of Commons today where one or two people said they would have voted the same way, and were quite right to remove Saddam Hussein. Therefore, although you and I may think the war should not have happened, it's POV to imply that in the blurb. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Guardian headlines it a "crushing verdict on Iraq war." As far as I have seen, the report is wholly negative in its evaluation of UK participation, so some indication of this conclusion should be included in the blurb. Upon reflection, that would be more important than mentioning Blair. Sca (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose, we've already posted the first conviction if I remember correctly. This is just the continuation of the story, with only some corrections. --Tone10:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Initial conviction was posted.[34] ITN is not an appropriate forum for documenting every minor twist and turn (as was attempted in October 2014 and December 2015). The BBC article even mentions that both the defense and prosecution have the option for further appeals, so this may not even be the final word in this ongoing legal effort. --Allen3talk10:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the change of crime charged only changed a 5 year sentence to 6, this is not significant enough a difference to proceed with yet another post on this topic. -MASEM (t) 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The United Nations reports a mortar attack on a camp for displaced Iraqis south of Baghdad kills three people, including two children, and injures 13 others, two critically. (The New York Times)
A suicide bomb explosion in Kurdish-controlled Al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria kills at least 16 people, including three children and two women. ISIL claims responsibility. (Reuters)
Dozens of petty criminals and alleged drug addicts die in the Philippines within a few days after Rodrigo Duterte took the presidency. He actively encouraged extrajudicial killing of drug addicts and petty criminals before and after the election. (Al Jazeera)(The Guardian)
Hungarian Prime MinisterViktor Orbán announces that the country will hold a referendum on October 2 where voters will get to choose whether or not to accept European Union-imposed quotas on the distribution of migrants. (BBC)
Cybersecurity software maker Check Point reports HummingBadmalware has infected at least 10 million Android devices, mostly in China and India. Check Point says a team of developers based in Beijing is behind HummingBad which gives hackers administrative-level access to infected devices. Apple devices have been hit by similar malware. (Time)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Extraordinarily long career in archaeology (oldest practising archaeologist at the end of her career), made significant discoveries, earned OBE, received medals. MurielMary (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is in decent shape (I fixed one tense issue, and can't spot any others) and it's clear she was very important to the field of archaeology, particularly archaeology in Arabia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Importance reasonable for RD, article seems fine (wish the infobox template didn't have that merge message but that's outside the control of the article). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting with two supports and no objections after being listed for a couple of days or more would be unproblematic in my book. After less than 24 hours it does look rather hasty. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look again at the timestamps - it was nominated here at 07:21 7 July and posted at 20:04 the same day, just over 12½ hours later. The date sections on this page are for the date of the event, which is not necessarily the date of the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Life Investments suspends trading in its UK property fund, in response to increased withdrawal calls since the vote, to protect the interests of all investors in the fund. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
Flooding caused by torrential rain in China kills at least 180 people, mostly along the Yangtze river. (BBC)
A Turkish ship carrying humanitarian aid for the Gaza Strip docks at the Israeli port city of Ashdod, the first warming move between the two countries since relations began to improve. Relations between Turkey and Israel were tense since the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid but ended last week when Turkey agreed to normalize ties in a diplomatic treaty. (The Guardian)
Ling Jihua, former top aide to paramount leaderHu Jintao, is sentenced to life in prison for illegally obtaining state secrets and taking over $11 million in bribes. Ling's misfortunes started when he was accused of trying to cover up a scandal connected to his 23-year-old son's deadly crash in a Ferrari in 2012. (UPI)
Zhejiang governor Li Qiang is transferred to neighbouring Jiangsu province to serve as party chief. He is succeeded as Zhejiang governor by Xinjiang deputy party chief Che Jun. (Sina)
Xian Hui is named acting Chairwoman of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, succeeding Liu Hui. It is the first time in the history of the People's Republic that a woman has succeeded another woman in a provincial government leadership position. (Sina)
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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mikva has been described as a "titan" of liberal politics in the US, received the US Presidential medal of Freedom (an honor not received just to anyone), has had a long and distinguished political career (apparent in the article), his help was sought by governors and even President Obama, and was known for being a mentor to then-Senator Obama. I updated the article, added more sources and added info about death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite the nomination, I've read the article and besides the Medal of Freedom, I'm struggling to really see how this individual was so important to politics. The article perhaps needs serious expansion to describe all the trailblazing things he did to change the world of American politics besides holding brief offices (a year at the White House, two terms in the house of representatives). I'd compare him to a middle-ranking, backbench British MP who would never be posted at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Would be a full oppose if I believed in the RD criteria, but I've been shown a better way. If we were posting any biography of a recently deceased individual, this one would make it as it has solid quality. But, the RD criteria are stringent, and he doesn't pass them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It was to demonstrate the parochial manner of many of these silly US politician nominations. Such individuals are ten a penny, and their impact is comparable to someone from a medium sized town in England. Just because it's bigger, don't make it better, or more notable. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support (had Ec'd on the nomination). This should be ITNR since arriving in its stable orbit is arrival at its destination. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tag seems to be lingering from before the insertion took place. It's been updated, and I can't see what else would be added. Removed. Smurrayinchester07:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD There's a few tense issues in the article but importance is clear, and nothing else glaring as a problem. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb one of the most iconic directors in film, and it's of featured quality, which we need to see more on the main page. Meinnaples (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've clarified that I support RD only here, if we don't envisage a "Death of Abbas Kiarostami" article, then I can't see why a blurb would be appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - there are very few living directors as influential and groundbreaking as Abbas Kiarostami (possibly only Godard and Scorsese). 91.52.239.58 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only, to be honest I can't see a point at which any film director would be worth a blurb (maybe Hitchcock, Welles or Kurosawa, but we've missed those). Laura Jamieson (talk)22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the lack of an article, I would oppose this as the only deaths appear to be the bomber and two security guards per the BBC (though this may be at the early stages of getting information, but certainly nowhere close to the deaths from the previous attacks), even though the attack may have been intended at the public. Compared to the last 2-3 big incidents, this really doesn't have the same scope. I would not oppose merging this , once an article is made, with another blurb, but I don't think that's really feasible to connect the two as well. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on context at present. We presently have three major bombings/shootings/attacks on the ticker, and this one pales in comparison to them and is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't help that the article quality is woefully insufficient for posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support an attack on one of the holiest cities in Islam. However, the article is quite sparse. Since ISIS have been linked to several attacks, we could merge into one blurb ("ISIS-affiliated militants attack Dhaka, Bangladesh; Baghdad, Iraq and Medina, Saudi Arabia.") Smurrayinchester22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with that though is that ISIS hasn't actually claimed responsibility. I would agree with merging the Dhaka and Baghdad attacks, though. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - The symbolic value of the attack is greater than the number of deaths; I'm seeing more discussion of this attack in my FB newsfeed than I did of the one in Bengladesh. That being said, the article could use work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Smurrayinchester. It is one of the holiest cities in Islam. Argument against this would be that there are so many terrorist events already on ITN, but that can be worked around by merging some of the blurbs. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support new development as holiest site of Islam attacked, probably even greater implications than recent Ankara and Baghdad bombings. --Bruzaholm (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, while it as at this holy site, the bomber set themselves off in the parking lot, as opposed to within the mass of people within the site. It definitely could have been a lot worse, no question, but because of the limited number of causalities compared with the 200+ in the Baghdad bombing, this really is not as significant at the current time. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there are >1,500 on the Baghdad bombing. This is not trying trivialize the Medina situation, just that in terms of front page content, its impact is far far less than the previous attacks of the last few days. And unfortunately, the Medina attacks appear unrelated to the other ones, so it's difficult to talk about combining blurbs to include it. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are comparable spiritual periods , yes, but they are also very different and the Medina bombing articles from BBC and other sources make sure to distinguish between the two and that these bombings were not likely tied to the Baghdad and other bombings because of the different nature of these spiritual periods. (As I read it, trying to equate these would be like trying to equate Christmas and Hanukkah - they just happen to be at the same time of the year but serve far different purposes for their respective faiths). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Saudis fostered these extremists for decades, and every now and then it bites them on the ass. The kind of people who commit suicide bombings are not moved by the holiness of a site, and so this attack is uninteresting. Abductive (reasoning)05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In principle, I'd support the (updated) altblurb. Three simultaneous bombings, including the holy site of Al-Masjid an-Nabawiare notable, not quantitatively by the number of victims, but qualitatively in regard to the choice of bombing sites. While the article 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings seems adequately sourced, it is currently way too frugal for main page. If expanded with more details, evaluations and consequences, the nomination might receive wider support. --PanchoS (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: not sure where to nominate as itnr/regular//ongoing/RD (?), but the fallout from Brexit is growing and great shakes in UK with Cons/Labour and now UKIP Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ongoing - If this goes anywhere, ongoing would be the most natural place, as it is an item that continuously generates news. Nominating it as a blurb would need a blurb, and there hasn't been any blurb-worthy developments. RD would be poetic (listing the UK as a recently-deceased should Scotland / London / Gibraltar / Northern Ireland secede), but definitely not encyclopedic. Ongoing is the most natural place. A "Aftermath of [UK withdrawal from EU referendum]" article would be best, but the linked one works as well. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ongoing - either as "Brexit" or as "UK EU referendum aftermath". Currently more major GB political parties are leaderless (Conservatives, Greens, UKIP, defacto Labour) than led (Lib Dems, Plaid and SNP), which is an unprecedented level of political turmoil. That said, we currently lack a good aftermath article - United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Reactions to the result should be split into its own article (which I will start on now). Smurrayinchester10:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about Corbyn after Manchester/Liveropool/Leeds rallies this weekend. But Con party conference will be earth shattering. After Auxit this weekend, Boris winning (despite chicanery) will shake stuff up.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for ongoing based on the information Smurrayinchester has linked, the Brexit article has four brief bullet points and nothing more, so that's no good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I'm missing it, but while there was certainly the economic bump that seems to have settled, what outside of UK politics is ongoing here that needs regular attention? Yes, it is a lot of political party aspects, but this doesn't seem any different as what happens during/after a US election and outside that blurb I would never consider that aspect ongoing for ITN. The stuff about the individual states/cities are all proposals and should any individual one happen, that'll be an ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"... doesn't seem any different as what happens during/after a US election ..." sums it up I'm afraid. This is absolutely nothing like a US election. And what a curiously ironic day to choose to make such a suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All these types of stories are also currently circulating around the US election and will continue to do so for months after (especially with the candidates running), but I recognize we'd never publish anything beyond the election results. This type of broad aftermath article is not what Ongoing was designed for, and most of the specific points are topics that would get ITN on their own if they actually happened. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the ongoing fallout from Brexit is like nothing the English-speaking world has seen in recent times. And it is ongoing. The only reason anyone would care about the US election would be if that crazy orange bloke gets voted in, then we're in for a serious aftermath article as the world descends into chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He wont. Hes on the ticket to get Shillary elected. Mark my words...he spent his entire life an a yankee liberal.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Weak support for ongoing. The fallout is ongoing, and the new Prime Minister should get a blurb in September, but the Farage departure is a non-story (already displaced at the top of the BBC News page by the Top Gear news). Only weak support, because the real fallout will not be apparent for years or decades. It will appear in future history books, but while it will dominate the news cycles at times, that will be a permanent feature of UK politics. It is a permanent shift, so 'ongoing' isn't really suitable either (unless you want it to be ongoing for years?). Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: per Masem, this post-referendum mess is going to be just ordinary British politics for the next few years while everybody works out what to do. Anyway, we've probably already had the most intense week of post-referendum stuff now, in this last week. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for ongoing – This referendum (assuming there's no Brexit-exit vote in the near future) poses so many ramifications and unknowns for the UK and Europe that it seems unlikely to be manageable as a single article down the road. It's two weeks since the fateful tally, and already the target article tops 6,000 words. Since the effects, or aftermath if we must, will continue for years, we'd be better off handling topics individually. Sca (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for ongoing but oppose blurb – Definitely still a major news story with aftershocks rattling Europe; however, most of what I'm seeing in the news is rhetoric rather than actions (outside of the referendum itself and the immediate economic consequences). The nature of this story does not lend itself to a full blurb, however, as Farage stepping down is not an ITN-worthy event in and of itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is going to go on in drips and drabs for a good long while. A new PM will be blurb-worthy. Execution of Article 50 might be. Not sure that I see the day to day leading up to that as sufficient for ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing/oppose blurb. Several UK news organisations, including the BBC [36], and The Guardian [37] are still doing live blogs. What's the point of "ongoing" if major non-sports events with constant updates like this don't get put on? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is bigger news than the other entries currently up at ITN. There are so many developments that ongoing is the obvious place for this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing. Major event that will chronically produce headlines for months to come. Review after Article 50 has been triggered. --PanchoS (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing for which I see consensus. There is no one single event commenters are supporting for a blurb (there is consensus against a blurb for Farage's resignation) but both this and the entry in ongoing can be reviewed at any point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Libya's National Oil Corporation agrees to merge with the rival company of the same name in the east of the country after being split by the two rival governments. (Reuters)
Rescue workers in Russia's Irkutsk Oblast discover the remains of an Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane which went missing last Friday after going on a firefighting mission. Six people have been killed in the crash. (Reuters)
The European Union warns Switzerland that it will lose access to its single market if it goes through with its plan to impose restrictions on the free movement of EU citizens. In a referendum held back on February 9, 2014, Swiss voters approved limiting the movement of economic migrants from the EU in the country. Current laws allow migrants to enter Switzerland without visas. (The Guardian)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. Does not seem to meet the RD criteria. Notable for one role, no awards that I see or other information about her importance to acting. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure that "notable for one role" is a reason to dismiss the nom; George Reeves only played Superman and no other roles ..... and there are plenty of actors who only play one role in TV series and soap operas who would still be considered notable I think. MurielMary (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't care about this person being notable for one role if there was more of an indication about how they were important to acting, like awards, influencing other actors, creating a new acting method, etc. That's not clear to me from reading the article. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
George Reeves played a lot of different roles, but he was best known for Superman. Noel Neill was closely associated with Superman throughout her career. As with Jack Larson, this association was so strong that it was difficult to get acting work. I wouldn't necessarily argue for her inclusion in the RD section. But it's nice to see an American being given consideration. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not appear to have been top of her profession - even her publicist and biographer's reaction to her death is about her one notable role. I don't think the RD criteria are fair, but unless and until the RfC to change them is closed with a consensus to change them they are what we have to work with. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No signs of being at the top of her field or influential here - a memorable actress who definitely has a fan base and following, but sadly falls short of the RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: what do folks think? There is no clear result yet, do people wait a month if there is no clear result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.211 (talk • contribs)
I think given that its clear that they are not expecting a completion of the STV counting for weeks, noting that the election ended in such a close result might be appropriate ITN now as well as the declaration of the winner when that happens. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment I have cleaned-up/standardised this nomination. I have made no change to the nomination; all I did was put it into {{ITN Candidate}}. I have no position on the nomination at this time. Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the final results, unless we are going to post twice (which seems unlikely). Technically both major parties could still form government in their own right if the seats in doubt go their way. Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it turns out to be a hung Parliament, which seems the most likely result, then it could be some time further before the cross-benchers make it clear who, if anyone, will form minority Government. Last time Australia had a hung Parliament, it took almost 2 weeks for Labor to conclude a deal and Gillard to emerge as Prime Minister. So if we post the hung Parliament result, there may need to be a follow up a week or two later with the formation of Government, resulting in two separate ITN postings. -dmmaus (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt-blurb This is what is currently in the news - the hung parliament. It will be weeks until an actual result is confirmed/negotiated and that result can be posted as well, or it can be moved to "ongoing". MurielMary (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that it will be a hung parliament - it is possible that the Coalition will win a majority once all the special votes have been counted. There are still enough seats in doubt that we can't say at this point. Neljack (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Terrorist attack executed by ISIS. Numbers may change as the situation progresses, and as such the blurb can be updated. Lihaas (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no article to evaluate. Lihaas it's one thing if a new user does this, but you should be well aware that we need an article to evaluate. Not sure this merits posting on its own anyway. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this may be notable but as TRM and 331dot mentioned above we need an article to assess first. Also, did you intend to copy my nomination comment in your nomination, or did you just forget to change it? Andise1 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on condition of an article being established. In terms of death toll, this attack is more severe than the recent incidents in Bangladesh and Turkey. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - using alternative blurb. The death toll is considerable and the article is in a fairly good state in terms of sources. Spiderone15:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lead and article suggest he only directed one award-winning film in his career. Not notable enough (not "top of his field"). MurielMary (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD (when improved) Highly influential director whose career mostly ended because of Heaven's Gate (a film that is now praised among the industry 36 years later). When I saw the announcement of his death last night I thought about nominating it but the lead is terrible and the article reads more like a tribute to Cimino rather than something encyclopedic. It needs a ton of work before reaching the main page. Meinnaples (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support RD I do have concerns that his importance is not as significant, but that said, the article is in relatively good shape, the type of content we do like to feature on the front page. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support RD, once article is brought up to code. The award the "one award-winning film" won was only best Picture ... you know, nothing big. Besides, as noted above, Heaven's Gate and its role in not only bankrupting UA but ending the director-driven "golden age" of 1970s American cinema make him very consequential in film history. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Best Picture for the film reflects on all those involved, not the director (for which there is a separate award). Same thing with flops of the magnitude of Heaven's Gate, it's the responsibility of one person. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Objection, article received 488 pageviews a day in the 90 days prior to his death, 18,537 yesterday, indicating plenty of reader interest. Abductive (reasoning)18:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: As much as I like director bios, this one is severely malformed. Over a third of it is in a section called Unrealized projects. WTF? I note this regretfully since I think Year of the Dragon is a truly great film, which I own a copy of. I watch it when I need something stronger than coffee. But having 15 TOC subsections for films he never directed, is ridiculous and potentially misleading to casual readers.--Light show (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I got rid of most of the junk, the ugly subheaders and tighted the prose up. Once I get a lead going and a few reactions from his contemporaries on his death, the article should be main page worthy. Meinnaples (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, best Director Oscar winner. When Anthony Minghella died, the RD option didn't exist. RD is perfect for someone like Cimino, who doesn't merit a blurb but whose accolades indicate someone who'd worked at the top of their field. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support although not an American college basketball coach who won nothing, Wiesel was a Nobel Prize winner and the article is close to tip-top. A no-brainer for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Hat:::: Because it reveals his true purpose. Instead of being useful, his real purpose is to shame people who have different experiences in life than he does. Rather than help build up the hard work of others and help them, he'd rather makes people who have different perspectives on life feel bad about themselves, because he believes only his opinion of what is important is valid, and this he must take every other opportunity to remind people who have lived different lives than he did that their experience if substandard and invalid, and that they must therefore feel inferior to him for it. --Jayron3221:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I love you too Jayron. Next time you want to slate me, do it to my face you coward. I look forward to it. P.S. " Instead of being useful..." well up yours. How much have you contributed to Wikipedia's mainspace? Crickets. Chirping. Loudly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvement RD importance is clear. While the bulk of the article is well sourced, several early sections about his younger life lack importance sources, and I caught one or two tense issues in the body. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ecweak oppose on quality Article is not in terrible shape, but there are still four citation needed templates (at least one dating from 2012!) and there is a lot of proseline and just barely not proseline prose in there along with some staccato sentences. I've fixed two tense errors and there may be more. He meets the notability criteria for RD (which shouldn't exist) but the quality isn't quite up to scratch for me - cite or remove the offending sentences, and improve some of the prose a bit and I'll support. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree this is a blurb. While important, impact due to death on the world is not big, and the article is a far-ways away from being of a quality to highlight for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an internationally known survivor and author. Possible blurb if desired:
The blurb should be structured like the current ITN blurbs; more like(as an example) "Nobel Laureate and author Elie Wiesel has died". 331dot (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Clearly important in his field. Not a blurb situation as the impact is not the same as Bowie/Ali/Prince/Thatcher/Mandela. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess for an American definition that's fine. We won't be seeing a blurb here so there's no issue, you continue to argue for it, that's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This insolent "weasel" alliteration is abysmal, even worse than our conceited guardian's hubris. Don't take it too far, or you're gonna fall deep. --PanchoS (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD on article improvement Based on the Nobel Laureate. Still a lot of uncited text, and I spotted a cite needed tag straight away. That all needs to be rectified before this goes on the front page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb RD probably the most famous Holocaust survivor ever. His impact to the field on human rights is worthy of a blurb. Meinnaples (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it the quality of the article is really terrible, the only good thing about it is that everything is cited. A "career" section with every trivial public appearance since 2006? Not our best work. Meinnaples (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the "career" section and sourced one of the citation needed. The other two can be sourced easily as well after I did a quick google search on the information, but I don't have the time. A lot of the recentism needs to be trimmed as well. Meinnaples (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose Blurb. To me, a blurb would only be appropriate if Wikipedia could have an article on the death itself, with secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning)00:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD because wiki-heaven forbid we disrupt ITN blurbs of terrorist attacks with news of a peace activist's death. — Wyliepedia01:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb. I agree that the article could be better, but given the fact that he is such an important figure, I think this should get its own blurb. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - I am of the opinion that Elie Wiesel is a significant enough figure on his own merits to warrant raising his profile above a RD footnote. Kurtis(talk)05:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting to RD, for which there is a clear consensus. I don't see a consensus for a blurb but this may change. --Tone09:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb,although wiki-heaven forbid we disrupt ITN blurbs of terrorist attacks with news of a peace activist's death. Hugely influential and popular Nobel laureate, his death being today's NY Times top story, alongside the Bangladesh attack. The Bowie blurb was justified, but for quite some people news of the world is more than pop stars, sports and terror attacks. Article has further improved, and is quite decent. --PanchoS (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to change the way Wikipedia selects articles for RD and blurbs etc, you know where to do it. Here is not appropriate to try to right those great wrongs in this context. His death has already evaporated from all major news outlets. Compare that with Bowie, or Mandela, or Brexit, who headlined around the world for days and days. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support reading through the "Serving in government" is like an exercise in TLDR torture, but there's little to deny the notability. While article quality is not my cup of tea, there's nothing to really restrict it from being featured at RD. Plus this individual is actually notable, despite being European. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when better sourced. As a former prime minister of a major country he clearly meets the RD criteria, however there are explicitly marked unsourced statements (at least one dating from 2007) and other paragraphs that are unsourced or under-referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvement Still several uncited portions of the article that preclude it from appearing on ITN at the moment. Happy to throw my support in once those have been rectified. Miyagawa (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when improved. There is no question that he meets the current criteria (Prime Minister of an internationally recognised parliamentary democracy) but the article needs significantly better sourcing before it is fit for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvement If the uncited information was provided with adequate citations, but it can't go on the front page in the current shape. Miyagawa (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Patrick Manning's influence on the politics of Trinidad and Tobago has been immense. He easily merits his own RD posting. Kurtis(talk)05:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in doubt for people not from the U.K. She only has three foreign language articles, two of those being Welsh and Irish. --Tocino16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD I don't recognize the name as a USian but it seems reasonable clear she's a highly recognized comedianne in the UK and article is in reasonable shape (a few things that she starred in aren't sourced directly but in blue linked articles). However, this is clearly not blurb material - while "young", given that it was well known she was suffering from cancer doesn't make the death unexpected. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret. A simply huge figure in modern British comedy acting and writing, but doesn't rise to the second tier of Wikipedia's current notability criteria, regardless of article quality. Shame on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, as she does not rise to the level of Thatcher/Bowie/Prince/Ali. Undecided about RD - I want to support, she was clearly one of the top female British comedians/comedy writers but that is two qualifiers. The "British" I have no problem with, not all comedy exports well and certainly I would not expect Mrs Merton or The Fast Show to do well outside the UK, but is "female comedian" really a different field to "male comedian" these days? I'm not convinced (Victoria Wood didn't need her field segregating by gender, despite much of her comedy being about being female) and so was she at the top level of all British comedians? I'm leaning "no" but that would have to lead to my opposing her for RD which feels wrong. All the more reason to change the criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sure she is noted. but she is a national noted actress. her work is limited for within the UK. Or is she world famous in the UK? So to speak.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been updated to show accolades. Top item on broadcast news, unlike Gordon Murray (which I nominated) who was barely covered.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've added a couple sentences and sourcing for his death; and while the article could be improvement more, it is not in bad shape for RD posting at the present time (all sourced, etc.). --MASEM (t) 03:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Support clearly top of his field ("perhaps the most important French poet of the latter half of the 20th century" for example) and the article is in sufficiently good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is stale. Bonnefoy died on 1 July and the oldest RDs on the template occurred on the 2nd. Given that his death was announced on the 1st (see the Le Monde ref) and the article is average (more than a stub, but somewhat on the short side), I don't see a reason to post out of process. Fuebaey (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks all for the input. I added a brief bibliography section that is cited and/or has ISBN's. Also made some other minor edits including relevant citations. Christian Roess (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment marked as Ready for posting. But now it needs consensus and/or additional input from editors if this is not Ready or if this is "out of process" as the editor Fuebaey has stated above (ie., it's now 7 days since Bonnefoy's death). Christian Roess (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – well, Yves Bonnefoy never got featured on the front page. Again, more evidence here that the current RD criteria is anachronistic, and more proof as to why the trial period for updating the RD criteria was a success. During the trial period, Bonnefoy's RD nomination would have undoubtedly been approved because both "notability" (he has an article on Wikipedia) and quality standards were met:
Notability established. Even using the current RD criteria, Its clear that Yves Bonnefoy is a notable figure (he's on Wikipedia in 23 different languages; he's one of the "pre-eminent poets of the 20th century" and one of the most important French poets of his time; when Roland Barthes died suddenly, Bonnefoy took over his position at the College de France; his translations of Shakespeare's plays into French are renowned and used extensively in schools throughout France, the. President of France released an official statement upon his death, and so on, and so on).
Minimum quality standards met – the problem with this is that The New York Times didn't release their obituary until 22:00 hours Eastern Standard time on July 5. Before The New York Times obit appeared we only had Le Monde, a prominent French media outlet, establishing notability for English-Wikipedia . The BBC article on Bonnefoy (linked above) is only 10 sentences. This concerns English-speaking Wikipedia, and since the BBC story was being republished all over the world, this did not provide that definitive notabilitycriteria had been met.
Without The New York Times obituary being available until July 6, notability could not be established definitively until this date. In turn, this gave Wikipedia editors little or no time to make improvements. FYI, as soon I was aware of The New York Times obituary that clarified Bonnefoy's notability for English readers, I extensively revised Bonnefoy's Wikipedia page so it would meet the minimum "quality" standards (and two credible editors who have established their integrity here on the ITN candidates page expressed their support).
In closing, Wikipedia missed the boat here by not featuring for RD, Yves Bonnefoy, a notable artist on the world stage since the 1950s. The old criteria for establishing notability is anachronistic and cumbersome. However, under the trial guidelines for RD posting, Bonnefoy would not have been overlooked. Again, to stress what has been said many times: establishing notability of this or that person is inherently biased. It s a systemic bias. If Wikipedia already has an article at the time of death, then notability has already been established for many of our readers. We as editors are too distracted by this notability criteria. It's taking away from our ability to insure that quality articles are made available to readers around the world. Christian Roess (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support just give it an hour or so to make sure details are stabilized since the situation is ongoin. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A significant event in Bangladesh's recent wave of terrorist/extremist violence. The government has long been refusing the notion that extremism exists the country, but this event has turned that idea upside down. It happened in a diplomatic area with people from various nationalities. World news too. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for just a bit longer. This really is a case of confusion and muddled reports right now, the majority of the deaths appear to be the attackers, once the outcome starts to crystallise we can pop this into to ITN imm
Support - Worldwide media coverage. - Mar11 (talk)
Support - Looks like the details have stabilized. The sooner we get something up the better, as it's been a story for quite a while now.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewording of Blurb: As it appears on the front page, this piece states "At least 20 people are killed in a terrorist attack on a bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh." I would recommend changing "terrorist" to "armed" asap. We use "armed" over "terrorist" in the blurb about the recent Istanbul massacre on the main page, and the term "terrorism" is itself a deeply contested one within scholarship and journalism due to its strong POV overtones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support fascinating stuff yet I'm not sure how "in the news" this is, the nomination lacks a source to back up the fact that this is really a newsworthy and interesting-to-our-readers story. Plus the article is a little weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a merge discussion open for five months that has barely attracted any attention. They may have a point that this should remain one article, but I don't know enough about it to say. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Given Belarus' comparatively minor economic role (ranks 75th in GDP), re-denomination of its currency doesn't seem of great consequence. Sca (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - did we post an ITN item when Zimbabwe replaced its Zimbabwean dollar with the US and other currencies? That was probably the last significant change in currency by a country combating inflation. Both countries are of similar standing though Zimbabwe may be slightly more notable. Gizza(t)(c)02:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't get a new national currency everyday. Besides, as a tourist, I like the idea of putting the numbers on the coins in massive fonts and having the larger coins be physically larger! :) However, the sticking point is whether the merge tag would preclude it from appearing on the front page. Miyagawa (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like the merge proposal has legs. Shouldn't have to stop this item from being featured, as long as the merger includes all the pertinent info in the target article, we can then link to a section of the Belorussian Ruble article as appropriate, especially as we have a clear consensus to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Austrian presidential election result annulled
Support not an everyday occurrence, very shocking. The election itself was covered throughout the world despite the small population, because of the stark difference between the two candidates and the closeness of the result '''tAD''' (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unusual news, but also a necessary correction of the previous ITN item about the Green Party victory that was posted before even all votes were counted. --Bruzaholm (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved to
.svg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Done May need a little ce, but it's good to go :). BaldBoris 18:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Citations abound now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)