Open main menu

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.

Contents

July 31Edit


[Posted] 2016 PGA ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2016 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Jimmy Walker wins the PGA Championship.
News source(s): USA Today and BBC News

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

 Dustblower (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Support article looks good. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if the blurb mentions "golf" in some way. Too presumptuous to think a random reader would know what the PGA Championship is. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the summary of the final round is weak and journalistic, the other rounds, especially round 3, is really almost non-existent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is in good-enough shape. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Short, but sourced and decent enough. Comparable to the last golf tournament we posted two weeks ago and the one prior we didn't two months ago. Inconsistent, but we go by consensus, which there seems to be here. Marked as ready. Fuebaey (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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. Stephen 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Something I've been stating as well. :-) Thanks, Stephen. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)

[Posted] RD: Chiyonofuji MitsuguEdit

Article: Chiyonofuji Mitsugu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Haffington Post ‹See Tfd›(in Japanese)
Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Important figure in Sumo. 58th yokozuna and 3rd most makuuchi (top division) championships (31). Also held records for most career wins (1045) and most wins in makuuchi division (807) until broken by Kaiō Hiroyuki in 2010. About Sumo RD, we posted Taihō Kōki in January 2013 and Kitanoumi Toshimitsu in November 201561.245.25.2 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose at this stage due to lack of citations in article. A number of paragraphs have no citations at all. MurielMary (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment I have improved the referencing. A lot of the statistical trivia in the early career section comes from the reference which provides the detailed record at the end of the article. MurielMary, Thryduulf, The Rambling Man, would you care to take a second look? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Getting there, but still a few more references needed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • BLP includes those who have "recently" died. There is no firm definition of "recent" but six months is the shortest timeframe given at WP:BDP. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
    I've taken care of all of the tags. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Fazil IskanderEdit

Not sufficiently improved. Stephen 07:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Fazil Iskander (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Euronews

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Writer who was included in our school literature textbooks. Article is in a relatively decent overall shape. Brandmeistertalk 10:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per MurielMary. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

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] 2016 Austin shootingEdit

Closing good faith nomination before the usual avalanche of anti-American hate-speech. (non-admin closure) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 Austin shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Multiple people are injured/killed in a shooting incident in Texas.
News source(s): The Guardian, The Telegraph, CNN, NBC, ABC, The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald
Nominator's comments: Article is currently a stub Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose Article is nominated for deletion. Prevan (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 30Edit


[Closed] RD: Ken BarrieEdit

No improvement beyond a stub. Stephen 04:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ken Barrie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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.

Remove: Kashmir unrest from OngoingEdit

Article: 2016 Kashmir unrest (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

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)

  • 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)
    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)
Apparently the unrest is still ongoing.[1] STSC (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
When is Kashmir not in a state of unrest? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is not over.BabbaQ (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    It's clear you haven't read my comments but that is commonplace it appears as far as you are concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

[Posted] 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crashEdit

Article: 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sixteen people are killed after a hot air balloon catches fire and crashes near Lockhart, Texas.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths for a hot air balloon crash. Deadliest in U.S. Previous hot air balloon crashes posted: 2013 in Egypt (19 deaths), 2012 in New Zealand] (11 deaths). 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:E141:2D3:5F7C:1CDF (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Support was mid-way through creating an article when I got distracted for six hours.... Obviously notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Agreed, tweaked blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted – Tweaked the blurb for numeric consistency with the other blurbs. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Luke AikinsEdit

Articles: Luke Aikins (talk, history) and Free fall (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American skydiver Luke Aikins performs a 25,000 feet (7,600 m) free fall from an aircraft landing on a ground net.
News source(s): Associated Press

Article needs updating

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). Brandmeistertalk 09:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Agree with Thryduulf. Banedon (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • Oppose per above. There is no article and notability of the subject is doubtful per WP:1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is actually in the news [2][3] but there is only a single sentence in the Free fall article, and no attempt has been made to turn Luke Aikins into a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • Weak oppose it's a world record, and we like those at the moment, and this one is gutsy as hell, but the article quality is sadly inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article has been improved, only one {{cn}} remaining (shout out to Marc Kupper) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Posted a little on the short side, but it's been an article from nothing for a crazy stunt. Stephen

July 29Edit


[Posted] RD Doris BenegasEdit

Article: Doris Benegas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Spanish Huffington Post El Norte de Castilla

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • 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)
  • Weak oppose support she did nothing for 17 years worth reporting here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
So? She has an article. Sca (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hey! I recognize that aphorism. ;-) Anyway, neither Sca nor you mentioned quality at the time; you're only bringing that up now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lucille DumontEdit

Article: Lucille Dumont (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC Le Journal de Montreal

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: French-language Canadian singer and TV/radio host. Article appears well sourced and organised. MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Article is good and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support while brief, it appears to cover major aspects of her life, there's no major issues with referencing, so this is a good shout for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced article. It's brief, but covers the major points clearly. Challenger l (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment been nearly 24 hours.... Missing the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sylvia PetersEdit

Article: Sylvia Peters (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • 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 confer 10:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support a couple of refs could do with some fleshing out, otherwise this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment been nearly 24 hours. Missing the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vivean GrayEdit

Article: Vivean Gray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • Support article has been tidied up and appropriately sourced. MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is in good shape and isn't lacking in either sources or significant amounts of content. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support expanded a little and tidied up. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 15:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - after posting. good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 28Edit


[Posted] RD: Mahasweta DeviEdit

Article: Mahasweta Devi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hindu

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • Glad to see this sort of nomination and look forward to the work on it being performed. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Sherenk1 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support --Yogwi21 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs revising for refs and tense. A way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

Have cleaned up the article. More information would be added in the article, but the current version is clean one and good to go I suppose. @331dot, The Rambling Man, Edmund Patrick, and Challenger l: please check. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Weak support my major concerns addressed, marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] South Sudan civil warEdit

No support for this particular story, and a renomination for ongoing with a stronger case and article is recommended. Stephen 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: South Sudanese Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Taban Deng Gai replaces Riek Machar as vice president.
News source(s): [4]
 Newest UN state in civil war and this has bigger repercussions than usual events after warnings and foreign-imposed peace agreements etc.Lihaas (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose How is changing the VP important?Correctron (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the civil war is supporters of the president against supporters of the vice president. Banedon (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a big development in the war. We didn't post 2016 Juba clashes, so we should post this. Banedon (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per quality of Taban Deng Gai, at which in its current state is a stub. Plus, there's only one sentence focusing on this development in South Sudanese Civil War, so I don't see the big impact of this event. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for ongoing only - Does not seem a major impact, hence should not be part of main ITN Sherenk1 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no context, target article is out of date, seems like other targets are possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nominationEdit

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)
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: Hillary Clinton (talk, history) and 2016 Democratic National Convention (talk, history)
Blurb: Hillary Clinton secures the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party at the 2016 Democratic National Convention
News source(s): Many in article

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

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.

July 27Edit


[Closed] RD: Piet de JongEdit

No consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Piet de Jong (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NL Times, RTL Nieuws

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of The Netherlands (1967-1971), died aged 101 --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support - article in good shape, no outstanding issues I can see. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

    • Support struck - how did I miss that?   Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose whole paragraphs without citations, indeed some sections without a single inline citation. DYKs are better referenced than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: James Alan McPhersonEdit

Article: James Alan McPherson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times NPR Washington Post

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

Nominator's comments: Pulitzer prize winner and the first African American recipient of the pulitzer prize in fiction. Andise1 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Oppose badly referenced and weak content. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sourcing needs to be figured out. Once fully cited and those tags removed, I'm happy to change my mind. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Happy to support now that it is fully cited. Miyagawa (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current state as missing citations on key statements. MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support. Now well cited. @The Rambling Man, Miyagawa, MurielMary, and Masem: could you take a loko to see if your objections have been dealt with. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Seems fine now - room for expansion but not failing WP:V at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Post-posting support, citations much improved. MurielMary (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
My point was that not all nominations get posted. I cannot see the relevance of your comment to my original statement. Fuebaey (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Probably best to start this discussion on WT:ITN. Sounds interesting and do hope something works out. Fuebaey (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
@Fuebaey, MurielMary, Christian Roess, Black Kite, and The Rambling Man: I've had an idea related to this, but I've outlined it on the talk page rather than here - see WT:ITN#Bringing needed attention to older nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Thanks Black Kite. Nailed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jack DavisEdit

No consensus to post. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jack Davis (cartoonist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times BBC NPR

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Popular cartoonist who was one of the founding cartoonists for Mad Magazine. Andise1 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose whole sections without a single inline reference, nowhere close. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quite a lot of uncited information in there. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in current state - long paragraphs with no citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Jerry DoyleEdit

Article: Jerry Doyle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News EW

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: EDIT: Looks good to go Challenger l (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Support good work Miyagawa. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Just saw this on the BBC. Support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Much better quality than when I saw it earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, and kudos to User:Miyagawa for doing the work needed to bring it up to snuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Einojuhani RautavaaraEdit

Article: Einojuhani Rautavaara (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian YLE

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • 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)
    • Support Article quality sufficiently and significantly improved since yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs more than just one inline citation. Even DYK articles do better than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    Muboshgu, The Rambling Man I made significant improvements to the article this morning [5]. I hope that it is now of sufficient quality for a blurb. Please reconsider your !votes. Thanks. No such user (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    No such user You did, it's much better now. I still see three "citation needed" tags. Can you resolve them? Then I'll support. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    Works for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is well-referenced and ready to post.--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Posted Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26Edit


[Closed] RD: Chief David Bald EagleEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dave Bald Eagle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Independent, NPR

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Interesting person whose funeral is on Friday. Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Be more encyclopedia, less news ticker. Article does need expansion though. Middling notability.--86.176.247.50 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose it's nowhere near main page quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Woefully short article that isn't even completely referenced. Challenger l (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Agreed, I guess that's what happens when you nominate and walk away. It happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    I will try to jump in later if I get a chance and it still needs help. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
offtopic bickering. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What did NPR have to say about this "Cleo" charlatan? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you're failing to understand the RfC you couldn't be bothered to participate in. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Which I and others didn't know about, thanks to the BUCTs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
If you're a supporter of posting a huckster in the RD section, then any help is too late. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • Support - If phony "psychics" qualify for ITN, then this accomplished gentleman certainly does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
This is not the place to discuss the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • Even the skimpy information in the current article makes it more ITN-worthy than whatever this fraud called "Miss Cleo" ever did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Missing the point.com. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
          • By your own standards, "Miss Cleo" equates to Nelson Mandela. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Mandela got a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
            • 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)
              • As long as that abomination remains in ITN, it needs to be ridiculed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
                • Yep, as I thought, foolish and impotent. Now can someone cap this crap please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • And you surrender again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
                    • 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)
  • Oppose Stale, he died on the 22nd. Stephen 21:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh bummer, you're right. – Muboshgu&nb--sp;(talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
      • When was it reported in mainstream outlets? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Seems it was reported yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 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)
  • Oppose per Stephen. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on length and comprehensiveness. This is just a stub, not ready for main page yet. --Jayron32 08:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on length and citations. Also now 7 days since the death, so it's stale. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      •   Moved to
        to the 26th (from the 22nd) as this is when the news dates from. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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. Stephen 05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Stale Now older than the oldest RD entry on the template. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Normandy church attackEdit

A very clear consensus, almost unanimous, against posting this, no matter which blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2016 Normandy church attack (talk, history) and Jacques Hamel (talk, history)
Blurb: A priest is killed at a church (pictured) in Normandy, France.
News source(s): New York Times

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Major news item Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the priest notable on his own, or is the story newsworthy because it's a terrorist attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - the target of this terrorist attack, a church, during service, is the major news here. 79.193.106.37 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    "Tenacious" or tenuous? -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    And ISIS is claiming responsibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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 --Stemoc 02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Weak oppose The priest who was killed wasn't notable until the incident occurred. Compared to other terrorist operations, ISIS-inspired attacks, and other church attacks (such as 2004 Iraq churches attacks) including those posted to ITN (such as the Charleston church shooting, this seems relatively minor. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the precedent set by not posting the suicide bomb in Germany. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 confer 06:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Blurb disputed The original blurb was " A church in Normandy (pictured) is attacked and its priest killed." Stephen changed this to "A priest is 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)
  • Oppose - A single isolated murder with a now token and customary ex post facto claim of responsibility by Daesh. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to Ongoing] Yerevan hostage situationEdit

Article: 2016 Yerevan hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Opposition gunmen hold police as hostages for over a week in Yerevan, Armenia.
News source(s): [6] [7] [8]

Article updated

 Uncovered part of an unstable region and an ongoing activity.Lihaas (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I was considering that too.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
updatedLihaas (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment, is this still ongoing? Nakon 00:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, [10] [11] Banedon (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment currently tagged as an orphan, tense issues right from the start, so it's oppose any kind of listing until these are sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. --Yogwi21 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Posted to ongoing ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Miss CleoEdit

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)
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: Miss Cleo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BET, Huff Po, Chicago Tribune, NY Times, CNN

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Anyone remember her? Article needs sources but overall is not in terrible shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppoae some serious issues with categories that aren't referenced in the article. A more detailed look in due course... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • You are right, as after I nominated it I noticed the LGBT categories. It's legit though, so I'll update. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Also there are two African-American categories yet the article doesn't cover that either. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Appears to have been "resolved" (by removing them). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Add a citation for the first paragraph of the "Psychic Readers Network" section and I'll be happy to support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Citations added. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as the article is now in good enough shape. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as meets the RD criteria on article quality. All statements sourced, content is organised into sub-sections etc. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 10:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So a fake psychic gets posted, and a terrorist attack on a church doesn't. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • If this is the result, something's wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I am not particularly happy with the new guidelines either. --Tone 17:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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 Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
            • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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. --Tone 18:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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 Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • 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 Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
              • 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Solar Impulse 2 circumnavigationEdit

Article: Solar Impulse 2 (talk, history)
Blurb: Solar Impulse 2 (picutred) becomes the first solar-powered aircraft to circumnavigate the Earth, completing a 16-month voyage.
Alternative blurb: ​Swiss experimental aircraft Solar Impulse 2 (picutred) completes a 16-month circumnavigation of the Earth, the first solar-powered aircraft to do so.
News source(s): [13]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Interesting stuff, happy news, and something that I've long assumed we would post once completed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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)
No, of course not, but I wanted to avoid giving the impression that it zipped around the world in a week or so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Support keeping the 16 months in the blurb. It's useful information for the reader. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
The flight time was apparently 23 days, 6 hours (double check me) so it could say "Solar Impulse 2 (picutred) completes the first circumnavigation of the Earth in 23 days, 6 hours of flight time." Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • support - Notable aviation achievement. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As a first, it is notable. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but do include duration. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Resolved 2 [CN] tags remaining in the article. SpencerT♦C 07:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    It's been posted. Feel free to update the article with all your tidbits. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)

July 25Edit


[Posted] RD: Mollie LoweryEdit

Article: Mollie Lowery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Advocate for homeless and mentally ill people in L.A. MurielMary (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support referenced, covers major aspects, no major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Looks pretty good. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The "Recognition" section could be more prose than prosline but that's not a barrier to posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Turkish purgesEdit

Article: 2016 Turkish purges (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

 Fuzheado | Talk 02:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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 | Talk 02:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed:] Tim LaHayeEdit

Closed, stale as older than current oldest entry. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tim LaHaye (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times Of San Diego

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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)
  • 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)
  • Support the subject. Well known enough to get a NYT obituary, so his death is in the news. A false prophet and heretic who worshipped an evil god who smiled on genocide, but a leader in his field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
After these two posts I thought this was the Church of Satan guy. Oops. Well Satan loooves genocide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose few more references required in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on lack of citations e.g. third para of "early life" section, whole section further down. MurielMary (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MurielMary and TRM, with a person with such a reputation citations have to verify at all times.Edmund Patrick confer 11:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Support: He's a best selling author (over 65 million books), regardless of what you feel about his beliefs or opinions. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That's all well and good, but the article still has to be of high quality.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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. --Jayron32 17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Or those other sources like Time, Rolling Stone, Salon, The Nation and Newsweek. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that, but just look how much of the contentious material is cited to the types of sources I mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • @1990'sguy: I think the comments above are pretty clear in why it hasn't been posted yet: there's concern about primary sources that are being used. If you want to see this posted, I suggest you find secondary sources to support the assertions in the article. I did some of that work myself last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2016 Sagamihara knife attackEdit

Article: Sagamihara stabbings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 19 people are killed and 26 others are injured in a stabbing incident at a disabled care home in Sagamihara, Japan.
News source(s): (RT) (Express) (BBC)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A combination of non-normal circumstances (Japanese stabbing, disabled care home) makes this event extremely notable. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Support pending expansion; unusual circumstances and large number of casualties. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Neutral Oppose - 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 | Talk 00:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • Support. Large number of deaths in a low-crime country. -- King of ♠ 01:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. According to BBC, biggest attack in Japan since WWII. Juliussasar (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Very major event. Beejsterb (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support but need improvement. Yogwi21(talk) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is sparse but easily sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 07:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Halil İnalcıkEdit

Article: Halil İnalcık (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Daily Sabah Anadolu Agency

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • Support but 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)
  • Support Tweaked to address the concerns above, but article is in good shape, referenced suitably and this nomination is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on some lack of citations e.g. 2nd para of "biography" section only has one reference. MurielMary (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    The whole para is suitably referenced from that one source. It doesn't need to be added to the end of every sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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♦C 07:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Verizon and Yahoo!Edit

No consensus to post as a business story with a touch of internet nostalgia. Stephen 23:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Verizon (talk, history) and Yahoo! (talk, history)
Blurb: The American broadband telecommunications company Verizon announced its intent to acquire the American multinational technology company Yahoo for 4.8 billion USD.
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
 Wishva de Silva | Talk 14:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose business small potatoes. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Oppose; this deal is not groundbreaking or record breaking; I didn't realize Yahoo was still around. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 | Talk 14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
      Fuzheado likes this. - Good point. Like your Altblurb 2 better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzheado (talkcontribs) 15:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh what the hell is that template? This isn't facebook. And you forgot to sign your edit. Isa (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
That particular "admin" uses templates like that all the time, sorry you're not used to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Why "admin" in quotes, The Rambling Man? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh good, welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Super happy to be here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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. --Tocino 16:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support Brand name corporations, big money, substantial impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per TRM, we've had bigger deals that this not make the Main Page. shoy (reactions) 18:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, death with a whimper. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is now confirmation that this deal has occurred from Verizon and Yahoo, rather than just announcing intention. Latchem (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

*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 The correct title of the Wikipedia article about the Internet company under discussion is Yahoo! and not Yahoo Stockst (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 | Talk 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Just a note, Bing powers Yahoo search. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
"Death with a whimper" as a wise man said above. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support per Fuzheado. Big news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Although a couple of the supports are weak, by arguments and numbers there's probably a weak consensus to post. Any admins around? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • What's different in judging consensus with a "big business deal"? I'd certainly say the arguments for posting are stronger than those against, but YMMCV YMCV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
          • WDYMMCVM? (What does YMMCV mean?) Stockst (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Your mileage clearly varies, variation of your mileage may vary. Of course, it didn't help that I screwed up the acronym. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
              • I don't understand what "your mileage clearly varies" means here? What has mileage got to do with anything? Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
                • American idiom. wikt:your mileage may vary. —Cryptic 17:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • 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)
  • Support, this is a big deal. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2016 Fort Myers nightclub shootingEdit

Closed, no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Significant current event. Melmann(talk) 09:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time, minor death toll as it stands, commonplace incident, stub article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Relatively minor as of this time. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. It's just another shooting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another day, another gun death. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Only in death and TRM. I'm not even convinced the incident deserves anything more than a list entry somewhere like an equivalent to the List of shootings in Colorado article (not that I can find one). Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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...--Stemoc 10:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2016 Ansbach bombingEdit

No consensus to post or merge into an existing story. Stephen 04:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 Ansbach bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 15 people are injured after a suicide bombing at a music festival in Ansbach, Germany.
Alternative blurb: ​Fifteen people are injured in Ansbach, Germany, following the first suicide bombing in recent German history.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:6C6E:1D4:9BC8:7F6C (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Weak oppose Support No 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)
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)
  • 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. Brandmeistertalk 08:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • With the third attack in Germany this week, we could as well have it under ongoing :/ --Tone 09:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Oppose that because, deliberately or otherwise, it would imply some kind of connection in the motives. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    It appears there may be a link with the first one at least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Appears being the operative word. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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. Smurrayinchester 11:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it is Germany's first suicide bombing, but thankfully only the perpetrator was killed '''tAD''' (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - Mass killings are becoming a cliché in Europe nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    It wasn't a mass killing. Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    It was an attempted mass killing. The lack of actual deaths is not the fault of the victims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the 4th muslim terrorist incident in Germany in 1 week. Desensitized. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record: Muslim involved ≠ Islamist terrorist attack. Man killing his girlfriend remains common murder, not a terrorist attack. --bender235 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is the first suicide bombing in Germany ever, as cited in the article. Don't know if that makes it particularly noteworthy. Latchem (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Not the first suicide bombing according to Terrorism in Germany. Sources in English also mention that it's been the first suicide bombing "in recent history" (WSJ) —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Ok, so we'll never post another mass shooting in the United States per that rationale, as gun laws there are not going to change. Right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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.

July 24Edit


[Re-posted] RD: Marni NixonEdit

Article: Marni Nixon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Playbill, The Guardian, NYT

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

Nominator's comments: American singer. Fuebaey (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the article looks to be generally comprehensive and in good shape. talk:Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Posted in 23 minutes with only one support (+ nom)?! Is this acceptable? Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, new RD instructions can be found at WP:ITN/DC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • Tell you what, I'll undo it. That'll benefit everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support just to complete the farce. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The Ghostess with the Mostest. Article quality is good and references to her death are noted and sourced. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mjroots you now have your consensus, please re-post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • Support Article quality is certainly sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mjroots you have more consensus than you can wish for, with no changes to the article. Please, one of you, do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Or you Thryduulf. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reposted. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks BK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Sad news about an important figure in the industry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - important person within her industry.BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] DNC email leak, Wasserman Schultz resigningEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 05:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose national political wrangling, per Masem, Stephen 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's unclear to me why any of this is significant in any way to anyone outside the Democrats and their own internal business. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Tour de FranceEdit

Article: 2016 Tour de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Chris Froome (pictured) wins his third Tour de France title.
News source(s): BBC Sport, CNN, The Guardian

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Needs a 21 stage race summary. If anyone's interested, simply condense the summaries here and here into something like last year's articleFuebaey (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Per nom, ITN/R, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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! BaldBoris 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@BaldBoris: don't give up now! There is still time to get it on the main page if you keep working on it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: OK I'll give it a go.. How long do you reckon I've got? BaldBoris 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done May need a little ce, but it's good to go :). BaldBoris 18:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@BaldBoris: I'll chip in later today! We'll get the job done :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: Thanks, but I've done it now. You can always do the GA? BaldBoris 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@BaldBoris: Sure thing, thanks a lot for your work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 | Talk 10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • "In the news" should not need this high a quality bar. Then make a suitable proposal for modifying the quality standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • Looking into it further, I find that Froome is using a new technology. I have started an article about this. Such technical innovations seem quite interesting and important. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting and important perhaps, but wholly irrelevant to the blurb and ITN/C. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support now that the article is up to speed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted outstanding work on the updates guys, really good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 California wildfiresEdit

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 California wildfires (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A dead body has been flund in the vicinity of the wildfire in the vicinity of Santa Clarita, California
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks stale and barely newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment I'd rather prefer this to be posted in the ongoing if it reaches higher level of newsworthiness that will merit inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per reasoning by 331dot Nannadeem (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot and Kiril SimeonovskiSomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 | Talk 11:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Russia to be banned from Rio 2016?Edit

Until we get a suitable nomination format, and until we have reliable sources, this is a dead duck. Closing without prejudice for a properly formed nomination with suitable citations in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[16] Looks like all the 387 sportspeople, not just track and field. Nergaal (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a great source per WP:PUS. RS say a decision by the IOC is still to be made. Gap9551 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As previously noted, this has been archived. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closing FYI: It turns out the opposite - the Russian athletes (except track and field) will be allowed to participate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

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.

July 23Edit


[Posted to RD] Kate GrangerEdit

Article: Kate Granger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
  • Support. The article is a bit proseline-ish in places but not enough to make me oppose on quality grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Question to Thryduulf - two supports and 50 minutes is ok then? Just for the record you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Barely, longer and/or more support would have been better. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Rightyho. I'll refrain from posting for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Torbjörn FälldinEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Torbjörn Fälldin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post New York Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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)
  • 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)
  • (Regrettably) Oppose due to lack of citations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balloon circumnavigation world recordEdit

Article: Fyodor Konyukhov (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian adventurer Fyodor Konyukhov (pictured) circumnavigates the globe by hot air balloon in 11 days, breaking Steve Fossett's record set in 2002.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Fox News, ABC News, BBC News

Article needs updating

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)

  • 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)
  • Support on notability but only after a clean-up per TRM. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Ah, so all those reliable sources are wrong and you are right? I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    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. Brandmeistertalk 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Would this also mean someone could circumnavigate tightly around the north or south pole? 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • Support per above. This also comes a few days after the anniversary of the Turkish explorer's navigation by human power. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 | Talk 12:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    It was posted half an hour before your helpful posts. I'm not sure it was solar circumnavigation however. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    There is at least one solar circumnavigation every 88 days, and news of the first is pretty stale by now. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Kabul bombingEdit

Article: July 2016 Kabul bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two Islamic State suicide bombers blow themselves during a peaceful protest in Kabul killing at least 61 and wounded 200 others.
Alternative blurb: ​A peaceful protest in Kabul is 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
  • 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)
  • Support Considerable death toll even for Afghansitan, article is approaching postable state. Brandmeistertalk 15:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

    • 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)
  • Oppose using the term "Islamic State"; the title of the article should be used(or its abbreviation ISIL). 331dot (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Or go with what some news sources call it, the "so-called Islamic State". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    I agree that the use of 'disrupt' here is inappropriate. Gap9551 (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - but link the event article in bold. Gap9551 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Posted a slightly adjusted alt. ERRORS for corrections please. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb II Taliban by posting a statement on its website has also termed the attack “a plot to ignite the civil war” Nannadeem (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Tim Kaine picked as Clinton's running mateEdit

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. BencherliteTalk 10:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Tim Kaine (talk, history) and United States presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Hilary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her running mate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
News source(s): [17]
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

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.

July 22Edit


[Posted] RD: Ursula FranklinEdit

Article: Ursula Franklin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC, Toronto Star

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian scientist. Fuebaey (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Article is of a good size - sourcing looks pretty good. Was about to nominate her for RD myself, in fact. Challenger l (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Kendra Harrison breaks 100m hurdles recordEdit

Articles: Kendra Harrison (talk, history) and London Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After failing to qualify for the Olympics, Kendra Harrison (pictured) breaks the 100 metres hurdles world record in London.
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, American sprinter Kendra Harrison (pictured) breaks the 100 metres hurdles world record at the London Grand Prix.
Alternative blurb II: ​In athletics, American sprinter Kendra Harrison (pictured) breaks the 28-year old 100 metres hurdles world record at the London Grand Prix.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: New world record. Andrew D. (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kendra Harrison breaks the 100 metres hurdles world record with a time of 12.20 at the London Grand Prix. -109.153.169.192 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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)
I have added the standard template. Andrew D. (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - loaded blurb and if we post one world record, we post 'em all. And with Rio round the corner, that makes ITN a World Record ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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? --Tone 10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Comment we have posted some previously (based on a search for world record in the candidates archives so not necessarily complete):
    However we didn't post:
    • 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)
    • Alan Eustace skydiving world records nominated by TRM had consensus to post but doesn't appear to have been (2014)
    • Hammer throw world record in 2015 (some of the opposition here was that the athlete broke her own 1-year-old record). Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @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)
        • @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)
          • @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)
  • 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)
  • Support on the general principle that a decades-long worlds record is broken. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support only posting the 28yr old part. Nergaal (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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/contributions 19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted (alt 2). No image though, the one in the candidate is terrible, and seems to be the only choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 
New version
  • 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 Levy 03:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I undid it, it still looks terrible. Stephen 03:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 Levy 04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

[Closed] Imbrium Basin formed as a result of an impact with a proto-planetEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Mare Imbrium (talk, history) and Late Heavy Bombardment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Imbrium Basin on the Moon, one of the largest impact craters in the solar system, formed as a result of an impact with an approximately 250 km diameter proto-planet.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists conclude that the Imbrium Basin on the Moon, one of the solar system's largest impact craters, was formed as a result of an impact with a protoplanet approximately 250 km in diameter.
News source(s): Nature, Phys.org

First article updated, second needs updating
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)
  • Question can you expand on the significance of this for normal folks? What's the context? What's the impact (heh!)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nope, still don't get the significance. Sorry. Oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    Ahem Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Ahem? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    • 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)
  • Oppose; doesn't seem to be in mainstream news, just science-related publications. Probably too esoteric. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    This finding has nothing to do with your WP:OR, especially because nobody is disputing that there were large impactors all over the solar system. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • Oppose two reasons - I don't get it (despite at least two explanations, so sorry for that) and Abductive says no. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've suggested a second blurb. However, I don't see any update on the page itself. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced beforehandEdit

WP:SNOW close. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced suicide routes deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean on his home flight simulator.
News source(s): NYMAG
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)

  • 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)
  • 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 | Talk 20:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Surprised there's no calls to ban Microsoft Flight Simulator X...--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I assume this a joke nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The few sources following up on this appear to be merely citing the NY Magazine article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as we're not a British tabloid, and so we don't put crap speculation on our front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2016 Munich shootingsEdit

Article: 2016 Munich shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police hunt attackers after shootings in Munich
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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like big breaking news Andrew D. (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Compelled to do so, under the circumstances. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Now Support but wait for stability with confirmation of 6 deaths. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait let's not do another "The ed17". There's certainly a story here, but please wait until some confirmation is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: In the spirit of comity and collaboration, could you remove the personal attack above? -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • Comment this shouldn't be posted in its current state, regardless. There are too many unreferenced claims. Pause. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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 | Talk 19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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&Windows 19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's in a much better state now, so I don't mind it having been posted. Fences&Windows 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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 | Talk 19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    Referring to and quoting policy is "harassing someone?" That's a very warped definition of harassing, which I think explains a lot. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Posted now article reflects reality and we have verifiable sources and a consensus. Expect further changes... but take them to WP:ERRORS please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

[Removed] Remove Pokemon Go from ongoingEdit

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. --Tone 17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support per nom and Walt. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, not quite as reported on now as it was. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Indian Air Force AN32Edit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Indian Air Force AN32 (talk, history)
Blurb: Indian Air Force AN32, en route to Port Blair, goes missing while flying over the Bay of Bengal with 29 people on board.
News source(s): CNN Times of India BBC ABC News
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)
  • 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)
  • Comment per WP:AIRCRASH this article may not even be worthy of existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Eight people on board were civilians so I think it's notable enough to have its own article. Andise1 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Only if one or more of them are notable enough for their own article. Not my words. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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] Japan stops producing VCRsEdit

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Videocassette recorder (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japan stops producing VCRs
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
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)
Why don't you use the template like everyone else and actually propose a blurb. Andise1 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Mu until a template is used for this nom.--WaltCip (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Christ, you guys are babies. I've added the template, and Oppose per masem. Isa (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose but consider DYK if enough can be said about it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    Others would call the celebrity stuff (of the Kardashian caliber) you consistently nominate trivia... 79.193.104.97 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hilarious. Give me one example of such, I dare you!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as much as I love old technology. This is not something "in the news". LjL (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Beijing and London Olympic dopingEdit

No consensus to post, possible that this may be re-visited prior to the start of the Rio games. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Doping at the Olympic Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Olympic Committee announces doping findings in 45 athletes from the 2008 Summer Olympics and 2012 Summer Olympics.
News source(s): IOC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Article needs some improvement, but otherwise a significant story, with several medallists also involved. Brandmeistertalk 12:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and comment Might be worth tying this in with a super-blurb of what's happening to the Russians too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
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. Brandmeistertalk 14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Well the key difference here is that the Russian athletes as a group have been found guilty and now individuals have to prove themselves innocent in order to compete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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 | Talk 16:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait as noted above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 21Edit


July 20Edit


[Posted] RD: Pavel SheremetEdit

Article: Pavel Sheremet (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, Guardian, CNN

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

Nominator's comments: Prolific critical journalist, very probably murdered Yakikaki (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Lots of news coverage, detailed article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support contingent on the one very important [citation needed] tag being resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

[Closed] RD: Betsy BloomingdaleEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Betsy Bloomingdale (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter Vanity Fair NY Times The Telegraph LA Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American socialite and philanthropist. Statements in artilce are cited to reliable sources. MurielMary (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd feel better if there was some more mainstream news sources(outside of niche sources). 331dot (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently that's no longer a criteria under the new rules? MurielMary (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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". --Jayron32 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the person is important or notable, the article needs to be properly and sufficiently cited as such.--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
The notability needs to be verified. That's the basis of the opposition vote.--WaltCip (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
If you are saying this person doesn't merit an article, there is a process for that. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Support. Meets criteria - has article, is in the news. Appears to be of sufficient quality for the front page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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♦C 15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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♦C 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Spencer for taking the time to respond, much appreciated. MurielMary (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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] RD: Radu BeliganEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Radu Beligan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post AGERPRES

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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)
  • Oppose mainly unreferenced lists of non-notable appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The majority of the article is a bullet list of appearances with zero sources, as TRM indicated. Challenger l (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Mark TakaiEdit

Article: Mark Takai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Honolulu Civil Beat, USA Today, NBC News

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

Nominator's comments: Sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives dies of prostate cancer at 49. Does need some more sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

    • @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)
  • Support per new RD requirements. Article could be a little more substantive, but is sufficient for now.-Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose references required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready - have added sources and tweaked some close paraphrasing. Fuebaey (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Can we reference his spouse/children as they are mentioned in the infobox but not in the article (naughty) and not referenced anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

[Closed] Dollar Shave ClubEdit

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)
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: Dollar Shave Club (talk, history) and Unilever (talk, history)
Blurb: Unilever buys Dollar Shave Club for US$1 billion.
News source(s): BBC
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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♦C 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per above. $1 billion is pennies in the business world.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose great advert, great story, small business transaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose $1B is tiny, and this is not a dramatic shakeup of the shaving industry. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Mohammed ShahidEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mohammed Shahid (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Indian Express NDTV

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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 what's there is okay, but it's a stub and not a comprehensive biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • {{CN}} tags need to be resolved. Seems to be longer than a stub now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when fully referenced. The article has enough prose now to post, although reference expansion is always welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

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.

July 19Edit


[Posted] RD: Carlos GorostizaEdit

Article: Carlos Gorostiza (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Infobae, La Nacion, Telam

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

Nominator's comments: Argentine playwright. Fuebaey (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Article seems pretty thorough and well-sourced. Teemu08 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Quality looks sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks complete; marking 'ready'. SpencerT♦C 17:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Wasn't that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish purges (replace current blurb)Edit

Articles: 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (talk, history) and 2016 Turkish purges (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Turkish government purges tens of thousands of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
Alternative blurb: ​The Turkish government arrests or suspends 45,000 officials, judges, teachers and civil servants in purges of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Turkish government arrests 2,700 judges and suspends 36,000 education staff in purges of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
News source(s): BBC, WaPo

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. Smurrayinchester 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Agree with the nom that this is bigger than the actual coup. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the idea. We need a decent blurb that's not too bloated and rambling though... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
Actually, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt#Arrests and purges is decent enough. Can replace purges and omit the last link so we're not pointing to the same article twice. Fuebaey (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Simple solution is to merge the content, which I've gone and done. Smurrayinchester 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but agree article needs fleshing out. Here's a somewhat shorter blurb suggestion:
The Turkish government arrests 2,700 judges and suspends 36,000 education staff in purges following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290.
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)
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.
Preceding comment posted by LjL (talk).
  • Update - I think the original blurb is OK, and the updated blurb should be placed at the top of the box. Banedon (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This is actually really big news. It could very well have major implications for democracy in Turkey. Kurtis (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support. I mean 50k humans being imprisoned? That is a rather ridiculous number. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Nergaal and marked Ready. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Garry MarshallEdit

Article: Garry Marshall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (Variety), (Daily Beast)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Legendary movie and TV show director in Hollywood. Creator of "Happy Days," and director of multiple films. Fuzheado | Talk 03:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on improvements Much of the career section is unsourced. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    Career section updated with a dozen more references. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Needs sources, lead should be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    Citation needed concerns have been addressed and cleared. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Subject and his most notable works are legendary, and it looks like the article has been sufficiently improved.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

July 18Edit


July 17Edit


[Closed] [Posted] 2016 Open ChampionshipEdit

Nothing more productive happening here, some odd soap-boxing starting up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Henrik Stenson (pictured) wins the Open Championship
News source(s): BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Fair enough WaltClip; you are right so have strucken the comment. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I recommend a healthy reading of Poe's law to both the !voter and the comment in response.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R, but maybe another picture, ideally from Stenson on a golf course, would be more appropriate. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: Just FYI support on the merits is not required with ITNR items; its presence on the list presumes such support. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@331dot: so what should I do? Per "Please do not ... ", a simple "Support"/"Oppose" is not sufficient. And I'm not the only one to refer to that. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Constructive comments about what picture to use are also welcome, and are just as important as the wording of the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
File:Henrik Stenson.JPG is a little more suitable I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (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)
  • 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)
  • Comment: we could add ", with a championship-record 20 under par total" to the blurb. It's noteworthy. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
  • Comment: should it perhaps be "wins The Open Championship"? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    No, that would imply that the 2016 issue is "the" championship. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment whilst the prose is a little sparse this could have been posted, except that the final round prose is entirely unreferenced. Stephen 04:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    Stephen I've added some inline refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks TRM, could you proxy post this one for me as I'm on mobile for the next few hours. Stephen 07:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    Done. Shock horror, you'll get me desysopped at this rate... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would suggest to change the text to "In golf, Sweden's Henrik Stenson wins..." Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)

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] Baton Rouge shootingEdit

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)
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: 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least three police officers are fatally shot during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Alternative blurb: ​Three officers are shot in an ambush killing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
News source(s): NBC News
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)
  • 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)
  • Support Copycats aren't likely to look to Wikipedia for inspiration. And this will likely be a major issue in the upcoming elections. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose, now part of the new normal of police-community relations in the US. Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Police officers being ambushed is not, nor will it ever be, "normal". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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. Brandmeistertalk 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
Hatted. No need for trivial political talk on a ITNC. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 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)
  • Oppose People with guns end up getting shot. Not news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I question your knowledge of what is and is not "everyday Americana" since you seem to have no idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The sad truth is, this is comparatively minor in relationship to other recent acts of violence. Sca (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Years? The last triple homicide of US cops was in Puerto Rico[20] in December. Martin451 00:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        • My list wasn't including US territories. Perhaps that's unfair to them, but whatever. Anyway, I believe the last 3+ homicide against police to occur on the mainland (aside from the recent events in Dallas) was the November 2009 Lakewood, Washington, police officer shooting. Dragons flight (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • Your "insignificant" is an extremely offensive statement on its own. And you can't possibly know what the impact of these shootings will be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
            • 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)
              • To call murder "insignificant" is offensive. And you have know way to know whether something will be done or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Oppose for now usual American staff. Reconsideration if race motive confirmed.--Jenda H. (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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. Martin451 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • Silly reasoning. This wouldn't bump the Nice attack or Turkish coup or Theresa May. It would bump UEFA Euro 2016 Final. So what if it does? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        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)
    • Oppose blurb - I feel that with the recent state of police - civilian affairs, we could come up with something that cover all of it and list as ongoing, however. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Call us again when some decent gun control is implemented. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    [Posted to RD] RD or blurb: Qandeel BalochEdit

    Article: Qandeel Baloch (talk, history)
    Recent deaths nomination
    Blurb: Pakistani social media celebrity Qandeel Baloch is killed by her brother in what is being described as an "honor killing."
    News source(s): (BBC), (CNN)

    Article updated

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

    Nominator's comments: 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)

    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Support RD only tragic but not Bowie, Mandela etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Comparing Bowie to Mandela? Holy Hyberbole, Batman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
        • These are standard yardsticks for blurbs on the dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
          • If they have to be as important as Mandela, that would pretty well rub out the RD section. Or is that what you had in mind anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
            • 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)
            • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Support blurb but not opposed to RD. - Although she is not very well known, I support the above two reasoning. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Posted to RD. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • RD only Nowhere near enough notable to qualify for a blurb, regardless of the tragic circumstances of her death. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Support either way I thought about nominating this yesterday but didn't. Not sure if it's better as a blurb or RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support RD, I think her death is noteworthy enough for RD, but not a blurb. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • RD only Christina Grimmie was an Internet celebrity killed in a senseless way too common in America. This woman was an Internet celebrity killed in a senseless way too common in Pakistan. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

    July 16Edit


    [Posted to Ongoing] Kashmir unrestEdit

    Article: 2016 Kashmir unrest (talk, history)
    Ongoing item nomination
    News source(s): Economic Times

    Nominator's comments: It's a notable event which will be interesting for the readers. Mhhossein (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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. --Tone 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose blurb but Support ongoing per Tone. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support ongoing It seem to be a developing story which deserves attention for a longer period of time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support ongoing Per rational of Kiril Simeonovski Nannadeem (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment (Support ongoing): As the nominator, now I think we'd better have it as an ongoing item. Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Posted to Ongoing Stephen 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)

    [Closed] RD: Nate ThurmondEdit

    No consensus. Stephen 04:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article: Nate Thurmond (talk, history)
    Recent deaths nomination
    News source(s): SF Gate

    Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
    Nominator's comments: One of the greatest NBA players of all time, particularly notable for rebounding. EternalNomad (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support when improved Importance in his field, but article needs citations and image layout improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Support - College and professional basketball halls of fame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      Note: This editor has been blocked countless times for various violations of wikipedia policies. 91.52.232.167 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 91.52.232.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      Not for a couple of years, which is likely a lot longer than for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      @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)
    • 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)
    • Oppose doesn't seem to meet RD criteria of significant in his field. MurielMary (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support on improvement per Bagumba. Neljack (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support on the merits; clearly important to his field, but article needs work. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Not at the level required for ITN. 84.161.255.85 (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)

    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.

    July 15Edit


    [Posted] Attempted Turkish coupEdit

    Article: 2016 Turkish coup d'etat (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​An attempted coup is underway in Turkey; the military claims to have taken over.
    Alternative blurb: ​In an ongoing military coup against Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the military claims administrative control.

    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)!

    • Wait until we have a clearer view of the situation, but this is HUGE. Absolutely feature, regardless of outcome.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    Wait I agree totally. but glad theres an artile.Lihaas (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • (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)
      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)
      A day or two? You must be joking.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    • 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)
      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-Talk 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    No, they do not. Wikipedia does not have news, by definition we only reflect what actual news outlets report. Turning to Wikipedia to get the "latest news" would be stupid. --bender235 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    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-Talk 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    (edit conflict) Agree it was way too early. But this is also earth shattering and a long time coming. love to see Russia reactions nowLihaas (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    It certainly appears that way. But as we're not the journalists, we need to be more cautious on when we post things. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pull stop using ITN as your personal playground. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (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. —Cryptic 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ITN criterion: There is a sufficiently updated non-stub article The 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)
    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)
    In all fairness, the Nice attack was initially posted prematurely.Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    The article was in a better shape and there was a blurb. LjL (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I count eight 'supports' before The ed17 posted the Nice attack. The article was also more fleshed out than this one, when posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    (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)
    Sunshineisles2 I'd bother to listen to you if this "admin" hadn't done this very thing at least five times now. He needs to learn. The ed17 stop this, you have been told many times now, your judgement is flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    Sunshineisles, just shut up. WaltCip (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    • 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)
    Amazing there isnt a Turkish civil war article. Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (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)
      • Yeah, I had the same edit-conflict problem. :-) I've already reverted myself on T:ITN and have obviously realized that this was a slight step too far. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (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)
      Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      Not needed, there's more of a consensus for you to stop posting than there was to post this item to the main page when you did it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      (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. —Cryptic 21:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      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)
      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 Levy 03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
      Agreed. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Coup in Turkey and here at ITN at the same time? Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    comment rumours are that erDOGan has been arrested. This has Syria written all over it...Lihaas (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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.

      My pet topic I admit, but yet another demonstration that waiting a little while to nominate saves all sorts of drama and delay down the line. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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)
    • Now support. We have a clearer view of the situation, article is sufficiently protected.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - it appears there is coup going on. That is pretty big.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - apparent coup going on. if it succeeds or fails is irrelevant to its notability. should be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      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)
    Apparently I need to add sarcasm tags to some of my posts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support, as unlike when I requested pulling, now it is time. LjL (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Now support – blurb works and will undoubtedly improve overnight, article's there. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support What PanchoS said. w.carter-Talk 22:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. Definitely essential now. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support – Significant news right now. Dustin (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment This is already on the front page. I have no idea why my closing was reverted but fine, let's see if consensus changes and we somehow remove this from the front page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It's worth keeping open due to the likely level of fluidity of the blurb. I don't think WP:ERRORS is the best place for those inevitable discussions to take place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It's be easier to collapse this lengthy one and start a new one with a subheader if there's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Note I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Topic ban proposal for user:The ed17 regarding Ed's recent actions with this and other ITN nominations. Discussion of that should now take place there, leaving this thread for discussion of the Turkish coup blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    More than 30,000 teachers, university professors and "education staff" fired, suspended or disbarred. Or was it 50,000? (Does the term Gleichschaltung ring a bell?)Sca (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

    [Closed] Remove "Pokémon Go" from ongoing?Edit

    Clear consensus against removal. SSTflyer 11:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article: Pokémon Go (talk, history)
    Ongoing item removal
    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)
    • 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)
    • Oppose – rationale reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a clear case of not reading any of the comments in the original nomination. This is the most viewed article on the English Wikipedia at present, averaging more than 700,000 views per day for four consecutive days. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      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)
    I take it the comparison of views for "cat" and "dog" isn't terribly relevant? Whoops. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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-Talk 07:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)

    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.

    July 14Edit


    RD: Péter EsterházyEdit

    Article: Péter Esterházy (talk, history)
    Recent deaths nomination
    News source(s): [23]

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

    Nominator's comments: One of Hungary's most renowned contemporary authors, also internationally renowned Yakikaki (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)

    [Posted] 2016 Nice attackEdit

    Article: 2016 Nice attack (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​At least sixty die in an attack in Nice.
    Alternative blurb: ​More than 60 people killed by a truck deliberately plowing into a crowd in Nice.
    Alternative blurb II: ​More than 60 people are killed by a truck driven into a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, France.
    News source(s): BBC

    Nominator's comments: SMH – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


    • Wait for more details.--WaltCip (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait slightly, but yeah, this isn't good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support, no need to wait, article is in usable state, reasonably cited. LjL (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait. Wikipedia is not a news channel. No reason for us to rush here. Wait for more details to emerge. --bender235 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait until full details emerge. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Will support once more details emerge and article updated with such. -- KTC (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support, death toll at 73 now. 2.103.15.147 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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 | Talk 23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Support – Notability is clear and unambiguous, only hitch is the article size. Once that's remedied this will be good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. I think the time period has sufficient moved towards including it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. Breaking news on all major news channels worldwide. Our article has to improve, but certainly will. --PanchoS (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Its trending everywhere.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Posted per IAR/SNOW. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Update - statistics are significantly overstated. Number of injuries reported is 50. Fox News 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:89CE:9ACA:EFA6:5427 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    At 13:00, mainstream sites (BBC, AP, Reuters, NYT) put toll at 84. Sca (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Sca: use WP:ERRORS for this sort of update as it will get updated quicker. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    Alas, I've found that sometimes things there just get sidetracked or ignored. Sca (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)

    Microsoft Ireland caseEdit

    Article: Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​The U.S. Court of Appeals rules that Microsoft does not have to provide the U.S. government with e-mails stored on its servers in Ireland.
    Alternative blurb: Microsoft wins a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that it does not have to provide the U.S. government with e-mails stored on its servers in Ireland despite a warrant issued under the Stored Communications Act.
    News source(s): http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-wins-appeal-over-warrant-for-overseas-emails

    Article updated

    Nominator's comments: Important privacy ruling agr (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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)
      • 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).
    • Oppose this story doesn't seem to be widely reported in the media - any other sources than the one given? MurielMary (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    July 13Edit


    [Posted] RD: Goran HadžićEdit

    Article: Goran Hadžić (talk, history)
    Recent deaths nomination
    News source(s): The Guardian

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

    Nominator's comments: Former President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and a major figure in the Croatian civil warKurtis (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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)
      • I've added a couple more to the article. How does it look? Kurtis (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Where is the consensus to post? one weak support? WTF is going on here? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • Well, Kurtis was the nominator, and I don't know who posted it. Did The ed? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes. [24] So that was posted with one weak support in addition to the nominator, which isn't consensus as far as I'm concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

    [Closed] Boris Johnson appointedEdit

    NOT POSTED
    Looks like I'm the odd man out on this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Articles: Boris Johnson (talk, history) and May ministry (talk, history)
    Blurb: Boris Johnson (pictured) is appointed British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, drawing reactions around the world.
    News source(s): Bloomberg, Der Spiegel, Haber Turk, BBC News, New York Times
    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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    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)
    Over here people talk about Donald Trump every day but I don't think him suing an ex-aide for $10 million should be posted. May can choose whomever she thinks fit for her cabinet. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Nope. It was mildly interesting that BJ got such a high-profile job, but it's still routine news. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RD: Bernardo ProvenzanoEdit

    Article: Bernardo Provenzano (talk, history)
    Recent deaths nomination
    News source(s): BBC

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

    Nominator's comments: Mafia kingpin The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

    • 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)
    • Fugheddaboudit Support upon article improvement.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Capo di tutti capi is as important as it gets in the mafia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

    [Posted to Ongoing] Pokémon GoEdit

    Article: Pokémon Go (talk, history)
    Blurb: Pokémon Go surpasses Twitter in popularity following its release in the United States and Oceania, and breaks records for mobile downloads.
    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.
    News source(s): The Guardian, CNCC

    Nominator's comments: I realize this is a tad WP:CRYSTAL, but I'm putting this out there in the event it becomes notable enough for ITN. Not intended as an advertisement. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Oppose until it actually becomes the most used app. Until then it's not really worth considering.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Weak support. Per CNBC, its now the biggest mobile game in American history, though if it keeps breaking milestones, the support will be stronger. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose per above and we don't know whether its popularity will sustain over time. Brandmeistertalk 09:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support This is all over the news in so many ways that it perhaps belongs in Ongoing. Some examples. Andrew D. (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. The New Yorker – Pokémon Go Will Make You Crave Augmented Reality
    2. USA TODAY – Police, agencies issue 'Pokémon Go' warnings
    3. BBC News – US Holocaust museum asks Pokemon Go players to stop
    4. Daily Telegraph – Pokémon GO addict stabbed while playing, refuses to get treatment
    5. The Guardian – Senator Al Franken demands Pokémon Go release privacy information
    6. The Guardian – Pokémon Go becomes global craze as game overtakes Twitter
    7. Evening Standard – Commuters' fears over use of Pokémon GO on London's transport
    8. The Economist – “Pokémon Go” shows how the real and virtual worlds are merging
    9. Wall Street Journal – Pokémon Go' Craze Raises Safety Issues
    10. 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)
      • Changed to weak support - The CNBC claim of "biggest mobile game in American history" is a significant milestone.--WaltCip (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • @Mamyles: "By July 12, 2016, the average daily usage of the app on Android devices exceeded Snapchat, Tinder, Instagram, and Facebook." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • @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)
    • Is it the most downloaded application (not game, APPLICATION) of all time?--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • No, of course not. Do you have any idea how high of a bar that is to clear? If ITN's bar is that high, what's the point of ITN? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The privacy issue looks to be a big deal. I was just circulated a warning about this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • And the patch then introduces new problems, of course. Like I said, this topic is Ongoing. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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-Talk 18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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 Levy 18:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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-Talk 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    If I understood what Pokémon Go is, I'd vote against it. Sca (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Augmented reality would be a good starting point to get educated.--WaltCip (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    My reality is augmented enough every time I pull a new bill out of ye olde analog mailbox. Sca (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      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 Levy 03:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      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)
    • support - this is a phenomenanon.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support, only because it's basically taken over the world. Thechased (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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--Stemoc 23:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    The roof Pokemon Chiminie should be among the biggest killers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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. Brandmeistertalk 08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @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)
          • It's been released in the UK today - well, officially anyway ... everyone and their dog appeared to have it a week ago. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support It's becoming extremely popular worldwide and has become a cultural hit. If that's not INT worthy then IDK what is. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - Due to reasons mentioned above Sherenk1 (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - Much as my teeth may gnash and I may wail at this, this BBC report showing a 50% rise in BBCNintendo shares means it has to be suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      Did you mean Nintendo shares? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      Clearly by writing about Boris, his skills of walking into a massive elephant trap have rubbed off on me... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment happy to post this, but I'm not sure if we have a consensus on the blurb, neither of which are particularly elegant. Suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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-Talk 11:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • That is one good thing about nominating this ITN story; it will never, ever get stale.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • Channging to straightforward support in an effort to Raticate any perception of an unevolved opinion. Kurtis (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Not posting would be a shame since the artcle is now at over 800 000 veiws/day. I'd call that notable. w.carter-Talk 14:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    • New blurb try (thank you ABC and Forbes for inspiration). w.carter-Talk 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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-Talk 16:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • @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)
            • 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)
      • 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)
    • 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)
    • I suppose you mean "ongoing" when you write "outgoing". w.carter-Talk 16:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Autocorrect mistake, fixed. Prevan (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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-Talk 17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It's a little vague-sounding but definitely accurate. Just look at the craze in the one South Korean town that can actually play the game, for instance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • For context's sake, the last mobile game of this magnitude was Candy Crush in 2013 so the recurrence of this type of story is negligible. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
        • It's also a very boring blurb and refers only to the USA. Surely we can do better than that? Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
          • It was only just released in Europe. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
            • It was released in Japan and Oceania even before the USA, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
              • 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)
    • Comment: It looks like Stemoc's "prediction" already has come true with the first fatality. Notable enough yet? w.carter-Talk 18:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Not a reliable source, 95% of the information that comes out of National Report is false or misleading. Prevan (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Added fifth blurb that isn't showing up. Pokémon Go is released, breaking mobile download records. Prevan (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose - per David Levy. shoy (reactions) 18:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Please let's not jump on the marketing bandwagon here. --bender235 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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)
      • We don't have a policy, we never will have a policy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • We'll see, it did just launch in Europe. :-) I expect a few days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • Also @Black Kite somewhat and others, my apology for the delay in posting the above—I got a call from family literally as I hit save on T:ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Good WP:BOLD posting.--WaltCip (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • @Dragons flight: I'm much more in favor of a blurb, but it's awfully hard to come up with a blurb more specific than "Pokemon Go becomes an international phenomenon" that will get consensus here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 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)
    • 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. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    "Pokemon Go Becomes Most Popular Mobile Game in US History" [30] could be an appropriate blurb.Nergaal (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Or we could be less systemically biased and wait for it to break global records – I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that that's the trajectory. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)

    [Posted] Theresa May confirmed Tory leader/Prime MinisterEdit

    Nominator's comments: Next UK prime minister, absolute no brainer although not technically ITN/R. Technically, she does not become the PM until she kisses hands, but we always post when people win elections, rather than their inaugurations. We posted the Australian leadership spill last year, which was an analogous situation. Smurrayinchester 14:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

    (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)
    • 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)
    The 1922 Committee, which oversees the election, has already confirmed that it will not re-run the election and that it accepts May as the last surviving candidate. Per before, she's won - all that's left is the inauguration part. Smurrayinchester 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So since its basically official now, support on this news. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Support Alt 2 per Laura Jamieson. I think "... after Andrea Leadsom's withdrawal" would be better wording though. Banedon (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait until she is named PM. Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support alt 2 per Laura Jamieson but Wait until PMship is official. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Alt2 only but wait until she actually takes over. My support for alt2 only is per Laura Jamieson. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait until she actually becomes PM on Wednesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Wait Until Wednesday when she formally becomes PM. Then happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • For standard elections, yes. How have we handled leadership changes midstream in the past? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • Wait until Wednesday once Dave has fucked off and she's in post. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support posting now It is in the news now. Thue (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Wait it'll be In The News on Wednesday per ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      The reason to wait is that it will confuse some of our "limited" readers. In just over 24 hours we'll have a new PM, let's post it then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    Have you considered being less patronising and condescending? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know, have you considered being less obnoxious and time-wasting? We can always do a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • @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)
        • 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)
    • Wait – 'Til she becomes PM Wednesday. Sca (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Wait until Wednesday. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Marking as ready on Wednesday. Should be posted as soon as she has been to see Brenda, but not before. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • Hence the value of posting it now rather than waiting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Not at all, wait until she becomes PM, who knows what could happen in the next day or so. There's no rush, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • +1, Newyorkbrad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
              • 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)
            • 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)
    • 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)
    When the UK acquires a new head of government, post it. Sca (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support posting now, news outlets all over are running with this—why do people here feel the need to conflict with reliable sources? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Absolutely support posting now - this is definitely "in the news" now and should be on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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. Smurrayinchester 06:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    Eh, it's disputed whether the Tory party has a deputy leader per se, but since Theresa May hasn't named her deputy yet (she'll do a reshuffle tomorrow) it's a moot point - he shouldn't be mentioned in her infobox full stop. Nevertheless, I'll try to cite that list. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    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)
    • 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)
    • Apparently the consensus is to post tomorrow. In which case the original blurb is fine. Marked as such. --Tone 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Alt III after she assumes office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support ALT 3 when she takes over tomorrow. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - She will be the second female PM in the UK. STSC (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    • Post It is done. The Palace has announced the resignation of Mr. Cameron and the appointment of Mrs. May as Prime Minister. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Posted -- KTC (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    Didn't she write Little Women? Sca (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

    July 12Edit


    [Posted] Andria train collisionEdit

    Article: Andria train collision (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​At least 20 people are killed when two trains collide near Bari, Italy.
    News source(s): BBC

    Nominator's comments: Very rare for European trains to do this, coupled with substantial death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Support with some work on the article (currently a bunch of technical issues). --Tone 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Support - high death toll for a European railway accident. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Major transportation related accident with significant loss of life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support per nom Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support as per nominator's post - JaneStillman (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Posting. --Tone 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment. Near Andria not near Bari. Bari is a lit a bit far from the accident, and Andria is an important city in that region. - EugεnS¡m¡on 18:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. Will fix. Thanks! --Tone 18:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

    [Closed] Philippines v. ChinaEdit

    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)
    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: Philippines v. China (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​The Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in favor of the Philippines over China in an arbitration case with regards to territorial disputes in the South China Sea without ruling on sovereignty.
    Alternative blurb: ​The Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in Philippines v. China that Spratly Islands and numerous other reef/shoal features in South China Sea are not entitled to exclusive economic zone.
    Alternative blurb II: ​The Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in Philippines v. China that the Spratly Islands and other artificial islands and reefs do not support Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.
    Alternative blurb III: ​The Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in Philippines v. China that the South China Sea Islands do not support territorial claims.
    News source(s): PCA decision, New York Times
    Nominator's comments: Territorial dispute between countries - especially when the territorial dispute involves more than two parties - are significant. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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. Smurrayinchester 10:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    (A link to nine-dash line also seems important, but might overfill the blurb too much.) Smurrayinchester 10:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support original or alt II. Important international decision. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support orig. – Article seems quite detailed, though rather slow in getting to the main point. Sca (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
    What if the word "Chinese" is removed from the blurb (per alt III)? Smurrayinchester 14:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support blurb or alt blurb II. This is an obviously major ruling on a high profile international dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk)
    • Support, and like Ad Orientem I like both the original blurb and alt blurb II. --bender235 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 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/contributions 15:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - Visibility will improve quality since more editors will ba able to give their voice. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    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 Permanent Court of Arbitration rules in favor of the Philippines in an arbitration case regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea, but does not rule on sovereignty.
    Sca (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    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).
    The Permanen