Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2016

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.

June 30Edit

Antarctic ozone hole mendingEdit

Article: Ozone depletion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists find that the Antarctic ozone hole is on the mend. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists find that the Antarctic ozone hole is smaller and appears later in the year compared to 2000.
News source(s): [1] [2], Googling "Antarctic ozone hole mend" finds a lot more

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Somewhat late for this one, but right now ITN is 3 terrorist attacks and 2 politics - this would be a different topic entirely. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - While this is based on a newly published report, the trend in the Nature article suggests this has been improving over the last few years, making this either way late or still an ongoing process, neither which is a good point for reporting ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretfully Oppose – If this study was the first of its kind, it would be worth posting. However, a quick look at the article shows that this has been an ongoing process since 2007 when a study revealed that the hole was no longer growing. A report in 2012 showed the hole to be smaller which would be the first definitive sign of healing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose based on nominator comments. We don't cherry pick ITN items just because there happens to be a surge in terror attacks or elections. The nominator knows this and should be strongly discourage from making such pointed comments in future nominations, or face a permanent rejection from ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. military transgender ban liftedEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 2 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: As CNN notes in article linked above, this "removes one of the last barriers to military service by any individual [in the United States]". Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are likely going to be larger battles on the rights of transgendered persons at the national level that far outweigh the ability to serve in the military. This is by far not a significant milestone for ITN. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article section quality seems poor and only addresses this news in one sentence. Otherwise, I may support as I see international coverage of this significant moment for transgenders.SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly until the tag is removed. If this is just a footnote in some minor interest article, I fail to see how it could possibly be considered as ITN material. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the article, there are 18 other countries that allow transgender people to serve openly. I don't think this has enough significance to be posted on the Main Page, just like we don't post every time a country legalizes same-sex marriage. EternalNomad (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are we supposed to believe that before this 'ban' was lifted, people were sneaking through? μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 2 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] Gordon MurrayEdit

Article: Gordon Murray (puppeteer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Noted stop motion animator who's influence is still being felt e.g. see Radiohead's, Burn the Witch yorkshiresky (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment is the target incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, link fixed.
  • Oppose with regret. While some of the shows are iconic (in my view), he objectively doesn't really rise to the significance expected of the current ITN/RD criteria. It's noted that one of his shows was the "22nd most popular children's television show" isn't all that spectacular and I'm not seeing any awards. Article could use more references as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: - that's 22nd out of how many hundreds/thousands of kids progs? Also, TV wasn't awards driven in the 60s and early 70s. Referencing has been improved, although it's not 100% yet. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't know how many progs. I was simply stating that if he was significant to kids television, the items he was involved with would be more popular than 22nd in the list. Let's see what our American friends think! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
        • It would have to be remembered that poll was in 2009, at least 30 years after the shows stopped being shown regularly on TV. I suspect they would have been amongst the most popular in years gone by. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support subject to quality. Massive cult following from millions of 60s and 70s kids. Windy Miller (cider) 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, bit of an IAR one this, but the article is OK, we've only got two RDs at the moment, and there is some coverage outside the UK (and a lot in it). Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No Objection. Article received very few pageviews prior to his death, 37 a day, but with some interesting spikes. Yesterday the article got 8,178 views. This in my view shows sufficient reader interest. Abductive (reasoning) 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. While I feel he's borderline for the present criteria (which hopefully wont be around much longer), there is support for posting so up he goes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    Happy to see this posted. Glad to know that common sense can trump super-notability "requirements", let's formalise it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    I am happy to post where there is support for posting people who are borderline on the current criteria when there is no significant objection. If the person does not meet the criteria (not even borderline) I would personally be hesitant to post in most circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Rodrigo DuterteEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 1 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: Rodrigo Duterte (talk, history) and Inauguration of Rodrigo Duterte (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Rodrigo Duterte sworn in as the 16th president of the Philippines (Post)
Nominator's comments: A head of state assumes office. Several precedents. (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of articles. the BLP has an orange POV banner and the other is a stub that needs work. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This looks like a formality as we post elections rather than inaugurations, in this case Philippine presidential election, 2016. Brandmeistertalk 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless there is something unique in the inaugration ceremony, we don't post this, instead only at the point of the confirmed election results (as Brandmeister noted). --MASEM (t) 14:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We post elections, not inaugurations. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
With the exception of the venerated President Barack Obama.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@WaltCip: Try again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Wrongo bongo. Scroll down to January 20th.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, ITN/C didn't exist in its current form in 2009. New criteria were put in place, discussions were instituted. In other words, this is an apples and oranges comparison. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Goes back to my point though. We have posted only one inauguration and election. That's Obama. Sole exception.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this person somehow groundbreaking in their winning office? I'm also not sure how your point is relevant, when things have greatly changed since that time, almost to the point where it was totally different then. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the election was not historic enough back then that we would not have posted both the inauguration and the election with today's criteria? What exactly has changed? All I am saying is that Obama was historically groundbreaking enough to merit posting both. No election since then has met that same level of significance.--WaltCip (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess I thought you were arguing the opposite; my apologies. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The result of the election was posted; that's where we typically stop, at least with modern, current criteria. Unless there is something particularly notable about this event, I don't see a need to make an exception. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 30 June 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.

June 29Edit

June 28Edit

[Closed] RD: Scotty MooreEdit

Not sufficiently improved. Stephen 05:57, 4 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: Scotty Moore (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8], [9]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Moore was a guitarist for Elvis Presley whose work is oft described as "pioneering" and "groundbreaking" in the early development of rock and roll, and he is a member of two music halls of fame. Article isn't great. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality too weak right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – When you say "article quality too weak right now", does that refer to the seemingly indiscriminate tag bombing throughout? Other than that, I couldn't find much wrong with it. Also, while on the subject of music figures, I'm dismayed that no one nominated Bernie Worrell. I've been busy enough to where I didn't even learn of his death until this morning, otherwise I would have gladly done so. Earlier this year, Robert Stigwood was never nominated, even though someone of far less significance to 1970s music wound up being posted (I forget exactly who right this moment). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Practically the whole of the biography section is unsourced. I would Support if the article was even half-decently sourced. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And by all means come here to nominate more RDs. That way you can be less disappointed, although I doubt either of the two individuals you mentioned would meet the current criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. What is indiscriminate about asking for citations throughout a poorly referenced article? Would you rather have one tag at the top of the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong, you say? Due to the obsession some editors have about referencing, I've seen more and more articles in recent years that while well-referenced, are incomprehensible to the reader because the ONLY thing tying them together are the existence of references at the end of statements. While I've read plenty about the Elvis universe, it's not exactly my area of expertise. Still, I would imagine that there's no end to available sources. As for Worrell, I would say the same as I said about Andy Fraser: hugely influential for decades among the music community, but perhaps some editors are too hung up on the difference between band leader and sideman. And I live close to the 65th parallel north, which means that summer presents opportunities (e.g. outdoor recreation, paying work) not available at other times of the year due to an often harsh winter climate, so I just haven't had the desire to spend all my time "saving the world" on this or other websites. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't really follow your rant. The article was tagged because it was inadequately referenced. We have policies, like WP:BLP to help you understand why it's important. If you prefer to promote unreferenced material to the main page, I'd suggest that Wikipedia isn't the project for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By golly, I had no idea Bernie Worrell had died, otherwise I surely would have nominated him. :( This is why we need the trial criteria. --WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Famous for being associated with someone who was famous. Sca (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Really? Rolling Stone's 29th greatest guitarist of all time is to you no more than a Kardashian? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • As far as I can recall, "Must be famous solely of their own accord rather than through association" is not an RD criteria, even not factoring in the trial. Or are we saying Nancy Reagan should not have been posted because she happens to be associated with the Gipper?--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, article got an average of 192 pageviews a day in the 90 days prior to his death, and spiked to 43,845 afterwards. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per high view count mentioned above.BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    Come on you two, please check the article quality too. If you continue not to do so, we'll have to start discounting your votes on face value. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    SMH. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    I guess there's some kind of perverse irony about dealing with people who are happy to maintain three levels of notability for deaths yet pay no attention whatsoever to article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    I fixed up an article to get it posted a couple of days ago. The fact is nobody is going to be able to keep up with all the needed improvements if your awful proposal is enacted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    Violins? As I noted, anyone can keep up with any article they want to improve. Nobody is suggesting all editors must edit all RDs, where did you get that idea from? Perhaps you're losing the wood for the trees now, as this new objection is beyond absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality Meets the RD criteria for importance in his field, but a quick glance at the article shows that the quality is not appropriate for a main page article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability - not significant in this field in his own right, only by association with Elvis. The Halls of Fame are massive, being named in them isn't automatically an indication of notability. Also number of page views is not currently a criteria for RD inclusion so votes based on this aren't valid. The precedent of Sylvia Anderson exists in that the page views for her article were higher than for the existing RD articles but her article was not posted to RD. MurielMary (talk) 07:15, 2 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] Atatürk Airport attackEdit

Article: 2016 Istanbul airport attack (talk, history)
Blurb: Explosions and gunshots at Istanbul Atatürk Airport kill 28 and injure 60. (Post)
News source(s): The Independent, RT

Nominator's comments: Appears to be a terrorist attack at a major airport, third busiest in Europe – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support once we have a few hours to get more details and expand the article. Even if this turns out to be some type of industrial accident (though all signs point to something more malicious), the death count (10 so far it looks like) and injured at a major airport is significant news. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Confirmed that it's a gun and bomb attack featuring at least one suicide bomber. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Death toll is at least 28 and 60 more wounded. Very significant event.Egeymi (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Very significant news story. It's unfortunate to see the situation deteriorating like this in Turkey; hopefully these incidents will become a rarity again. Kurtis (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending further expansion. Article is skeletal at the time of my comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Cbiskit. Needs more info. Sca (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support per above. Major event that is bigger than the March 2016 Istanbul bombing, which was also posted. Death toll continues to rise. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – yet another muslim attack. this one as all the rest need to be mentioned at ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support Death toll now at 50. (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Correction - the Istanbul governor said that "as many as 50" are killed, not at least 50 as the current blurb says.[1] SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Made the correction. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - fixed grammatical mistake in nomination ("Explosions...kill" rather than "Explosions kills") (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted – Sufficient content to post this now; article will inevitably expand substantially. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Buddy RyanEdit

Article: Buddy Ryan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, NFL, Chicago Tribune

Nominator's comments: Renowned NFL defensive coordinator, including for 1985 Chicago Bears, and head coach for Eagles and Cardinals, spent 26 years in NFL. Compy90 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support RD when improved The article lead is a bit paltry, but his most significant contribution (outside of Rex Ryan and Rob Ryan, his sons) is creating the 46 defense. Implemented on the 1985 Chicago Bears, they are considered by many to be the best defensive team in NFL history. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the big tag and the fact that a lot of the claims are unreferenced. Poor quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • All the unreferenced claims is taken care off. There is still two dead links but quality wise it has much improved. Meinnaples (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep. We need a new look and more comments here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if a few more citations can be added. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment some good work here, but a few more citations required per the tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Cited or removed the statements in question. Meinnaples (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I removed a little more unsourced info and cited some more. I think we're ready, and I listed the updaters. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Borderline - Revered in Chicago, was assistant coach on a couple of Super Bowl winners, father of two NFL coaches. Did not head-coach a champion, and is not in the NFL Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • He is also considered by many sources one of the greatest defensive minds in NFL history and he clearly did revolutionize the sport. Without the 46 defense, the current pass rushing movement would be significantly different. Just because the Pro Football Hall of Fame is biased against innovative coaching in general, only selecting coaches who won a ton of Super Bowls, doesn't mean he's significant to the sport. Meinnaples (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks like everything is (for the most part) sourced. Usually a lot of debate surround whether or not one should be considered great despite their success being mostly as a coordinator, but Ryan's impact is probably one of the largest in NFL history. Zappa24Mati 18:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • His head coaching record is admittedly pedestrian, but his impact as a defensive coordinator is unquestioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Pat SummittEdit

Article: Pat Summitt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The winningest coach in college basketball history, Pat Summitt dies at the age of 64. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The most victorious coach in U.S. college basketball history, Pat Summitt dies at the age of 64.
News source(s): The Huffington Post, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, and CBS News

Article updated

 The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 10:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment are you really seeking a blurb for this individual or is this an RD nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 10:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • In that case I would suggest you provide some context to who this individual is, both in the blurb and the nomination, and why she should be eligible for such a thing, alongside people like Mandela, Thatcher, Bowie etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • She is the winningest coach in college basketball history and equal to John Wooden.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 11:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the explanation. They both mean absolutely nothing to me, and probably a good deal of other non-Americans, so the clarification is appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any kind of listing, lots of unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak oppose on blurb in addition to her career record, she played a major role in growing Women's Basketball and was a major inspiration for women athletes. Although she was an important figure in her field and is notable enough for an RD once the article is ready, I'm not certain she had the global impact that warrants a blurb. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article is in a dozen languages. Just because a lone voter here hasn't heard of her doesn't mean most women basketball supporters haven't. — Wyliepedia 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    You missed the point. I didn't make such an assertion. I simply asked for help in understanding why this individual would be comparable to Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher or David Bowie. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    I hope you're not implying that one has to be as famous as Mandela, Thatcher, or Bowie to receive a blurb or mention.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Sunshineisles2: Yes, the bar for a blurb is high; generally a blurb for the death of a notable person is reserved for world-transforming figures, those at the tip-top of their field. Summitt was very important to her field(the criteria for an RD listing) but was not the #1 or 2 important person in basketball. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    @331dot: For the record, I do not support a blurb, but the threshold seems to be different for non-deaths -- for example, and keeping on the theme of basketball, does anyone outside the U.S. care who won the NBA finals? We should impose equally strict standards for all kinds of stories. That was my point -- it seems to me that much smaller stories than the deaths of David Bowie, Nelson Mandela, etc. are featured fairly frequently, but deaths are handled more rigorously. Just an observation.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Deaths are handled differently, to avoid turning ITN into an obituary ticker. The NBA Finals are on the recurring items list, indicating they get posted upon an adequate update. Feel free to propose its removal from the list- though 'who cares outside the US' is discouraged as an objection(see "Please do not..." above); very little would be posted if global influence was required. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, I was surprised that anyone would consider this individual for a blurb, so that's why i asked the question. It has nothing to do with other news blurbs at all, just the death ones which are rare as... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only; doesn't qualify for a blurb. Is it just me who has a serious problem with the word "winningest", by the way? Eugh. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    No, it's a grotesque construction. I remember there being a discussion to attempt to remove it from Wikipedia completely, but I guess the outcome was to tolerate it. Thankfully we won't be seeing it on the main page any time soon... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    No consensus, actually. — Wyliepedia 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - and by the way, "winningest" has been around for over two centuries.[10]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not according to a real dictionary. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only on article improvements - I can't see a blurb appropriate for this, but importance for RD is fine. However, the article has a number of (likely new) CN tags, and the Records section absolutely needs sourcing (even if it is to the same record source). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Changed the article to not say "winningest". Suggest same here. — Wyliepedia 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. The article is so comprehensive that the occasional (and in some cases really unnecessary) citation tags do not dissuade me. Oppose blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD when improved, oppose blurb Top of her field, not a blurbed death though. I added a whole bunch of {{cn}} tags when I heard she was moved into hospice care a few days ago, those need to be resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD May not have known much about her before today, but she was enough of a major/prominent figure within her own field that it seems entirely appropriate.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Clearly very important to her field, but does not warrant a blurb. I would stress that this is not a case of the female coach with the most wins; she has the most wins period. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Barack Obama's Facebook post on her passing. He's more eloquent than any of us here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Being eloquent is not part of our job as Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a place to express personal feelings or observations. --Crunch (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • If eloquence is unimportant, then why the fuss about "winningest"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Crunch: I don't think the intent was to 'be eloquent', but to demonstrate the notability of this person better than Muboshgu, I, or anyone else is doing here. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Indeed, Muboshgu was helping this nomination along a little. Your interjection is noted but entirely unwarranted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @Crunch: Indeed, my point in posting Obama's Facebook post was to demonstrate Summitt's notability and impact on her field, very much within the RD realm. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
            • @Muboshgu: Gotcha. It's often hard to tell intent in this medium. ---Crunch (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD --Crunch (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - good article, and notable person.BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    Have you looked? It has 20 [citation needed] tags as a minimum. I think we need to start discounting your opinion I'm afraid if you believe this is of sufficient quality for the main page. It's becoming systemic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • support for notability. Ill try to improve the article later tonight if necessary-- (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD All but one 'citation needed' tags have been resolved now. Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I added citations for all the of the missing citations by 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC) -- Crunch (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 21:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Article content discussions belong elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • One omission from the article is that she was originally known as "Trish". For whatever reason, the press started calling her Pat, so that became her public name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What are you suggesting about this in relation to the ITN listing? --Crunch (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Only that it should be in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
        • That would be better addressed at Talk:Pat Summitt, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I've got a citation for it, from SI. By the way, they also used the term "winningest". Sourcing is no match for some Wikipedians' English pedantry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
            • By all means improve the article, this is the part of Wikipedia where we discuss what features in the ITN section, so trivia like that belongs elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
              • I wasn't aware that a public figure's name was considered "trivia". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
                • No, but you also seem unaware that this is not the venue to discuss factoids that you have discovered, take it elsewhere in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • You get angry over such small things. I put the citation in the article a day or two ago, and dat was dat. Until you insisted on flogging it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD; Neutral on blurb, but oppose currently proposed blurb wording: "winningest" is colloquial, grammatically questionable, and not widely understood. Also, the NCAA may be the most important institution in U.S. college basketball (though not the only one), but college basketball is also played in Canada, the Philippines and probably a few more countries. Instead, I added an altblurb that I would consider acceptable. --PanchoS (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • US college basketball is a major industry. As to "winningest", what is it about that word that's unclear? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
      • "Winningest" is an informal term that is to be avoided in formal language. It is considered common in the context of sports, so on the pages about sport figures/coaches, its fine since that sets the context to make its use acceptable, but on the front page, which is not sports-related, we should avoid such informal language. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I agree it's informal. I'd just like to know how it would be misunderstood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
          • It's an Americanism. I'd be interested if you could find a single British English source that uses the word. This is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Another user said that it is "not widely understood". What would a Brit, seeing it for the first time, be confused about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Well, I can answer that. The first time I saw it, I had no idea what it meant at all. I guessed that it meant "most succesful", but it turns out it doesn't mean that at all, it just means "having won the most games". So comparing someone who had coached a team which had won 100 games and lost 500, against someone who had coached a team with 99 wins and no defeats at all, the former would be the "winningest", despite being clearly the worse coach. It's simply not an intuitive word if you live somewhere that doesn't use it; and I've never seen it used outside North American sports, so it's unsurprising that the rest of the English-speaking world would be as confused as I was. (Even more confusing, some dictionaries apparently do define it as "having the most success", which just makes the confusion worse!) Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
                • I'd like to see an example of two coaches whose career records are 100-500 and 99-0. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • Well, my example was hyperbolic, but you clearly understand my point. Here's an example from reality though; in the 1975 English football season, Ipswich Town were the "winningest" team, but finished third. Laura Jamieson (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

June 27Edit

[Posted] RD:Alvin TofflerEdit

Article: Alvin Toffler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times; The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Futurist and best-selling author, known for his book Future Shock and later works about cultural changes, technology, and the digital and communications revolution. Light show (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment is this an RD nomination or a blurb nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
RD. It seems his death got noticed later than normal. NYT on the 29th, Guardian on the 30th. Better late than never. --Light show (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD promptly. Important person and solid article. A few more references would be in order. I'm aware of the section tag but I'm not sure it is warranted so that is not a concern to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Orange tags and unreferenced paragraphs are to you a "solid" article? Whether or not you think the tag is warranted, someone did, so a discussion needs to resolve it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, oppose on quality The subject appears to meet RD criteria, but his article (orange tag, unsourced paragraphs) does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Cites and tag issue fixed. Consider re-reviewing. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, article got 238 pageviews a day in the 90 days prior to his death, 3,864 yesterday. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    So you support this RD because it's the equivalent of a poorly viewed DYK article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    It got those views without benefit of being on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    So you support this RD because it's the equivalent of a poorly viewed DYK article? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    No, I support it because unlike you I care about what interests the readership. Stop hectoring. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    Unlike me? Hilarious. You're more worried about what our editors think than what our readers think. Stop hectoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - If there were problems with sourcing or section tags, the current version appears to be fixed of those. Sufficient importance due to his body of work. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - influential and well-known person; and the article is of sufficient quality. --Fixuture (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is much improved from when I last saw it, no more synth section. Marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted one unsourced para in there, otherwise it's a nicely improved article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Whole Woman's Health v. HellerstedtEdit

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 19:18, 29 June 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: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court of the United States rules 5-3 that a restrictive Texas abortion law, which was originally enacted in 2013, is unconstitutional. (Post)
News source(s): NPR The Daily Beast Vox [11]
Nominator's comments: As the BBC notes, this is "the first major abortion ruling since 2007." CNN has also called it as "the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades." [12] Everymorning (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a shift in minor, inward-looking part of a large country, some of which appears to be amongst the backward-thinking in the world. Time to get with the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While this is a major decision regarding abortion, it is not the major decision that would end whatever debate there is, even though the decision falls more in favor of pro-choice. Since it affects only those states with laws that regulate facilities that call themselves abortion clinics, it won't have significant world-reaching impact. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting an interpretation of law(not even US law, but Texas law) that resulted in the lowest court's ruling being upheld(the appeals court had reversed, leading it to SCOTUS). 331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above. If it dealt with the entire US as opposed to an individual state, perhaps. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not needed - it's just a step in the overall process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 29 June 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] Bud SpencerEdit

Stale, four newer RDs already listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 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: Bud Spencer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Euronews)
 Jenda H. (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements Absolutely massive name in his field, but the article could use a few improvements. A list of awards would be helpful. EternalNomad (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No Objection, article received 932 pageviews a day prior to his death and 111,321 views yesterday. Abductive (reasoning) 04:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose lengthy career does not equate to significant in his field. Mostly unreferenced to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Geographical bias? -- (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough: lengthy career does not equate to significant in his field. Mostly unreferenced to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think you will have this objection about Robin Williams or any other English-speaking/Hollywood actor. I am quite sure there is systemic bias against European film (as was manifested in case of Pierre Brice). --Jenda H. (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So much to say about this. 1) Just because someone does not object Hollywood actors does not mean they have a bias. Hollywood actors are simply usually more notable. That's the biased system, not a systemic bias. 2) That being said, I disagree with TRM's notion that Spencer is not notable enough. True, he was never as famous in the US as he was in Europe, but that should not speak against him. 3) I do agree however that this article needs more work in order to get posted. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I'm more than happy to oppose Hollywood actors if their career is simply long rather significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. An absolute and significant film legend, at least in Europe. Some improvements would be good. --Clibenfoart (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Italian actor very famous across Europe (article translated in 45 language; italian and german articles were viewed by +300.000 people each). --Holapaco77 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD when improved Citations needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I and other authors have added some citations to the article during the last two days. --Clibenfoart (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment not ready, plenty of unreferenced material in there, including contradictions about his first film role, no citations for his work as a writer, unsourced quotation, and a few other claims with cites. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Just post it already. I didn't know that linked articles in ITN needed to have featured status. Isn't the point of the main page to invite editors to improve articles as well? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Not according to some. Some feel that it is only to showcase flawless articles. I think ITN should showcase recent important events and to encourage a mass of editing to the topic, which often causes the flaws to be fixed within minutes. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
        • See WP:BLP. And instead of wasting your time bitching about it here, why not expend that effort fixing the issues on the page itself? Win-win. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 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] Copa América CentenarioEdit

The summary never came. Stephen 05:54, 4 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: Copa América Centenario (talk, history) and Copa América Centenario Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In football, Chile defeats Argentina to win the Copa América Centenario. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Chile defeats Argentina in a penalty shootout for the second year in a row in the Copa América Centenario finals.
Alternative blurb II: ​In association football, Chile defeats Argentina to win the Copa América Centenario.
News source(s):

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are 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: Final of the tournament took place. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Its deja vu all over again".
Update blurb to link to main article.Lihaas (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there's a match summary, at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it be good to add the retirement of Lionel Messi from international football after the match? SounderBruce 05:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mention of Messi's retirement or otherwise, this ITNR blurb is for the Copa only. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wouldn't Copa América Centenario Final be the better target article? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added another ALT blurb. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I also strongly support a blurb mentioning Messi's retirement from the national team, as this is substantially bigger news in the media than the conclusion of the tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but no mention of Messi. He can unretire. Nergaal (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ +1. Don't forget that Paul Scholes unretired from professional football altogether, never mind solely from international '''tAD''' (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. See what was posted last year as an example of a prose match summary. Fuebaey (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until there is at least a decent match summary. --PanchoS (talk) 14:55, 29 June 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.

June 26Edit

Expanded Panama Canal opensEdit

Article: Panama Canal expansion project (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The expanded Panama Canal opens after a $4.5 billion expansion allowing larger ships called New Panamax to use it. (Post)
News source(s): (Los Angeles Times), (The Atlantic)

 Bruzaholm (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as a major event that will directly if discreetly affect most people in the world. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd like to see quite a few more updates (retrospective on the construction phase, updated cost estimations, inauguration event, reactions, operating concept, contemporary role in shipping, estimations about future utilization), this is a major project, not quite comparable to the Gotthard Base Tunnel by extent, but of roughly comparable importance to the transportation industry. --PanchoS (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support though I note the "Cargo volume" section has an OR tag on it and only sourced to the prosopal document for the expansion, which should be fixed up with more sources. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the article is not written as an accessible encyclopedic article, worst of all it has already been tagged with original research, I would suggest those who have already supported it without doing anything about this get to fixing it if they really care, right now this is going nowhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with TRM, this is not postable in its current state. Better get on it quickly, since this is going stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Spanish general electionEdit

Article: Spanish general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: A repeat general election fails to break the political stalemate in Spain. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Conservative People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), gains the most seats in the Spanish repeat election but remains short of a majority.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Deutsche Welle, Daily Mail

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.

 PanchoS (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • support - a general election is always notable. and so is this one.BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – obviously details are still emerging so I would not expect a completed section. But we need some text about the result, indeed this is particularly important given that the result is a hung parliament. The build-up in the article seems very good at a superficial glance, but the actual update that we're looking to post lets it down a bit. As a side point, yet again we have an election article nominated by someone who nominated an ITNR before ever having made a substantive edit, and indeed before the event could possibly have been updated. So we weren't judging notability (because we didn't need to, notability is automatic as it's on ITNR) we weren't judging quality (because it was literally impossible to, without an update or any results to go on). What on earth were we supposed to judge, and what on earth was BabbaQ supporting? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't think insisting on article editors nominating their own articles would be a wise move. But spare us your spiteful, laconic comments which don't seem to contribute to a factual debate. Anyway, Impru20 is the one who deserves honour for the election's comprehensive coverage, not me. --PanchoS (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing the point. It's ITNR so all we have to review is the quality of the article and any update. If there is no such update when an article is nominated, expect a bunch of criticism as it's a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. For normal ITN nominations I do not expect the nominator to have contributed or the article to be fully ready, because importance is part of the discussion and raising the discussion can help with improvements to the article. For ITNR, if an article is patently not ready to be nominated (for instance an election or sport result isn't known), then ideally it shouldn't be nominated at all. But at a bare minimum, if someone insists on nominating, they should have been actively involved in the prep work – this gives reviewers confidence that the work will be completed in a timely manner. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You may expect whatever you wish, but as long as these are just your personal expectations, there's no point in getting nasty. Disagree in regard to ITNR nominations in general, and this article in particular – it's preferable for a discussion to run at least half a day or so, and to do so it has to be nominated early enough. Now let's get back on topic. --PanchoS (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You may disagree but you'd be wrong. We can't assess an ITNR unless been updated. Now what BabbaQ was supporting is a complete mystery. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If having a differing opinion makes someone "wrong", is the suggestion to do away with consensus and proscribe unwritten ITN rules instead? I'd like to think that the posting admin can a) read and b) ignore comments that don't apply to the nomination. @StillWaitingForConnection: If the proposal is to change ITN's subjective update requirement and have some minimum amount of prose for ITNR before nominating, feel free to start a discussion on WT:ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not subjective to state – categorically – that a prerequisite to evaluating an update on a story for which there is a pre-consensus (ITNR), is that said news has happened. It is not an opinion to state that the minimum requirement for an update is that an update of some form exists.

    But you know what? I will offer an opinion of direct relevance to this nomination. The nominator is directly responsible for harming ITN by ignoring both of the above obvious points with this nomination, and is far from alone in having done so in recent days. If this had been nominated after a tenable update were in place, it would have been up on the Main Page within a couple of hours of nomination, and certainly before now. Instead, people have spent their precious time looking through an article which couldn't possibly have been posted, because the event itself had not happened, and as a result they now do not have a clue when they should be looking at it. I don't have a clue – nobody has stated on this page whether it's worth having a second look. I've already wasted my time twice – once by looking at the article before the outcome was even known, the second after the result was known to see if there was an update, which there wasn't. I am not inclined to look again until I'm reasonably confident that a look at the article would actually be worthwhile, and am certain that I'm not alone. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • You seem to be under the impression that ITN nominations are laudatory badges. I see nominations as a way to improve articles, while drawing attention to current news events. I prefer it when someone else nominates an item that interests me - if I get time I improve it, if not hopefully someone else will. Instead of placing the onus on someone else for a change, why don't you step up instead of writing a paragraph essay on something that had an infobox update at the time of nomination, a paragraph update by Ritchie333 and myself, and an expanded edit from the editor who wrote practically the entire article. Fuebaey (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That assessment is both factually dishonest (none of what you reference had happened at time of nomination), entirely proves my point (in 24 hours there has been some work done, but relatively little because there was nothing to base an assessment on in the first place, notably the article has not been posted) and a personal attack on my decision to primarily focus on reviewing content. Bravo. I do however thank you for drawing attention to the fact that the article is now worth looking at. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That is untrue. The first revision was clearly made at 21:07 UTC 26th, a good half hour before this nom showed up. I did not state that the other diffs were made prior to that, else I would have placed "at the time of nomination" at the end of the sentence. My point was that these edits were made prior to your comment at 22:27 UTC 27th, showing that instead of reading an article and assessing it you chose to complain about something that wasn't relevant to this nom. I think that is more disruptive than what you're purporting to claim. I don't understand what the rest of your post is referring to. I also note that your comment below was made five minutes after I sourced the second paragraph and that "wins" hasn't been in the alt blurb for almost 10 hours. Fuebaey (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems like once again a single participant, possibly two, have taken ITN hostage in an unconstructive, WP:POINTY way. More specifically, the timely promotion of one of the better election articles we've seen in the last months, a major event in a major country and unquestionably qualified per WP:ITN/R, with the proposed blurb being widely backed by WP:RS, has been obstructed. Not having it promoted to ITN in time, following a number of far more questionable ITN entries, has not only been unfair to the event, to Spain, and to the article. More importantly, it didn't exactly serve our project well.
    But it's not some individuals' questionable interventions what is at the core of the problem. Rather it is the fact that everybody else seems to be shying away from getting involved in a controversy. Promoting good cooperation doesn't mean avoiding conflict. If we don't collectively restore order soon, we might see further declining participation here, particularly of experienced participants, which would seriously jeopardize ITN.
    At the same time, our policies may always be refined. Some rules and procedures might have to be stricter, with some of the current proposals at WT:ITN being at least worth considering. But this is not the place for anyone to illustrate their WP:POINT. --PanchoS (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose on the result, like StillWaitingForConnection, bemused as to the support of BabbaQ, perhaps he is unaware of the ITNR status of this kind of nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until results are properly announced. Then change the blurb to reflect the result. Then I'd support. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on improvements after Brexit, this is the big story in Europe. However, the article does list the winner in the lead, and there is not enough about this in the body with good sources, so the nomination will need to wait until it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The event here is the election (second election in six months), not simply the result (more or less status quo). The background, pre-election and campaign sections (20+ paragraphs) are more than enough prose for me. Kudos to Impru20 for expanding this. Fuebaey (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Large parts of the update are unsourced, and neither blurb seems postable without alteration. "Stalemate" implies that there will be no political breakthrough (strong statement to make), and "wins" does not seem to accurately reflect a situation in which the largest party is in a minority. To remedy this element, I would suggest that an alt blurb mentions the party which has won a plurality, and possibly a reference to the fact that it's a similar situation to the previous election. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support When something is actually in the news, it is sensible to nominate it as this alerts editors to the issue. Readers will be reading the article regardless, as you can see in this case:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talkcontribs) 11:20, 28 June 2016‎ (UTC)

  • Marked as ready. Has been updated and sourced. I don't see anything still valid in the oppose !votes. Fuebaey (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted please save the graphs for elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting question: Shouldn't the word "The" be added at the beginning of the hook? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    You tell me. Most Yanks don't bother, us Limeys prefer it. This is a Spanish blurb. In any case, please read the instructions regarding the reporting of possible errors with ITN items. The cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Dan DanielEdit

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 19:16, 29 June 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: Dan Daniel (radio personality) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of the Good GuysAndrew D. (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Nearly Stale, run of the mill DJ who died June 21. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quality is poor. Not sure he meets the RD criteria because they're so subjective (and should be repealed) but they're still in place so... – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant, poor quality, stale. Three sides of the "no" triangle complete. Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that there's only one RD listed currently (Anton Yelchin). That person died on June 19 while this candidate died on June 21. The comments about staleness therefore don't seem appropriate. The other issues don't seem to make much sense either. It seems quite silly that ITN is so empty currently -- one RD and no ongoing events. It gives the impression that it's ITN which is dead. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Article quality absolutely matters. As to the "significance", I agree, but that's an issue to take up at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed, if the quality was better, under trial conditions it would almost certainly be posted because we're down to zero RDs (although many ITN users prefer to see it that way rather than include individuals like this). The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing a significant quality problem as there are plenty of citations and no cleanup tags. Some specifics are required to address this issue, please. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Well if this individual is deemed to be notable under the current ITN criteria, the biography needs expansion, it's barely above stub quality, and I'm not seeing any major awards or attributions of him being significant in his field. His bio reads as "just another DJ". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This article, this specific article, precisely why the trial criteria will not work. The article, stubby and parochial as it is, simply and utterly lacks the importance to be posted on the main page. Yet due to the limited scope, it will be impossible to improve the article's quality to any more than it already has, so technically under the trial criteria it's all ready to be posted to the main page. It's fully referenced. It even has a picture. Why would we endeavor to post articles of local radio personalities - not even a nationally syndicated one - amidst professors, politicians, and even athletes of exponentially more importance? And this has nothing to do with him being American, it's a simple question of why are we pushing to introduce criteria that will not improve Wikipedia in the long run? It's agitating. (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    If the individual is simply a "local radio personality", perhaps he shouldn't have an article at all. If he's notable enough for an article, he's notable enough for the main page, see DYK and OTD for numerous examples every day like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that there are no significant quality issues but that this subject is being opposed because he wasn't a superstar. Opposing such subjects because of their level of fame might make sense if there was a surfeit of candidates but right now there is still only one RD entry on the main page and so it looks rather empty. I shall be supporting the trial criteria as it seems we need everything we can get and so shouldn't be raising unnecessary barriers. Andrew D. (talk) 07:45, 28 June 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: Bill CunninghamEdit

Article: Bill Cunningham (American photographer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, ABC News

Nominator's comments: Renowned fashion/street photographer. Samuel Wiki (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – notable fashion photographer, with a good article that's well-referenced. Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to have been important. Article received 229 pageviews a day over the 90 days before his death. Abductive (reasoning) 16:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suppoert Quality seems pretty good, and he seems important enough in the field of photography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - good article about important person.BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment if the lead could be expanded a touch by someone familiar with the subject, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support good enough article, person is clearly well-known in their field. Better lead would be good though. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25Edit

[Posted] Iceland electionEdit

Article: Icelandic presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Guðni Thorlacius Jóhannesson is elected president of Iceland. (Post)
News source(s): TOI

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: Voting is today. So results not far. Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That is why we DISCUSS problems before posting sub-standard un-updated articles (which has happened)Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose typically premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You know, it's not a massive honor to be the nominator of an article if the article is in substandard condition. Oppose until more prose is added.--WaltCip (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Walt, you could sum this up as an opprose vote. Sca (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ironic typo, quite rude, I'd fix that if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficiently updated and ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No it's not, there is an unsourced paragraph that needs to be fixed first. @Lihaas:, you didn't succeed at getting this article improved through the attention of nominating it early. You inadvertently buried it under the other noms. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually that would be a single unsourced sentence that could be removed if it's that big of a deal (it isn't). Marked ready. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - INTR, article is sufficiently sourced. Suggest posting now per Floydian. Jusdafax 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted at last. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

June 24Edit

[Posted] 2016 West Virginia floodEdit

Article: 2016 West Virginia flood (talk, history)
Blurb: Flash flooding in West Virginia kills at least 26 people. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today CNN

Nominator's comments: High death toll, lots of media coverage, and the Guardian reports that these are the state's "worst floods in a century". [13] Everymorning (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – Major disaster with significant loss of life; deadliest non-hurricane flood event in the United States since 2010 and deadliest in West Virginia since 1985 (third deadliest on record in the state). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per Cyclonebiskit. This has been deadlier than the Europe floods, which we posted. (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons listed above. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted and well done on half-decent article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - shouldn't the country be included in the blurb? It reads very USA-centric as it stands. Adpete (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Global stock market fallsEdit

Non-admin closure. Clearly against consensus (for now).Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 25 June 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: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Economic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Global stock markets experience large falls following the UK EU referendum. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union causes sharp declines in the pound sterling and in global stock markets.
News source(s): Guardian, Telegraph, Bloomberg

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Might get a bit wordy to merge these blurbs, but this is the biggest global stock market crash since the 2008 financial crisis. Seems notable by any metric. Smurrayinchester 07:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge - this is a direct consequence of the Leave vote. Banedon (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the bold article barely touches on "global stock market crash". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait purely to give time for the scale and context of this to sink in before we discuss it. This has the makings of a story every bit as big as the referendum and Cameron's resignation, but is far behind those two in terms of editing, and unlike the other two is still a developing situation. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Wait. Right now the shock is directly a response to the Brexit vote. As long as that remains true, I oppose posting an additional / merged blurb focusing on the markets. If and only if the market collapse takes on some sort of a longer-term life of its own (for example triggering disproportionate losses in unexpected places, bankruptcies of large firms, or things like that) would I think the markets deserve their own story. Dragons flight (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Wait per Dragons flight. Sterling has plunged, but then recovered about half its losses within an hour or two. If the markets do likewise, this is a much smaller story than if they maintain their losses. GoldenRing (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let us not give credence to knee-jerk speculation.--WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. If this is sustained downturn or with domino effects, there's probably a separate story, but market instability after a significant global-economical event like brexit is nothing new and was expected. --MASEM (t) 12:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Wait – Developing. FTSE, after dropping 8 percent, closed down 5 percent. New York futures were down 2.8 percent an hour before opening bell. Sca (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the target article is already blurbed for its main result. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Change Brexit blurb. Make it "global stock markets in turmoil as Brexiteers celebrate". Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"Turmoil" seems a bit strong. NYSE was off a comparatively modest 2.7 percent on moderate volume at 16:40 (with three hours to go). Sca (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Like I said, this is all speculative response so far. A global crash is several days, or weeks (or months) in the making.--WaltCip (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
OTOH, by close, Dow had slumped 3.4 percent, so that's fairly serious. (Rue Britannia!) Sca (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Iblis is playing with us, that's not a serious suggestion folks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. A more serious suggestion would be "Global markets have a spot of bother after old Blighty votes to say 'cheers' to the European Union." And, it's ENGVAR-appropriate.--WaltCip (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Close? I've had a think about this, and came to the conclusion that if there is a sustained downturn as a result of Brexit, an article will eventually emerge. The falls were severe and the rallies were (by normal standards) huge, albeit not as large as the falls. It's simply too soon to say that this is a big story or indeed that it isn't. The only thing that can be said for sure is that if it gets worse, it will remain in the news, so we won't miss our opportunity to post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Close - Per SWFC, the declines are not notable yet. Blythwood (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider a merge with the Brexit blurb, though a decent separate article about the economic ramifications would be helpful. --PanchoS (talk) 23:23, 24 June 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.

[Merged] David Cameron resignsEdit

Article: David Cameron (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announces his resignation after the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Following the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, British Prime Mininster David Cameron announces his intention to resign by October.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announces his intention to resign.
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Leader of a major democracy resigns. What a day! yorkshiresky (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support or merge with existing blurb. Have corrected the quote a bit - he has announced that he will resign, but he doesn't step down until the leadership contest to replace him is finished. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest merge. Updated blurb on this one — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is premature. He announced that he will stand down at some point to be decided (before October).... but not yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't support this as a stand-alone, but as it's directly related to the referendum I think connecting it to the existing blurb is justified. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see your point r.e. the wording. Would suggest "announces he is to resign". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Andy M. Wang's update to the existing blurb given the clear connection between the two. Would not support a separate posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1. I added this blurb to combine with the referendum result already posted. A major consequence of the vote. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

*Merge - this is a direct consequence of the Leave vote. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Pull - can't believe I'm saying this (the bias is real), but I realized that in April this year we didn't post Ukraine PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk announcing that he will resign. Consensus then was that we should wait until he actually does resign, because actions speak louder than words. In the interest of consistency then, we should also not post David Cameron resigning until he actually does. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Eh? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Believe it [14]. I can easily imagine "In June - he announced his resignation, saying he will formally do so In October. In November, he's still PM". Banedon (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a subtle difference here – the story which directly led to Cameron's announcement was posted. Hence the difference between something which nearly achieved consensus, and something which did achieve consensus. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that's the optimistic way to look at it. The pessimistic way is to think the bias is real in all of us (including me, considering I supported merging the blurbs with nary a thought). Banedon (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it, for another country, we might have said "wait until the country actually leaves the EU to post"! Banedon (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merged blurb. Obviously the two are inextricably linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merged. Cameron's article is better quality than the actual EU ref one, so no problems there. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reconsider, please. The Brexit referendum clearly remains the main event, Cameron's announced intention to resign being only of secondary notablility. Therefore, the results map is more relevant than Cameron's photo. --PanchoS (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Concurring with PanchoS. Banedon (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • A map means little on the main page, especially given that we can't include a legend with it. It will just be a map of the UK (and Gibraltar) flecked with random yellow and blue patches (other problems with using a map - it's not proportional, so very remote areas like countryside and Scottish Highlands overrepresented while cities under represented; because it's a referendum not an election, a constituency-by-constituency map is misleading (since twice as many counting areas went leave as went remain, but leads in many of these were small); and because we can't show turnout, vote percentage is misleading too (a 50% Remain lead in East Renfrewshire contributed less to the final result than a 10% Leave lead in Cornwall). Cameron is an internationally recognizable face, and having him there brings attention to the hugeness of the story. Smurrayinchester 09:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Concur with Smurrayinchester. Brexit may be the bigger of the two stories, but what on earth is a 100px constituency map going to convey to the reader? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please don't take it personal, but that's ridiculous. You're talking common sense? IMO, common sense would be that Cameron, who lost control amidst his own political gamble and was played off by Farage & Johnson, and who continues in office as a lame-duck caretaker, is not the more relevant image than a decent map depicting the results of a historic referendum that is in the news worldwide. Even that particular map is in the news more or less worldwide. --PanchoS (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nope, it's far from ridiculous. Ridiculous would be to use a map that is so small that nobody can make anything out of it. It's fine as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Support Alternative blurb 1. "I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months، but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination. This is not a decision I have taken lightly، but I do believe it is in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required. There is no need for a precise timetable today، but in my view we should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the Conservative Party conference in October." This is premature. He announced that he will stand down at some point to be decided... but not yet. Would suggest "announces he is to resign", & so actually the results map or even Nigel Farage's photo is more relevant than Cameron's photo, then. KhabarNegar Talk 21:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not at all, we're talking about the resignation of the most powerful (former) member of the EU, so it's fine. By October. Simple as that. We'll run another story when he's replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Re Farage. While I am not going to bother quantifying the level of influence UKIP alone (as opposed to Tory backbenchers) had in GE2015 to force Cameron to pledge this In/Out Referendum, there is no mistaking that the Centre-right/Right's three most prominent figures in the Leave campaign were Boris Johnson, Gove, and Farage, not Farage alone. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think he announces his intention to resign by October, we should give news as they are, and not our understanding, his words was exactly equal to "announces his intention to resign by October". Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 08:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in the face of the "pull" comment above. It's patently obvious that a small shift in the blurb to include Cameron's resignation is perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I've also managed to upload an image from the resignation speech onto commons if required here: File:David cameron annouces resignation.png Miyagawa (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    Cool, good work, I've replace the standard one with the one you suggested. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Stonewall National MonumentEdit

Article: Stonewall National Monument (talk, history)
Blurb: President of the United States Barack Obama designated the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, making it the United States' first National Monument designated for an LGBT historic site. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, ABC News, Time

Nominator's comments: Designation of first U.S. National Monument focused on LGBT history. President's announcement made during LGBT pride monthBrianga (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose AFAIK we don't post any designation of a national monument in any country, let alone an LGBT monument in the US. Brandmeistertalk 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose hard to see this as being of sufficient international impact for posting I'm afraid. Banedon (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23Edit

RD: Ralph StanleyEdit

Article: Ralph Stanley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Nominator's comments: One of the founding fathers of bluegrass music. No-brainer. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on notability and newsworthiness. Jusdafax 05:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Lacks citations for many statements and also is written in an "unencyclopedic" style - what does "throw in with his older brother" mean for example? Needs to be re-written in standard English. 11:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't that an example of systemic bias on your part? Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would imagine it is more of an example of someone requesting an article to be written encyclopedically. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, article got 263 pageviews a day in the 90 days prior to his death. Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Still a crap article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, then I support if anybody improves it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    They didn't. Nor did any of the supporters. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Jiangsu tornadoEdit

Article: 2016 Jiangsu tornado (talk, history)
Blurb: A tornado kills at least 98 people and injures approximately 800 others in Jiangsu Province, China (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated

 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Can't support this – yet – due to article comprehensiveness. Leaning towards support on significance depending on how coverage goes. But for context, if this list can be relied upon, the deadliest tornado in the 21st century caused 162 deaths, and (again assuming the list can be relied upon) no other tornado in the 21st century has caused over 100 deaths. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because Cyclonebiskit is an expert on meteorology and I trust his or her judgment. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits as a rare event, with significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support – article is a bit short for my personal tastes, but is well-written and referenced. This passes the significance bar given international coverage and the rarity of a tornado causing this many casualties. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with current article state, but that said, two things that would be helpful to add would be the strength of the torando if that is something known or estimated, and (if I understand correctly) that such torandoes in that part of the world are a rare event? --MASEM (t) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Masem: It's iffy if we'll get an official rating on the tornado, I have no idea if Chinese meteorologists are trained to know the Enhanced Fujita Scale, but if it's of interest the damage pictures I've seen appear to be in the EF3 or EF4 range. Regarding rarity, I'm getting mixed signals on that from sources. Some say tornadoes in China are rare, others say they're common, especially in Jiangsu. In lieu of a coherent message at the moment, I opted to not include that detail. But what is universally considered uncommon is the destruction and loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • That's why I'm not against posting this at the current state. I did see a wind speed number which I added to the article. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (longtime editor, shared network). It's now also on the front page of Baidu Baike. Probably the deadliest tornado in China's history. Tornadoes do occasionally happen in Eastern and Southern China, but deadly tornadoes (along with the massive hailstorm that accompanied this Yancheng tornado) are uncommon. (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready (am guessing that approximately 100% of would-be posting admins are watching the discussion below). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

RD: John AsheEdit

Article: John William Ashe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu[Financial Express

Nominator's comments: Former head of the UNGA just a few years ago and died amid graft scandals. Circumstances add a little more intrigue but he was also "top of his field" Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose; article has an orange clean-up tag. Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
So does the below/. BUt on merit?Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Impossible to say based on merit. After the trial ended, nobody seems to know what constitutes "notable" anymore.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is poorly formed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. How does this person meet the RD criteria? 331dot (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Being a former President of the UN General Assembly is a decent argument for being at the top of his field, which would therefore meet the RD criteria. However... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to oppose but the UNGA has very little power and I doubt most people in the world could name who its head is. Perhaps he is important in his field, I don't know. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] BrexitEdit

further comments should go on errors page if necessary μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 26 June 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: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In a referendum, the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the "Brexit" referendum, the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union.
Nominator's comments: Not ITNR but clearly all over the news. Hottest topic around for eons. Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
collapsing extremely long discussion for convenience sake
  • Support on significance - goes without saying, although I would bold "opts to leave / remain" instead of "opts". Banedon (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Done.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Support original blurb as the best-worded of the three blurbs. Banedon (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as obviously significant. Surely the options should be "leave" and "remain within" though? Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is not much point talking about this now. Obviously noteworthy if the articles are up to scratch. Have tweaked the blurb. Smurrayinchester 09:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
But theres a tag n the article. That's why brought it up for attention to clean it up over the next few hours.Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The POV tag appears to mainly be one editor complaining that the "Responses" section is heavily skewed in favour of "Remain", but failing to accept that is because the responses from notable people/businesses/countries have been mostly in favour. I suspect that tag could be removed without any major issue. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Frankly I can't see that situation being resolved quickly. The whole thing is, after all, controversial. But it would be ridiculous not to post this. As a tentative toe-in-the-water, how would people feel about IAR and bold an article with an orange POV tag, if it came to that? GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not really as controversial as the editor who placed the tag is saying (who is presumably saying that the article is meant to sway people's votes). The article isn't POV in the sense that it backs one side or the other, it's purely weight of material. And also, surely, after the polls close, the second issue is somewhat irrelevant. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment should be "votes to" and ought to mention the referendum explicitly as it's not like the UK suddenly upped and left/stayed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support very significant event for all of Europe. Added alt blurb for clarity. The voting is done by the people in Britain, not by some of its legislative bodies. That part is yet to come. w.carter-Talk 10:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
All ITNR elections are the same (except some heads of state), we don't mention "voters".Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lihaas: this is not an election though. It is a referendum, so therefore different wording can be justified. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Im glad someone sees the fact. Frustrations with MSM calling it an election today...;(Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb, which I tweaked slightly. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt blurb. Citizens of the United Kingdom is meaningless and unnecessary. You can vote in the referendum if you are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, but only if you register in advance. If you are a British citizen who lives outside of the UK you can vote only if you have been away for less than 15 years. Gibraltar is also included in the referendum as the only British territory also within Europe, but residents of, for example, Bermuda cannot vote although they are legally British citizens. See British nationality law. In short the franchise is complicated, and should be left out of the blurb. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Correct. Have changed the blurb. Smurrayinchester 13:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, only that with out the "referrendum" language, the first blurb now is not clear if this was a choice by the citizens (or those registered to vote) or by the government. Stating that the citizens chose to stay/leave clarifies this without having to click through the blue link. While the term is nuanced as the IP outlines, the implication is still important. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not a whole lot of point in nominating this yet since the reaction to this vote will explode shortly after the results of the vote, which means it will need widespread editor attention before it can be safely posted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the blurb can be posted as soon as the result is known. This will be a fast moving story, but having it on MP means there will be a lot more eyes on it, thus helping the article's overall improvement. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In theory, that's correct. However, in practice, we have always shied away from posting articles if they are not fully referenced and in otherwise good quality.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's why I nominated it early. The orange tag needs to be corrected.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Once the votes are counted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, once the result is called by WP:RS (don't necessarily have to wait until the official final result).
    Either way, this will be a hugely significant and consequential decision, and will be massively covered worldwide. Added an altblurb2 that promotes both the referendum and the actual consequences. We may use the "Brexit" moniker which by known is known across the world and, while colloquial, is non-partisan. We may also paraphrase or reword it, but I think we don't have to resort to the language of the bureaucracy but can use WP:COMMONNAME. --PanchoS (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure either of the altblurb2s is appropriate. The renegotiation already took place (although some parts only go into effect with a Remain vote) and voting Leave won't automatically trigger withdrawal (nor is it clear what form that withdrawal would take). Smurrayinchester 13:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Please, somebody take care we have an acceptable photo by then! --PanchoS (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Of what, a polling station? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I could take a photo of my polling station tonight when I go to vote. It would however be one of the most boring photos ever to appear on the main page. If only this were my polling station... Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose we could use an EU or UK flag, though doing that is probably less interesting than the typical image choice. Dragons flight (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Added a map highlighting the UK within the EU. Happy to see it replaced by a better image, but this would still be much better than none, and better than one or the other flag. --PanchoS (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We could use pictures of David Cameron (as PM and most prominent Remain campaigner) or Boris Johnson (as most prominent Leave campaigner and probable next PM in event of Leave vote). Smurrayinchester 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We could, but how would narrowing the Remain resp. Leave camp down to a single, partisan personality meet WP:NPOV? A photo of non-partisan campaigners would work, or Remain/Leave posters (per Threshold of originality (UK)). --PanchoS (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cameron would be fine for "remain", unless somebody can cobble up a montage with Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon (as the leaders of the three most prominent UK political parties, the latter two of which are far strongly balanced towards "remain"). I would say Nigel Farage is perhaps a more suitable "leave" picture, although Boris has been strongly campaigning, Farage is far more associated with all things anti-EU, is leader of the most prominent straight "leave" party, and in terms of political careers, an MEP and MP are about equal. I don't think it is particularly POV to link him to leaving the EU. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • How about a picture of a voting slip? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • How about a picture of a dog outside the polling booth? In the absence of any kittens, that'll have to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support either result once the article is updated to reflect the result. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (wait) – No-brainer. Sca (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (wait) - Frankly I would have posted a blurb that said Britain was voting (without image, without result) now, but if blurb with the result is felt to be better, then I would say that the first admin on the block after the result is formally declared and a reliable source verifying it is put in the article gets to do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I considered that but itll never pass consensus.Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)q
  • I think that we can all likely agree that this merits posting; we just need to wait for a quality update. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW- the attack in a cinema in Germany tonight bears more in relation to Brexit!Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Er, how do you figure that? I can see nothing in the news giving any motive for the attack yet, and in any case, what's it got to do with UK politics? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I will be watching coverage on my laptop, if I am awake and compos mentis enough to edit Wikipedia, and am quick enough on the copy and paste from BBC News, I'll do it, but I will happily bet some IP who doesn't care about getting {{cite news}} formatted just so will beat me to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems we have consensus to support either way, whether it's Leave or Remain that wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. But article is not so good yet.Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the article is cleaned up Okay, I was concerned about the tag on the article (doesn't that prevent it from getting through ITNC?) so I have had a proper look at it now, and there is a major problem with focus. Since it's not a good article, it's not particularly required to be focused beyond the basic NPOV policy, though it would be good if it was. I have trimmed out what seems to blatant WP:NOTNEWS but I feel like I'm using a sledgehammer to crack a nut ... anyway, as it is the article doesn't show Wikipedia in a good light, people have just lumped on news without any coherent editing structure to keep it in a manageable state. The "Responses" section is too long, and the list of "Debates", all of which are now in the past, needs restructuring. There is no way on earth I could do all that single handedly today - I wonder if we could do it as a team? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: There was an editathon about this in May and so you could try notifying the editors involved to see if they want to follow-up. If the result is close, as seems likely, then the aftermath could go on for some time as there might still be lots of uncertainty. If there's a majority for leave, then it might warrant an Ongoing entry. Anyway, my vote is in and we shall see soon enough ... Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First results not expected until after midnight UTC, with final verdict due in the early-morning hours. Sca (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You call that a clock? This is a clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How about this? Sca (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No, this is a clock. (to scale) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious support on significance. Will give a view on how the article's quality looks closer to the result – would be a waste of time to evaluate quality now because obviously it's going to change a lot in the next six to eight hours. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What text am I supposed to assess the quality of, since the results aren't in yet?--Jayron32 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post an appropriate burb immediately. It is in the news right now, Sunderland has voted to leave by a much larger margin than expected causing the British Pound to nosedive. Count Iblis (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - it is possible the result will be called by the news media (based on turnout figures showing the margin needed for victory) a few hours before the official announcement at 7am BST. Maybe some discussion would help now of whether to wait for the official announcement (best, IMO). Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 • Wait for official word. Sca (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to posting a story acknowledging the referendum now. But the question I presume you're asking is when we should update that story to reflect the outcome, and that's very simple. We wait for the official result. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The official announcement that Hillary is elected president will be made on January 6th 2017 after a meeting held at 1:00 pm in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives during which the electoral votes are counted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A&O. Sca (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The convoluted nature and speed of that process bears no relation to the straightforward nature and speed of this one. If you can't wait an hour or so from when you think you know to when you know you know, you're on the wrong site. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The people who are trading on the currency exchange markets are not going to sleep today. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
And if they stayed awake from the U.S. Election until January 6th 2017, the world would be a better place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with no second thoughts. No matter the outcome, this is huge, and of worldwide concern. LjL (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (wait) (original blurb) for reasons discussed. All major institutions now calling for Leave. Joshua Garner (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (wait) with preference for the original blurb. Notability is clear and straightforward regardless of the outcome, but there's no need to rush this before the results are confirmed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously this was nominated way too early (I don't know why people insist on doing that) since we're still hours away from a final result. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (They do it because they can't resist the lure of the shiny talk page credit. And because no-one will block them. They probably should be blocked because a premature nomination delays the emergence of consensus and is therefore disruptive to the ITN process). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Tracker: Sca (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Query: Gibraltar is also voting, but as a district of the total vote. Gibraltar is not in the UK, it is a British colony which is part of the EU, instead of the Channel Islands which are colonies outside the EU. It's 40,000 people on a square-mile rock, but we must be fair and include them, especially seeing the international tiff that will happen should it be made to exit. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, once results are completely tallied. This is a major news story. Nakon 03:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2, oppose others with reasons pointed out by The Almightey Drill. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Post blurb now, update it after results Sherenk1 (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Go US dollar! And what am I supposed to do with that? I live in the US! Buy slightly cheaper imports? I should've opened a forex account and made a killing! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • BBC is projecting Leave will win.331dot (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, multiple reliable sources are reporting that Leave won and this is of clear international importance. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Alt 2 looks best, and I think it's postable now. Jusdafax 04:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, though would suggest we post only when Leave hits the mathematical winning line. Otherwise we are needlessly posting a blurb with caveats such as "projected" or "on-course to win" (or choosing to state something as a fact before it is a fact). Would prefer original blurb. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Immediate Posting The first blurb looks good but any of the others will work. This is one of the most significant geopolitical events in decades and we need to get this up. It is impossible to imagine this will be a controversial ITN post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We post the facts, as and when they happen. The reliable sources are using the word "projection", therefore if we post immediately we should also use it. The currently proposed blurbs will become valid in about 30 minutes. Or we could spend 30 minutes debating which needless caveats to use, by which time they will have become immediately redundant. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
14 districts and 373,532 for Leave to win.
Ole, Ole, Ole...freedom and anarchy is one step closer!Lihaas (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case either a) the election is bent or b) you don't know what you are talking about. BBC, ITV are basing their result on projected turnouts. How many people voted exactly, Lihaas? Don't bother to wait until the official results come out. 3142 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the most significant events in the UK since they joined the EU. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support immediate posting of blurb. — Crumpled Firecontribs 04:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Danger! Danger! High Voltage! I strongly advise a little caution here. For a start as has been noted some arguments are based on projected rather than announced or mathematically certain results so posting would be premature, The second point is more for posting admins: it is only an advisory referendum and not legally binding. A blurb along the "vote to leave" lines is valid but the posting admin needs to be very careful when taking it upon themselves to redraft the blurb. 3142 (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
comment Good point, I added it ot the original blurb (like Holland's Ukraine referendum that was violated.).Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait - the official result is the only one that counts. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
comment officially and mathematically LEAVE has one.
Albeit the article should be presentableLihaas (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. SSTflyer 05:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support immediate posting. EU referendum: UK votes to leave in historic referendum. Time to post the headline. Seansmccullough (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • There's still 4 results they're waiting for. The point to post is "Once every region is complete, the chief counting officer, Jenny Watson, who is chairwoman of the Electoral Commission, will announce the official referendum result from count HQ in Manchester." --MASEM (t) 05:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Best to post now, as by the time the official results are announced there will be other news to report about due to the fallout of the result that may make the present blurb inappropriate. At this time a blurb saying "EU in shock at Brexit vote result" looks already far more appropriate given the large number of reactions of EU parliament members. Count Iblis (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already voted to support posting, however I strongly oppose the rewording to include the word advisory. The UK has voted to leave - that is a factually correct statement whether the UK goes on to leave or not. By putting in the word "advisory", Wikipedia would be seen as taking a political position on the matter. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready, all results now in. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted original blurb. The chief counting officer have announced the result. The article have been updated with the result. -- KTC (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cameron has resigned as PM. Sceptre (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    More precisely he has said he intends to leave and wants a new PM to be in place by October. He will remain in charge for the next few months. Dragons flight (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He said: "the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. I will do everthing I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months. But I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination. This is not a decision I have taken lightly. But I do believe it’s in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required. There is no need for a precise timetable today. But in my view we should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the Conservative party conference in October." --PanchoS (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
United Kingdom and the European Union
  • Now someone please post an image for this historic event – for now either the map proposed above, or the resultsgeneric map to the right. Can't believe we still have the NBA finals featured, while the Brexit referendum is a global breaking news of rare magnitude.--PanchoS (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Switched the images, as the generic map's colours go against the remain/leave colour convention. --PanchoS (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As Cameron announced his resignation - which is definitely tied to the referendum - the blurb has been merged, and currently the image is of Cameron. So the question now becomes: Do we want the map, or do we want Cameron as the image? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cameron. Unless it is our intention to specifically mention the difference between Scotland and England and Wales in the blurb, then the map proposed above is both far too detailed to represent the blurb, and far too small to meaningfully decipher anyway. Colours are wrong on the Europe map (though even if they were right I'd still prefer Cameron). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I'm strongly in favor of the results map (as featured in the nomination box at the top), as the vote is the historic event here, while Cameron's resignation is secondary and only one of several consequences of the vote, with the British pound dropping, and further developments to be expected. --PanchoS (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, Cameron's resignation is secondary to the result of the vote. Seansmccullough (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue is moot, further comment should go on the errors page, am collapsing 10 page discussion for convenience and archiving. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 26 June 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.

June 22Edit

Colombia and Farc rebels reach agreement on bilateral ceasefireEdit

Articles: Colombian conflict (talk, history) and FARC (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Colombian government and the FARC rebels announced permanent ceasefire agreement to end longest war in the Americas. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (The New Yourk Times), (Reuters), (Al Jazeera English)

 Jenda H. (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on the merits as a notable step in ending that conflict. I don't think FARC should be bolded in the blurb, it's not just about them. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I cannot find text in the article titled Colombian conflict, the article is outdated by almost a YEAR, has major referencing problems, and thus is entirely inappropriate to direct readers to. The article titled FARC is in a bit better shape in terms of referencing, but is equally outdated and has not been edited at ALL since June 5, and has no substantive information about the current developments. --Jayron32 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements This is a major deal, but as Jayron points out, we're lacking serious updates on both articles. Also, I don't think America in the blurb is right (South America, maybe? Western Hemisphere?) --MASEM (t) 00:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - easily. Amending the blurb regardless, since America redirects to the country, not the continent. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly not ready for main page inclusion, both articles off the pace somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose FARC signing the ceasefire did not end the war, there is a second rebel group, ELN, which is still fighting the government.XavierGreen (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the other rebels do, that's another matter. We're just talking about the FARC here. STSC (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait - Wait till the full peace deal is signed. STSC (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The peace deal has been signed, a historic event. STSC (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a serious news story in a country that doesn't even speak English, hence latter-day Wikipedia would have no interest in it. American basketball stories are far, far more important. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

June 21Edit

June 20Edit

RD: Ernesto MacedaEdit

Article: Ernesto Maceda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Interakyson

Nominator's comments: Former president and president pro tempore of the Senate in the Philippines. (The legislature of the Philippines is similar to that of the USA, with the upper house being the Senate) EternalNomad (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality. Practically unsourced (of the four sources, one is about his death, one about his family, and two about things he did, not about himself). Article is also full of poor grammar and prose. Needs a lot of work to be presented on the front page. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Laura. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Laura says, lacks citations for many statements. MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Rome Mayoral electionEdit

Only thing to set this apart is that the mayor is a woman, nothing else is particularly notable about this local election. As a rule of thumb, local elections are not posted on ITN unlsess there's something exceptionally unusual, and the gender of the mayor in a first-world country does not meet that criteria for our purposes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:44, 22 June 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: Rome municipal election, 2016 (talk, history) and Virginia Raggi (talk, history)
Blurb: Virginia Raggi of the Five Star Movement is elected Mayor of Rome, becoming the first woman to hold the post. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Virginia Raggi of the Five Star Movement is elected as the first female Mayor of Rome.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator's comments: Mayoral elections are not generally noteworthy. However, Rome is a major city, and the election of a populist anti-corruption Five-Star candidate is a huge breakthrough for the party in Italian politics - and one that's making news around the world. We posted Sadiq Khan, and I think this is a similarly notable event (just as the Mayor of London has more powers than other UK mayors, the Mayor of Rome is uniquely powerful among Italian mayors). Apparently I misremembered, sorry. Smurrayinchester 11:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support but the election article is not yet updated. On a parallel with Sadiq Khan, I think. I've done some very minor tidying on Virginia Raggi but don't have time for the more substantial work required on Rome municipal election, 2016 just now. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually the updates were not as extensive as I thought. Now ready to go, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional support once the orange tag is dealt with. Per our article, the office of the mayor of Rome is at least 146 years old, so the first female mayor looks historical. I've adjusted the blurb accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 12:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reworded your blurb, only because every time we post something like that, some pedant comes along and says "actually, there's no such post as "female mayor"". Smurrayinchester 12:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The orange tag is now dealt with. I'm not sure where the original tables of results came from - I've updated them with figures from the interior ministry. GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Brandmeistertalk 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Francesco Paolo Tronca is especially notable - just seems to be a caretaker mayor. doesn't seem especially notable. might be, but the largest part of his Italian Wikipedia article is just about hunger strikes he participated in. Smurrayinchester 15:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with you, Smurrayinchester, in regard to Francesco Paolo Tronca – he would only be a nice to have. Also, a very basic article on Roberto Giachetti now exists, and the article on Raggi has somewhat improved. What I'm still missing, before I'd switch my !vote to support the nomination, is any information about Raggi's political agenda, platform, promises, public image – anything that characterizes her politically beyond being a member of M5S. --PanchoS (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Story is fine, but for me the election article is a barrier to posting. The justification for posting is that this is not a typical Mayoral election. I'm inclined to agree... but the election article has nothing at all to this effect. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We didn't post Khan last month, mainly due to consensus that we don't usually post mayoral elections and that being the "first Muslim" wasn't really an achievement. The difference in this case is that the winning candidate is the "first woman" to hold an, albeit older, mayoral post than London but from an, arguably, less economically important city. For me to support this, I would expect the article to be far more detailed - with background into her predecessor's resignation (not just one line in the lead) and some mention (preferably a paragraph) of the campaign. Something more than a lead, voting system and result tables, which is pretty standard for an election article. Fuebaey (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was sure we did. Smurrayinchester 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fuebaey.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per consistency (or lack of) argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Indeed, if the Sadiq Khan blurb wasn't promoted to ITN, which I wrongly remembered, then it's even harder to argue Raggi should be promoted now. The existing articles have improved a bit, but still aren't a convincing argument to make an exception here. --PanchoS (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We didn't post Sadiq Khan becoming mayor of a city three times Rome's size, with a much greater global financial sector '''tAD''' (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support landslide victory of first woman and first member of hery party to hold that post, indicating a radical change of public opinion. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if Khan was posted (and he wasn't), there's no reason or justification to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Khan, de Blasio. Consistency. Sca (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
PS: Apparently, Five Star candidates also were elected in Turin and several other Italian cities. If these could be packaged in a roundup of 2016 Italian municipal elections, it might be worth posting. Sca (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fuebaey. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I commend her for winning the election, I do not think that this is notable enough for ITN. Women have been involved in politics for quite awhile. It is not at all surprising that cities are electing women officials. Mamyles (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are implying that there is still no glass ceiling in global politics.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Metaphorically, a glass ceiling has been breaking all over the world for decades, making this one pane out of thousands not particularly noteworthy. Mamyles (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No, he is saying that attractive females getting votes is not surprising. Nergaal (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
What would Mutti Merkel say to that? "Typisch männlich?" Sca (talk) 18:08, 21 June 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.

US OpenEdit

Article: 2016 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Dustin Johnson (pictured) wins the US Open Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, CBS Sports, Fox Sports

Article needs updating

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: American wins home event. Not a great pic, but there doesn't seem to be another. Fourth round needs a summary, including Johnson's controversial 5th hole. Fuebaey (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Question ITNR so obviously quality and blurb accuracy are the only factors. But is this absolutely done and dusted? From the very brief bits of this I've heard on the radio, there was talk about a two-shot penalty he may or may not have received? Is that situation definitely resolved? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to save a bit of time later, on quality the round summaries are acceptable if a bit short for my personal tastes, They do however require sourcing. There's nothing for the final round as of yet (understandable given that there are still a few people left on the 18th, but necessary before anyone can support). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the biggest championships in golf. Why hasn't this been added already? --Inops (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose considering this is one of the more controversial conclusions to this tournament, the prose in the target article is pretty pathetic. Expand three- or four-fold, particularly regarding the final round. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2016 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the Cleveland Cavaliers defeat the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA Finals, becoming the first team to overcome a 3–1 deficit in the finals as well as ending a 52-year drought (MVP pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In basketball, the Cleveland Cavaliers defeat the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA Finals.
Alternative blurb II: ​In basketball, the Cleveland Cavaliers defeat the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA Finals (MVP LeBron James pictured).
News source(s): Bleacher Report, ESPN, Sports Illustrated

Article needs updating

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: A bit early, because I won't be on later. Similar to last season; Game 7 needs a match summary. Fuebaey (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I updated the suggested blurb and added an alternate blurb to reflect each scenario (please edit to be more concise). In either case, there is some substantial significance for the winning team. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment While the rest of the article is updated, it should be noted that once the game is complete we will need a Game 7 recap + boxscore before this can be posted. Also, if Cleveland should win, I note many reports are pointing that being the true end of the Cleveland sports curse,but that might be a bit wordy in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Didn't think there would be an article dedicated to that subject. I've updated the altblurb to something that does it in a fairly direct manner. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If we post this, the Cleveland Sports Drought doesn't need mentioning. It's silly trivia. --Jayron32 02:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. That drought was what made this title special. Like the Curse of Bambino that ended in 2004. --bender235 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1 ALT2. The rest is excessive. But yeah mention LeBron and add his picture. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1ALT2 - Per Muboshgu. Jusdafax 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 2 - mainly because there are no images on ITN right now. Don't mind Alt 1 though, if an image for a different news item can be found. Banedon (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Game 7 needs inline citations. The two existing citation needed templates are fairly important as they refer to extraordinary claims. EDIT: I've done those. Assuming that's done, support Alt 2 per Banedon. Happy for Cleveland sports curse to be mentioned but don't see how it can be done succinctly. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, technically, Cleveland's professional sports championship drought ended a week ago (the AHL is still a professional league)... Canuck89 (talk to me) 03:42, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for original blurb. What's makes this more significant than usual NBA championships are (a) Cleveland's major sports title drought, (b) first 1-3 deficit overcome in NBA Finals history, and (c) first Game 7 on-the-road win since 1978 NBA Finals. In that order. The blurb should mention at least one of these facts. --bender235 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready – sourcing and update for game 7 now in place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support either Alt Miocic broke the curse. The Monsters won a minor league championship soon after. This was cool, too, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support original as it provides 2 important factors out of three that Bender235 considered where as the others do not mention even one. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted vanilla blurb. Will add the image once the protection takes affect at commons. Despite the support for the initially proposed blurb, it's incorrect because it implies the Cavaliers have suffered a 52-year drought when it's actually the city of Cleveland in all of the big 4 NA sports (as I understand it). That's too wordy to properly explain in a blurb. I'm open to further discussion about whether coming back from 3-1 down should be included. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it too informal to say ending a half century drought? The Cleveland Cavaliers are almost as old as the drought, starting play in 1970. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Image now added. Hopefully we don't get another debate at ERRORS about whether we should use "MVP". Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds like trivia to me, let's keep ITN encyclopedic. Information on the ending of any drought can be found in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, what about "for the first time" as we did for Leicester's title win in the Premier League? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Pipe the links to 2015–16 Cleveland Cavaliers season and 2015–16 Golden State Warriors season please. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Try WP:ERRORS please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mentioning of the curse. We do not provide voice to superstitions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No one sincerely "believes" these curses as the cause of a team's or a city's teams' long-term ill-fortune; they are used most often as a shorthand way of referring to the fact of the ill-fortune. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for alt 2 (the current one at this time). Oppose the original blurb as overly long and per the fact that we very rarely post sports stats. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 19Edit

[Posted] RD: Anton YelchinEdit

Posted. Other observations:
  • There doesn't seem to be support for a blurb over RD.
  • If you have a problem with an editor's behaviour try WP:ANI.
  • Please keep comments on active RFC proposals to the actual page, lest someone makes accusations of campaigning.
Fuebaey (talk) 14:51, 22 June 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: Anton Yelchin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American actor Anton Yelchin (pictured), featured in Star Trek films, dies at age of 27. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American actor Anton Yelchin (pictured), featured in Star Trek films, dies at age 27 after being pinned between a car and a brick pillar and a security fence.
Alternative blurb II: ​American actor Anton Yelchin (pictured), featured in Star Trek films, is pronounced dead at age of 27.
News source(s): Variety, AP
Nominator's comments: Yelchin appeared in many TV shows and films, but is probably best known for his portrayal of Chekov in the Star Trek films. JuneGloom07 Talk 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's another case of a decent quality article that's of interest to the general public that we should post, but perhaps won't because of RD criteria. I say support since he won a couple of awards and played a key role in a major franchise demonstrating his importance to his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral RD, weak support blurb I think a blurb would be more appropriate in this scenario (as we did with Jules Bianchi), because he was a rising star and killed in a tragic accident at a very young age, which makes his death very unexpected and notable, but I'm not sure how notable he was in his short life. Article is in good shape though. EternalNomad (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral on blurb, but preferred option over RD - The problem here is that Yelchin really hasn't achieved extensive fame in Hollywood (being a key part in a notable film series is not the same as importance), but the death is unexpected and unfortunately timely (with the third film due out shortly here). I can see people coming here to see this story due to these factors. I can't outright oppose a blurb, but can't fully support one based one our standards. (If this were during the RD trial, that might have pushed my support for the blurb). An RD doesn't seem appropriate for the untimely demise, but would be a reasonable step too. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Paul Walker was posted, no? This is kind of a weird gray area, but the unexpected death of a young actor whose career was still ongoing warrants posting, and RD is the best place for it. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per Nohomersryan above. Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant, nor important to his field, acting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see how he meets the criteria. A blurb would be ridiculous; RD less so, though still not justified under the criteria. Neljack (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
No need to feed this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Maybe ITN needs a section called "Off the Wall" for unusual stories like this one, although in this case it's more like "ON the Wall". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty callous thing to say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You haven't encountered this user before, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
        • You've got users here who refer to mass murders as "run of the mill". Don't be lecturing ME about callousness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Thing is, that's a general comment about gun (mis)ownership in the good ol' U S of A. To take the piss out someone being accidentally crushed to death is really disgusting, and way below even your normal editing "standard". Please, as you often do, add the last word here so most of us can summarily ignore it------>. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment can someone remove the two tabloid alt blurbs? This is an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether this is deemed notable or not for a blurb, "pinned between a car and a brick wall" and "pronounced dead" are tabloid territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
No point in this endless tit-for-tat. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
          • Nope, hyperbolic nonsense. He's dead, and that's that. He's barely notable here, so under current criteria he won't be posted at RD and certainly won't get a blurb, not exactly David Bowie. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love Star Trek, but I don't see how he meets the criteria for RD, let alone a blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb While the matter on how he died is shocking and notable, he is not notable enough for a blurb. But definitely for RD. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
How was he very important to acting(the only relevant criteria)? 331dot (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@331dot: He was in the main cast of a film series that grossed close to a billion dollars (counting just the two new installments). A lot of people care. I myself am not a big Star Trek fan and haven't even seen the new movies, but judging by the reaction in the press, this is a pretty big deal. This section is called In the news - and this is definitely in the news. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to be offensive. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not the place for sock accusations, take it elsewhere. 2600:8806:4800:5100:3C9A:DA26:9601:A3AD (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editor implies he's a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly notable, clearly worth an RD if not a blurb. Jusdafax 22:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jusdafax: How was he very important to acting(the only relevant criteria)? 331dot (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Anton Yelchin has won or been nominated for a number of significant awards, and has portrayed, and posthumously will portray, a major character in a major ongoing film franchise, bringing a new interpretation to a classic character. That's good enough for me. His very early and tragic death, and the headlines it has generated, make him very much in the news. I'll support a blurb, and an RD is called for as a minimum. Jusdafax 00:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
He won two (what I would term) minor awards (not Oscars, Emmy, Golden Globes), one of which was an ensemble award. I wouldn't say that makes him particularly important to acting, let alone very important. Him playing a notable character(which is an arguable point re Chekov) doesn't necessarily make him important to acting, either. Fair enough, however. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. Doesn't meet the criteria for RD (but see also ongoing RfC) and while he death is unexpected I'm not seeing that it's a significant news story that merits a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, and technically doesn't meet the criteria for an RD but that would be the better option of the two (this is where the trial criteria worked well, the article is in decent shape too). Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support due to the combination of factors. The article is in decent condition, a death at 27 is exceptionally young, notwithstanding his age the cause of death is highly unusual, and while I would not attempt to argue that he is near the top of his field, he is nonetheless prominent with some high profile credits. Whether this is a borderline IAR support or a culmination of borderline factors leading me to conclude that this is a judgement call based on the criteria for inclusion, I truly don't know. I'm just trying to be as honest as possible in my rationale – I don't think anyone can dispute the accuracy of the statements I make in my second sentence, though there is a debate to be had over whether those factors are enough to justify a posting. For me, they are. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, and neutral for RD. — Crumpled Firecontribs 23:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, no comment on RD - when the proposed blurbs have to emphasize that Anton Yelchin was featured in Star Trek, I think that's a big warning flag about the notability (or lack thereof) of the person. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD Not enough of a story to warrant specific mention, but definitely should be mentioned on RD. The average reader is more likely to have heard of him than Robert T. Paine, who is already featured in RD.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - A blurb would be a mistake and a knee-jerk reaction. Seems like a borderline case for RD, but unexpected death tips it for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD The unexpected nature of his death leans me towards support. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:45, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Article in good shape, being globally reported, unexpected and unusual death and certainly not an outsider well-known actor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as [Ready?] (emphasis on the ?). Quality wise the article is there, and IMO the discussion is in a position for a would-be poster to review. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, you're probably right, systemic bias wins again, minor actor who is of no longterm importance at all to his field gets large support from certain parts of the globe, contrary to the (current) RD criteria. Omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The reasoning for posting a blurb was far stronger than it ever was for RD (circumstances of death, rather than significance within acting field, are what takes this nomination above other cases where people hammer it out over notability). But as you say, this is Wikipedia, so we have the worst of both worlds. I can't disagree that the consensus was for RD though. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD per general consensus. Smurrayinchester 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for RD. Also, strong support for putting an end to the nastiness, bickering, and especially the gratuitous remarks about the recently deceased. The Rambling Man, I appreciate your dedication to fairness in the ITN process, but I think some of your comments above are an overreaction. Baseball Bugs, if I ever see another comment from you like the one you made above, I will block you indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    You are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. I'm afraid this is a complete mockery of a system that so many seem hell-bent on keeping. Don't forget you're just another user here, try to curtail the school teacher routine a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the daftness of RD, but Brad is completely right about Baseball Bugs. Inexcusable. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In all seriousness, why are obviously humor-intended comments (even if in extremely bad taste) inexcusable, while repeated, deliberately "unfriendly" comments by targeted at multiple editors are ok? Nergaal (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • TRM may be blunt but he's not unfriendly.--WaltCip (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Walt. Point is, if Nergaal wants to call me out, please do it properly without adding then removing my name. If you think me telling it how it is here, that the American systemic bias is alive and kicking, and that many such editors (not all, but many) are guilty of perpetuating it, that's fine. On the other hand, you have "humor-intended" comments which are plain sick and have no place anywhere. Priorities my dear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just pointing out, all of the above acrimony would have not happened if only the RfC had passed by now and we posted articles of recently deceased persons as long as their articles were of sufficient quality for main page posting. Look at all the mess created by the dumb "RD criteria". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    This^^^^^ --Jayron32 03:12, 22 June 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] Ongoing: Syrian Civil WarEdit

No consensus to add. Brandmeistertalk 07:45, 23 June 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: Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [16]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sorry if this has been discussed before but I think recent developments with Russia's attacks against civilians and Obama's reluctance to act despite letter from 51 U.S. diplomats urging action are sufficient cause to post this to ongoing events. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose can you tell me how many constructive updates have been made to the article in the past four days? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. The staff within the US government usually has a wide variety of opinions, which aren't usually relevant. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 19 June 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.

June 18Edit

RD: Wu JianminEdit

Article: Wu Jianmin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Individual who has played an important role in Chinese politics. Accidental death is being covered on BBC. (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] England wins historic rugby series in AustraliaEdit

No consensus. Brandmeistertalk 14:22, 21 June 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 England rugby union tour of Australia (talk, history)
Blurb: England wins second test on rugby tour of Australia for first ever series title (Post)
News source(s): Rugby Week; BBC

Article updated
 FunkyCanute (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I couldn't be happier, and while it was hilarious that the Aussies even had that TV advert made ridiculing our aspirations to win the whole series, this is quite a minor story in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And yet there's a story about the NBA Finals...? FunkyCanute (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You have my sympathy. The NBA finals is an ITNR item which means it effectively waltzes to the main page because it's usually well updated and good to go the moment the finals conclude. Any given rugby union series is not ITNR, and it'd be something special (like Japan winning a series [not just a match] against New Zealand) to get any traction here, particularly as most of our editors and readers aren't even aware of what rugby union is. It's considered minor and parochial unlike American sports such as NFL and MLB, so it's not going to fly here, ever. And I am sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to be about a non-championship/tourney series of games, if I am reading the linked articles correctly. They have impact on standings, but definitely not on the season's winner, so really not the typical ITN bit of news. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As TRM says, whilst this has been one of the most important results for England in many years, as well as being hysterically funny (unless you support Australia), it doesn't reach ITN status. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't reach the level of a blurb. If anything I would have put the Irish victory last week higher (though still not enough for a blurb). While it is good to see Northern Hemisphere rugby improving, the Australian and South African teams are particularly weak at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:34, 20 June 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] Recapture of FallujahEdit

Article: Third Battle of Fallujah (talk, history)
Blurb: ​the Iraqi army retake Fallujah from ISIL (Post)
Alternative blurb: Iraqi Army and Shia militias retake Fallujah from ISIL.
Alternative blurb II: ​80% of Fallujah is recaptured by the Iraqi Army and Shia militias from ISIL.
Alternative blurb III: ​The United Nations reports 80,000 civilians have fled Fallujah, as Iraqi Army and Shia militias retake most of the city from ISIL.
News source(s): Independent
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Huge strategic and symbolic victory against ISIL. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Wait – not clear that the battle is over (even the source provided uses the present tense to make clear it's ongoing). Therefore there will obviously not be sufficient sources stating that it is over and demonstrating the international significance. I don't doubt this will change once the operation has been completed, but if forced to !vote now I would oppose as premature. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per StillWaiting. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Still waiting - Per Sca. - WaitCip (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The outskirts are not yet completely purged, as the Iraqi forces “like to push toward the center [of the city] and then push outward,” (Pentagon spokesman Chris Garver per Foreign Policy). However, with 1000 IS militants being killed, another 500 arrested, and the rest fleeing the city, there's no way the battle could be reversed. Indeed this is another hugely important victory against the IS, and it is in the news now, not next week or so. For better or worse, the significant participation of Shia militias should however be mentioned. Added an altblurb with bolded main article. --PanchoS (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Switching to oppose based on the support above despite fact that the article itself still says the battle is ongoing and that the sources I have seen to date indicate the same. Would not hesitate to switch to support if consensus among reliable sources were that the battle is over and the city retaken, and the article were explicit in reflecting this. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Majorly in the news, major impact with over 30,000 displaced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – there is also an ongoing humanitarian disaster. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I could be convinced to support a story along those lines. I could also be convinced to support the existing story, if and when our content, backed up by reliable sources, concludes that the blurb is correct. But it has to reflect what the relevant articles say about the matter – relevant articles describe this as "ongoing", because reliable sources consider it to be ongoing. The situation in Fallujah is something I could very easily support a story on, with an update to that story if or when the siege is demonstrably over. I really do not intend to be difficult here – I have no objection to posting something which is already newsworthy and bumping that story back to the top of the template when the siege is over (which seems to be a few days away at most – so in practise the story would go up for longer). But to post something which is so clearly inconsistent with our article would be a disgrace. Please, someone, propose an alt blurb which would allow this to happen. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this has been in the news for a while. Waiting for a result is as WP:Crystal as posting now, because there might not be a real result (e.g. a stalemate). Better to post this now, and update the blurb constantly as the situation changes. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If someone were to propose a factually accurate blurb this could probably be marked as ready and posted within the hour, as there's sufficient consensus to post a story of some description. No admin worth their salt is going to post that a city has been taken when neither the article nor the sources it's based on makes that claim. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Good point. Adding altblurb 2. The situation is developing quite quickly though, so by tomorrow the blurb may already be obsolete. Banedon (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Have proposed alt3. Don't know or particularly care if "80%" or "most" is the better language here ("80%" implies a high level of precision about where we really are, "most" is more general), but the consensus seems to be that the refugee crisis tips this from "post when it's taken" to "post ASAP", therefore seems strange not to factor that in somehow. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 or alt3 with preference for alt3 due to mentioning refugee situation. Strongly oppose original or alt1 due to inaccuracy. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Good article construction. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted by The Rambling Man. George Ho (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Propose image Actually, this nice map, drawn by one of our contributors, would make for a great ITN image. Nothing to say against LeBron James, except that he is only of the winning team, and that our promotion of sports events tends to get a bit out of control. Btw, we shouldn't privilege portrait-format images. In order to better accommodate landscape-format images, we should IMHO have a 120x120px standard for almost quadratic images, a maximum width of 100px for portrait-format images, and a maximum height (!) of 100px for landscape-format images. --PanchoS (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

June 17Edit

RD: Paul CoxEdit

Article: Paul Cox (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mail

Nominator's comments: Award-winning and highly influential filmmaker, possibly Australia's greatest. Article is mostly sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose not sure where "Australia's greatest" is coming from as the obits don't seem to cover that. Not sufficiently influential in his field. Article is weak too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Russian track and field team banned from Rio Olympic GamesEdit

Articles: Doping in Russia (talk, history) and 2016 Summer Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian athletes will not compete in 2016 Olympic Games as their doping ban is upheld (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The IAAF bars Russian's track & field athletes from participating in the 2016 Summer Olympics following the discovery of a doping scheme in November 2015.
Alternative blurb II: IAAF and IOC uphold a doping ban against the All-Russia Athletic Federation, barring the Russian athletics team from the 2016 Olympics.
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph, New York Times

Article updated (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It's big enough. Though I'm unsure where the best article to update is. Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics maybe? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the word "athlete" a little misleading? Will everyone understand that only competitors from "athletics" are meant, not all athletes in all sports? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Everyone absolutely will not understand. In the US athlete means any sport. Running, football, basketball.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And athletics is called "track and field". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I read that blurb as all Russian Olympians, not track-and-field. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Note that this is a specific factor that continues from the previous IAAF story we posted in Nov 2015 (which affirmed that there was a doping scheme going on). This rules specifically bars the T&F athletes, but not all Russian athletes, so I have added an alt blurb. And I think we need to be specific this is track and field, as generally all that participate in the Olympics are considered athletes by most people, even though the IOC calls the group of T&F events as "athletics". We do not want to imply that every Russian competitor is barred, just those in the T&F aspects --MASEM (t) 22:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is simply a continuation / non-lifting of the ban previously posted. I don't see why it should be posted a second time. -- KTC (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that the Nov 2015 IAAF action was to enact a provisional, immediate ban, but to allow Russia the time and effort to show they were compliant by the time the Olympics came about. Today, IAAF has found that they have no confidence in Russia's assurances to prevent further doping, so have issued the first such ban in Olympic history. While it is an extension of that previous action, its the unprecedented nature that is making the news. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • We / the press are talking about this because you know, Olympics, however that's not the actual suspension. The suspension from Nov 2015 was that no competitors representing Russia Athletic be allowed to compete in IAAF sanctioned events. That has meant they were barred from e.g. the 2015 European Cross Country Championships & 2016 IAAF World Indoor Championships, and removed as host of the 2016 IAAF World Race Walking Team Championships & 2016 IAAF World U20 Championships. The upcoming Summer Olympics is merely the most well known and effected event. That the most recent, and last before the Olympics, IAAF review meeting did not lift the suspension doesn't make this a new suspension from the one already post on ITN back in November. The one saving grace re. this are that the IOC has the final say re. the Olympics rather than the IAAF. I would consider supporting a blurb if the IOC overrules the IAAF after the former's meeting this coming Tuesday, but the overruling would be the story there. -- KTC (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. An unprecedented turn of events. After an earlier suspension everybody assumed that Russia would take towards compliance and would be ultimately allowed to compete at Rio. Today's IAAF announcement makes the ban decision final. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KTC (original posting). This is big, however essentially amounts to "IAAF continue to do what they've done since November". If we hadn't have posted previously and there were updated article content to consider, this would be an obvious support. But those two factors are both relevant. Will go neutral if a suitable article is in a fit condition to post (and am happy to be pinged if/when this is the case). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. The news stories contain too much speculation and uncertainity. Andrew D. (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait to see whether Russia successfully appeals to the IOC. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until it is certain that they are banned, assuming that Russia still has ways to appeal this decision. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable development/result for this situation. If it is appealed and the decision reversed that would merit posting as well; we don't post criminal convictions once all appeals have been exhausted(which can take years or even a decade); we do it when they are convicted. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support some absurd opposition, that Putin has commented on this ban means that it's verifiable enough for Wikipedia. It's a big enough deal for posting, particularly when ITN is suffering from a serious case of the doldrums. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can't argue with your last point about ITN, which I why I said I'd go neutral if show a suitable article from which to post the story. It's been a day and no-one has taken me up on it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Apart from the opposition because of the uncertainties about the decision and the non-lifting of the previous ban, it's questionable whether this is a valid case for inclusion. Bulgaria were banned from competing at the Olympics in weightlifting in November 2015 (Reuters) and the decision was confirmed in January 2016 (BBC). Unlike the case, where the Bulgarian weightlifters were fully banned from competing at the Olympics, Russian athletes may still compete individually. Article 6 from Chapter 1 of the Olympic Charter states: "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries." and emphasises the importance of the right for an individual to compete. In the case with Russia, no-one who is clean will be punished and lose the right to compete at the Olympics because of someone else's sin. Hence, the value of this ban to the Olympic movement equals zero because it wouldn't make the Olympics poorer but Russia's Olympic team.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying but I think you underestimate the desire of athletes to compete under their nation's flag(and anthem if they win gold); it's a big deal to many people. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's true and the media want to illustrate that particular point but it's not clear what should Wikipedia's position on it be as an encyclopedia. These Olympics will also be much closer to the Olympic Charter cited above compared to the previous ones, as refugee athletes from different countries will be permitted to compete under the Olympic flag. From an encyclopedic point of view, the main page wouldn't benefit too much if this gets posted since none of the proposed blurbs don't even link to a specific article or section detailing the whole story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You think Bulgarian weightlifters somehow equate to the entire Russian tracks and field team?? And you say "the value of this ban to the Olympic movement equals zero" - this hardly reflects popular world opinion.You think Russia would even condone/ support participation by individual athletes?? Not a chance. (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You seem to have a point. Wikipedia should always remain neutral and therefore it's not our business to favour specific countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
No, no pointy point at all. Bulgaria? Russia? all the same to me. Just a reality check. (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait I'd support this, as non-participation at the Olympics is way more important than the previous minor championships. However, there is no main article to be linked. We're not a news ticker – there needs to be an acceptable main article on the Russian doping scandal. --PanchoS (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I was on the fence, since the IOC had the power to overturn the ban (and many journos thought they would), but now they've announced that they support it, this is clearly a big story. Smurrayinchester 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is essentially the same story we posted November when IAAF imposed the ban on all Russian participation in athletics. The current action reviewed the ban and declined to certify that Russia has sufficiently demonstrated compliance so that the ban could be lifted in time for Rio. That's an update to the story, but not enough of one that I would feel justified in reposting the story to ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although it might be a big story, it's a continuation of an old story, and also there isn't a Wikipedia article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me reiterate that IMHO this is a notable story, and we really should have a Wikipedia article on the Russian Doping scandal. However, without an article, there's no way we can promote this blurb. --PanchoS (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on merit but oppose as nominated - per PanchoS. I'd favour Doping in Russia as the target article: it looks like it has the best coverage. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Support alt blurb 2. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written - I would support inclusion with the same reasoning as Smurrayinchester, but I feel IOC should be mentioned (something along the lines of IOC supports IAAF's ban barring Russian track and field athletes from ...) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Support alt blurb 2 which satisfies my comment above. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

June 16Edit

[Closed] [Posted] 2016 Birstall shootingEdit

Posted, and discussion wandering off now with little purpose. If we have an issue with the blurb, WP:ERRORS is the place, although there appears no consensus to change it right now in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 18 June 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: Jo Cox (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British Member of Parliament Jo Cox is killed after being shot at an advice surgery in Birstall, West Yorkshire. (Post)
Alternative blurb: British Member of Parliament Jo Cox suffers critical injuries after being shot and stabbed in Birstall, West Yorkshire. (out-of-date)
Alternative blurb II: ​British Member of Parliament Jo Cox is killed after being shot at a constituent meeting in Birstall, West Yorkshire.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Attacks on lawmakers in the western world are very rare. Especially given that all indications is that it was a racially motivated attack. Sceptre (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Update, 16:23 UTC: Given the update that she has died, being the first MP to be murdered in 25 years, I would argue that the death criteria has been passed. Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should be credited here but I would strongly advise avoiding any comment about being a "racially motivated attack" as there is no evidence for this at present.— Rod talk 14:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose While attacks on lawmakers are rare, they are also very isolated events that have little world significance. She appears to be critical but stable condition. It wasn't part of any mass attack either. If this was a racially motiviated attack, that might be something but the way I read the BBC article, it doesn't seem like this is the reason they're working on as they interrogate the suspect. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Switch to support on confirmation of her death. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait It's not yet clear what has happened here. I've not seen any claims it was a racist attack - some less reliable news sources are linking it to Britain First who are a far right group, but that wouldn't automatically make it racially motivated. Smurrayinchester 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait an hour or two before !voting. We do not know how badly injured she is – serious, non-life threatening injury plus shock? Or a type of injury that few survive? We do not know definitively whether she was shot, stabbed or both, only that both weapons seem to have been used. As a follow-on, a gun and a bladed weapon implies multiple assailants, though we do not know this either. As of less than an hour ago, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn were both relying on the media and Twittersphere for their information. And finally, most of the country's attention is on UEFA Euro 2016 at this exact moment (radio cancelled their half-time coverage for this breaking news, can't speak for TV as I was driving home to catch the second half). I want the decision taken swiftly once there is sufficient information, but at this point we simply do not know enough to come to a conclusion either way. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well according to the BBC she was shot and stabbed, and is in a critical condition and they've arrested a perp. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, the reports affirm it was a single person attacking her - they had witnesses that rushed in to stop him after the attack started. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ten minutes previous the wording was "An MP is in a critical condition after an apparent shooting and stabbing attack in her constituency.". Which is not quite the same thing. My point stands – I don't think you can reasonably make the sort of judgements Masem has made with the information we have right now, therefore it's premature to !vote either way. In half an hour the major news organisations will have pulled together everything they have and we'll be in a much better position to start making the assessment. They do not like getting it wrong on their flagship channels, therefore I'm more inclined to trust TV and radio in a breaking news situation. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    That statement ten minutes ago does not contradict the updated changes - she was shot at and the man had a knife, in the area of the country she represents. BBC is usually pretty good about wild speculation, they start with conservative, non-detailed statements and then refine down as breaking info comes in. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    My point was that at the stage you took a view, the BBC were still chasing information about what has happened, as were everyone else. In that mode even reliable sources should be treated with caution, though I do respect your opinion of what you believe we should do based on what we think we know, I just personally think you jumped the gun in doing so.

    The two factors I remain unclear on that would influence my vote would be whether she survives, and what the motive was. Looking at the timing of this attack, the suggestions in the article (from Eurosceptic press I should add) suggesting the attacker's motive was a far-right one, and the descriptions of the injuries she suffered from eyewitnesses, I would strongly make the case that whether she pulls through or not the most significant element of this story has yet to fully emerge. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Wait - The premature death of a lawmaker will be incredibly newsworthy. This shooting by itself could be newsworthy as well, but it is best to not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A member of a parliament has virtually no global relevance, and even in her home country she was relatively unknown prior to this. In the US alone, around 50 people are murdered each day, even more people are shot, and on a global scale we talking much higher numbers. If we were to post her, we would also have to post it if, say, a lawmaker in one of the Indian state parliaments were shot. If the queen, prime minister or some other important figure is shot, or if it is a mass shooting, it is global news. Otherwise it isn't really much different from the thousands of similar cases taking place around the world every day. --Tataral (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
So you argue that there is significant internal conflict in UK similar to Naxalite insurgency in India or systemic gun violence in USA? Also when insignificant US MP like Gabrielle Giffords was shot, it was on main page. Also there will be referendum concerning UK's membership in EU, which was already influenced by this event. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Arizona attack was a mass shooting, with 18 others also injured. This was a attack specifically on one MP. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for more information to be available first. -- KTC (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Please remember to DAB Birstall in blurb if posting. w.carter-Talk 15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for more info, and to see if it becomes a major event and/or achieves international coverage. Currently only really UK coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's currently top of the 'top stories' column on's US edition: [17] AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Front page of NBC News too. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's also the second story on the Frankfurter Rundschau, Le Monde and top on El Mundo. Definitely a global story. Smurrayinchester 15:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaning Support due to extent of international coverage. If she doesn't survive that would probably tip the balance. Equally, whilst I have yet to see any reliable source putting two and two together, many RS's are saying that the motivation seems to have been far-right and that she was a strong supporter of remaining in the EU. If reliable sources start to conclude that these factors led to this attacker targetting this victim, that would for me be newsworthy in its own right regardless of her medical condition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Full support – confirmed at news conference that she has died, by chief constable of West Yorkshire police. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. New reports are that she has died. [18]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Sources say she's died, and an MP being killed is a pretty notable event. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support In the news, I see lots of international coverage, not a random attack, appears to be connected to the Brexit vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Does the hook have to use the word "surgery"? I can't stop thinking about the medical procedure. Can't it just be called a constituent meeting? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant event, rare for an MP to be attacked at a surgery, even rarer for one to be killed. Muboshgu, "surgery" is the correct word in British English. It's similar in useage to visiting a GP (local doctor), which is done in a surgery. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Mjroots: Yeah I figured that out, but American English doesn't use the word "surgery" that way and this is the global English-language Wikipedia, leading to my suggestion that we use more inclusive language. Not to mention, have you looked at the article surgery (politics)? It should not be posted to the main page. I'm adding an ALT. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: what would be the preferred term, killed or assassinated? Sources seem to be splitting on this. Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Killed. Assassinated is a more dramatic term and implies a very specific motive – if there is justification for the stronger term the wording could be changed post-posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree that "killed" is the proper word until we know full motive. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready based on quality, though obviously it's for uninvolved admins to determine whether sufficient discussion has taken place to constitute consensus. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - I checked a few non UK sources first, and they are there, so I'm happy to endorse the international significance. I am surprised she does not have a free image, many British MPs do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done - sorry, I found the consensus for that now in the discussion here, it was a bit buried. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I've already added one citation to the surgery article. That's what it was, not a "constituent meeting", so we should stick with the reality, despite the fact the article is a little weak. I'll try to improve it further, but please relink it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears she was leaving the surgery (on her lunch break), or arriving back at the offices where she held her surgery, not 'at' the surgery. She may also have been intervening in an existing struggle, according to some reports. A lot of the reports will need to take care to avoid prejudicing the legal case that will result from this. Wikipedia (and its UK editors) needs to take care on that front as well. Speculation (about the motive) needs to be kept out of the article and the blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - it is not clear whether this is connected to any constituency meeting. All we know for sure from the BBC article is that "The MP held a weekly advice surgery nearby." That would normally be held indoors. The attack took place outdoors. Some sources say the attack was 'before' a constituency meeting, some say 'after', others say she was 'arriving' at her local office. And so on. We need to be careful with what the blurb says. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    She was attacked on the street just outside the library where she was going to hold her constituency meeting. Dragons flight (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Or possibly on a lunch break between two surgery sessions. The details don't really seem to matter (but it would be good to keep the blurb accurate). Terrible tragedy, with a young family too. Really awful. Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    I saw a source that said arriving. Our article currently cites sources saying she was leaving. I'm going to go with leaving for now, but we might want to see if we can get a definitive timeline. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    Why don't we just say something like "killed after being shot in her constituency". The fact that she seems to have been killed for political reasons is significant, so I'm reluctant to downplay it, but better to do that than guess at the timeline? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    The Surgeries on her own web site says that it was due to run from 13.00-14.00. She was shot at approximately 12.50 therefore it should be arriving. I will edit the article.— Rod talk 19:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support tragic and highly unusual in western Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Might the PA pic be available for fair use? Sca (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. That she was an MP means there's a very high chance a free image of her is available somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hellen Joanne Cox.png has been uploaded as fair use (taken from her website). I don't have time now to look at it, but I very strongly suspect that this is not a valid fair use claim and is thus a copyright violation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this might be one of those rare occasions where Jimbo might actually be able to lend a hand and use leverage to get a free image of her for the project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. It strikes me as insensitive to ask Brandon right now, but there are lots of other friends I can ask who might have a nice photo.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't really thinking about going down that route; more seeing if some low-res crop of a formal parliamentary photograph could be licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 or thereabouts. Something like File:Leanne Wood AM - 2016.jpg, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Considering the wide media coverage of the news and the tensed circumstances in British politics, this deadly attack seems notable for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks for posting so promptly. The article was also mentioned on the Wikipedia facebook page as being updated following her death, which is actually where I saw the news first. Definitely worthy of a blurb, highly unusual attack on a sitting MP in the UK. MurielMary (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion was a classic example of less haste equalling more speed. Because the majority of participants waited to see the significance, rather than prematurely judging the premature nomination, once the facts were clearer consensus was able to be achieved in a very short space of time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seeing plenty of speculation on Facebook about motives, but not much in RSes. AFAICT, the RSes all say we don't know a lot about motive, except that he had a history of mental illness and not much interest in politics (eg 1). That being so, the unsourced suggestions above of political motivations are skirting pretty close to BLP violations. Let's cool it until more is known. I'm tempted to redact various bits of the above discussion, but I'll leave that to wiser heads for now. GoldenRing (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's an article on the incident at Death of Jo Cox. Shouldn't that be linked as the primary article?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that we should have a spin-off article yet, and sent it to AfD this morning for that reason. I suspect there might be one eventually that talks about some of the political and security ramifications, perhaps, but we're not there yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: we have documented sources from the SPLC and Guardian noting that Tommy Mair, the killer in question, had long-lasting links to neo-Nazi groups both in the UK and US. I would be perfectly comfortable with describing this an assassination – as Hillary Clinton and Francois Hollande have, to name two. Sceptre (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We absolutely should avoid calling it an assassination that until the people interrogating the suspect determine if his intent was to kill or just attack. Words like "assassination" and "terrorism" are great FUD in both the UK and the US where critical elections are in progress. This may have been an assassination attempt that succeeded, but let's not jump the gun before the suspect's case has been determined. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
      • He spent £400 on neo-Nazi literature, went to the effort of improvising a firearm, and then shot her in the face. Britain First has outright made general death threats against mainstream politicians (and Labour in particular). The idea it wasn't an premeditated political murder is frankly ludicrous. Sceptre (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Britain First have a strong track record of engaging mouth before brain, but I'm not sure they really want to repeal the abolition of capital punishment, they just want to throw big words around to look important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any need to e.g. replace "shot and stabbed" with "assassinated": it's more NPOV not to prejudge the motivations behind the attack and how it should be categorised, even if political motivations seem by far the most likely. It's also to the point to mention the method of the killing, which is notably violent and worth mentioning in the blurb in itself. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
"Premediated" certainly seems accurate given all the weaponry they found, but whether his goal was to kill her to simply do physical damage to her, we don't know, and only officers/court of law can make that judgment. WP needs to avoid jumping the gun since to call it an assassination when that actually wasn't his motive or intent would be BLP territory. Mind you, I'm pretty confident that this will be determined to be that way, but we should let the authorities make the final call. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The term "assassination" does carry a strong connotation, and to use it would imply that he got his marching orders from a political group or organization. That does not seem to be the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Oswald was not acting on anyone's behalf. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 18 June 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] Ichiro Suzuki breaks baseball hit recordEdit

Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)--WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 16 June 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: Ichiro Suzuki (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In professional baseball, Ichiro Suzuki breaks the career hits record. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In professional baseball, Ichiro Suzuki breaks the record for career hits, recording a combined total of 4,257 hits between Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball.
News source(s): APThe Guardian Yomiuri Shimbun
Nominator's comments: Large coverage, not limited to leagues (MLB or NPB). Note the phrasing "professional baseball". This is not meant to be a Pete Rose MLB hits debate. Rather, his simple, generic stat of top tier professional ball is seeing worldwide coverage. Thechased (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Did you even bother reading anything in my nomination? Kindly take the Rose debate to virtually any internet comment section where it belongs, read the Guardian article, and offer something resembling a relevant contribution to this ITN discussion. Thechased (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
MLB is the top tier. The others are essentially minor leagues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - MLB is the top tier of professional baseball in the world. Not MLB and Nippon League. Just MLB. Since this record is only a record if you include Suzuki's lower-level hits but not Rose's, there's no way I can support this. And all that aside, this is still just essentially sports trivia. ITN has declined to post records that were a lot more clear-cut than this one, not that it isn't a great accomplishement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it seems we're not comparing apples with apples. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia with caveats. Stephen 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose sports records are broken constantly; ITN can't post them all. Not significant. MurielMary (talk) 10:41, 16 June 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.

June 15Edit

2016 HO3 (quasi-satellite of Earth)Edit

Article: 2016 HO3 (talk, history)
Blurb: 2016 HO3 (quasi-orbit pictured) is discovered as the most stable quasi-satellite of Earth. (Post)
News source(s): NASA News

Nominator's comments: This news might not be so fresh at this point, since the quasi-moon was discovered during the last week of April. However, many of the newest sources (including the one linked) have been within the past week. (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Nominator's comments: I checked the archives and it did not appear to have been listed there. This came to my attention through the front page of Baidu Baike. (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This was announced on June 15, so I'm moving it to that date. It is probably too stale to post. Mamyles (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as far as astronomy news goes, this did not attract much coverage. I don't really find it that interesting either. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RD: Lois DuncanEdit

Article: Lois Duncan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times Washington Post

Nominator's comments: Writer of teen literature MurielMary (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose prolific but not significant in the field of writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Robert T. PaineEdit

Article: Robert T. Paine (zoologist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The AtlanticABC News/Associated Press

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential American ecologist, who has been called a "giant" of the field. Through his experiments, Paine devised the concepts of keystone species and trophic cascades, which are now central ideas in ecology. In 2013, Nature dedicated a feature to the legacy of his work, in which they wrote: "Bob Paine fathered an idea — and an academic family — that changed ecology." I have spent the morning updating his article, and happy to get it up to scratch if anything else is needed. Ackatsis (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you! I just fixed it. Ackatsis (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support clearly one of the most important people for conservation biology, and the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose many of those awards need citation, but otherwise it's in okay shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: All awards now cited. Ackatsis (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - an important person within his field of work.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

June 14Edit

[Posted] Violence at UEFA Euro 2016Edit

Article: Violence at UEFA Euro 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​UEFA fines Russia €150,000 and deports 50 fans for violence at the UEFA Euro 2016 football tournament (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​UEFA fines Russia €150,000 and imposes a suspended disqualification on the Russian team for violence at UEFA Euro 2016.
Alternative blurb II: ​Dozens of people are injured in the violence between fans at the UEFA Euro 2016, which results in arrests and deportation, imposition of fines and suspended disqualification of national teams.
Alternative blurb III: Fan violence at the UEFA Euro 2016 results in the expulsion of 50 football fans, and a suspended disqualification of the Russian team.
Alternative blurb IV: Dozens of people are injured in the fan violence at UEFA Euro 2016, which results in arrests and deportation of fans, and a suspended disqualification of the Russian team.
News source(s): BBC Sport, Yahoo News, The Hindu, Bloomberg, UEFA

Nominator's comments: I've put this up as an alternative to the "ongoing" Euro 2016 nomination below, which I have opposed. Although there has been sustained headline news coverage over Europe over the last 5 days, with some coverage in the US and elsewhere, today's story about the fine and deportation in particular appears to have made headlines around the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per previous discussion and the latest news. Also there looks to be some litigation going to happen at some point as well. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added an altblurb, as suspended disqualification also looks significant. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a reasonable alternative. No real preference on blurb, either should be OK. Also correcting grammar in alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable and ITN worthy. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the above comments. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting oppose to the anti-Russian biased blurb. The notable thing here is the ongoing violence during the tournament, which doesn't involve only Russian but also English and French fans. Either this nomination is too late because the violence has started few days ago or someone was reluctant to find the right moment to nominate this, I don't think that the imposed fine against Russia is a reason to post it right now nor it'd be if similar measures are overtaken against any other nation. Having posted a blurb focusing on specific case is both biased and a poor representation of reality because it shadows the violence as a whole. Perhaps it'd be a real news if any of the teams from countries whose fans are involved in the violence are disqualified. For now, it'd be a better try if this gets nominated for ongoing, although there are still no major implications.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
See above instructions, very specifically "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." We simply report whatever the news sources give us. If you think the news sources are biased, you need to take it up with UEFA, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN etc etc ... we can't do anything about that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: You seem to have clearly misunderstood my point. Do you really think that this minimal fine against Russia is the right moment to post the ongoing violence which resulted in dozens of injured and raised concerns regarding the security in France during the last couple of days? I don't think that mentioning England would remove the bias either because the news is the violence itself but this seems to have been selectively cherry-picked with previous news being censored. Another point is not what the fans are doing and how to fine them and their teams but also how France as organisers are capable to solve the problem. What we currently have on the main page is a clear case of a selective bias that doesn't represent the reality as it is. Anyway, fair enough, let's watch the game now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the story itself is significantly less notable than the whole championship. Not having this as ongoing but listing this rather trivial event (not related to the players, no actual penalty, and 150k is a joke when it comes to the revenue coming out of football). Unless there is an actual suspension I don't think this should be posted. Nergaal (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull – Agree with Nergaal and generally with Simeonovski. Thus far, trivial low-life incident(s) of minor comparative significance. Rushed posting.Sca (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep posted - this incidents has received plenty of media attention and is a well sourced and factual article so far. No reason for deletion, and IDONTLIKEIT is as irrelevant as always.BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Along with punctuation and grammar. Sca (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: Yes, the violence receives plenty of media attention and the article is in decent shape. Unfortunately, the blurb on the main page is only partially consistent with the article and what's actually happening. Why would someone disregard the threat that both England and Russia may be disqualified (CNN)? Why this fine is more important than the mass arrests of English fans after their clashes with the French police (BBC, CNN)? How about the clashes between the German and Ukrainian fans (The Daily Telegraph)? Or between the Northern Irish and French fans (The Daily Telegraph)? The article's content is referenced with 20 media news in its current shape. Shall we cherry-pick only one of them that verifies a single paragraph to put the whole article on the main page with evidently biased blurb?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahem. "Mass arrests of English fans"? The source you cite has the headline, "Euro 2016: England fan arrested after Marseille clash." Yes, one. Misrepresentation of sources is considered a bit serious around here. While it's true that there has been violence involving supporters of a number of nations, the fact is that it is Russia that has been fined and disqualified (suspended for the time being). It's not bias to say so, when established by a reliable source. Whether this whole thing rises to the level of ITN or not I don't have an opinion on; I think it's a borderline case. But the charge of bias is clearly wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've proposed a new blurb that more comprehensively reflects the violence and what's actually documented in the article. Please take it into consideration.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "...deportation, imposition of fines and suspended disqualification of national teams." is equally misleading because the only country those three things apply to is Russia. Post-posting support, by the way (with original blurb).Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both England and Russia were threatened disqualification (CNN). In any case, the wording of the blurb should be in a more comprehensive form, without specifically pointing to just a part of the whole story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Only Russia were disqualified but had that suspended. No other county including England have had that sentencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • England were warned, Russia were actually disqualified (though this was suspended). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support it's been top news across Europe for a day now, this cadre of 150 Russian ultras is causing havoc while the French do ... 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Bad blurb - The blurb currently used doesn't mention which sport it's talking about. Please provide context for blurbs rather than assuming that everyone in the world already knows what you're talking about. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It does name the "Russian Football Union", which makes it clear what sport this is. Smurrayinchester 07:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Now it does, not when that the above comment was posted. ;) -- KTC (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • post-posting support for the event, which is clearly notable and the article is in good enough shape. No comment about the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support If we want to make it clearer that it's not only Russian fans, then "amidst violence at UEFA Euro 2016" might be better. However, Russia are the only team which have been fined or received an official suspended suspension (England got an informal warning, but no official punishment). Smurrayinchester 07:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The notable news is the ongoing violence with its all implications so far (arrests, warnings, UEFA sanctions). I don't think this fine itself is notable enough to promote the whole article, which apparently deals with many other events, on the main page. If one is willing to highlight the importance of the fine against the hooliganism by Russian fans, then the key article should link to a specific section about the fine but not to the whole article. The major problem is that all of those who support this argue on the importance of the violence but settle for a biased blurb that doesn't tell the whole story. We all know that the Russian fans are not the only ones involved in the violence and that information should be neutrally served to the readers who don't follow the tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well it's widely acknowledged that it's the group of Russians (hardly "fans") who are causing the vast majority of the issues, hence UEFA's formal clamping down on Russia and no-one else. The suspended sentence is the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. This is not "anti-Russian" any more than a story reporting about a criminal conviction is biased against the convicted criminal. This story is what it is and as noted above we can only reflect what the sources state. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest altblurb3 The fines are not notable, and the violence was not restricted to Russian fans, though the suspended disqualification was, for procedural reasons. --PanchoS (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a much better blurb. I've proposed another alternative with slight modification to include information about the injuries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I further improved my altblurb3, specifying the sport, while replacing "deportation" by "expulsion", the arrests being less notable. Pinging those who were discontent with the current blurb – please give feedback whether you consider the later proposals an improvement to be promoted, Nergaal, Kaldari, Sca, and Kiril Simeonovski. --PanchoS (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) Only pinging those who were dissatisfied with the existing blurb is WP:CANVASSING; therefore pinging Thryduulf, The Rambling Man, BabbaQ, Smurrayinchester, Banedon, 331dot, Lugnuts. (2) The sources say "deportation", not "expulsion", which is meaningless. (3) It suggests that fans of many countries have been deported, when AFAIAA it is only Russian fans at the moment. (4) It doesn't mention the (unprecedented) fine. The current blurb is more accurate. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd shorten alt IV to "Fan violence at UEFA Euro 2016 results in arrests and deportation of fans, and a suspended disqualification of the Russian team."

    I do understand the concern about bias against Russia. However it's almost impossible to succinctly explain that there has been violence between multiple nationalities, that the police have hardly covered themselves in glory either for that matter, but that the actions of a minority of Russian fans has been deemed by UEFA to be the most serious and thus warranting a more serious sanction than that imposed on other nations. To my knowledge, only Russian fans have been deported, and therefore the slightly one-way nature of an acceptably short blurb can be justified (if non-Russians had been deported, the neutrality issue would be easier to solve, as we could tweak the middle to "...results in arrests and deportation of multiple teams' fans...". We can't do this at the moment because multiple nationalities have presumably been arrested, though not to my knowledge deported). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • We don't argue against the facts that Russian fans are the most violent and the ones causing most of the problems nor that the fine imposed by UEFA is illegitimate; it's just the notability of this fine in this series of events and the way it's posted on the main page. The key article in the blurb still leads to the whole article on the violence, with no specific indication to a section documenting the fine only. Even if Russian fans bear much of the responsibility for the violence, it's not our business to fully attribute all such events during the tournament to them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because there seems to be a tentative general consensus here, I've posted the shortened alt-blurb. While Russian fans are the only ones to have been deported, others (England, Wales, France, Germany at least) have been arrested, so I don't think the blurb is misleading in that respect. Smurrayinchester 10:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A good solution, thanks! --PanchoS (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is much better than the previous one, thanks!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO this should still mention the fine, which seems to have got lost along the way somewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, good point. Smurrayinchester 12:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Not a good point. The fine is not really noteworthy, and the blurb is one of the longest blurbs we've ever had for a borderline noteworthy event. Please, could everybody be a bit more focussed on what's really important, and what's backed by a consensus to post? Thanks. --PanchoS (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – if UEFA were to take action following this (comparable to what happened between England and Russia), we would need to reconsider the blurb for NPOV reasons. No opinion on the above discussion on whether the fine needs to be mentioned. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

June 13Edit

[Posted] Microsoft to Acquire LinkedInEdit

Articles: LinkedIn (talk, history) and Microsoft (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft announces it will acquire the professional networking site LinkedIn for $26.2 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Microsoft announces its $26.2-billion acquisition of the professional networking site LinkedIn.
News source(s): The Verge, WSJ

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Significant business acquisition, given the weight of LinkedIn in professional circles, though I can understand that it may otherwise seem underwhelming after seeing LinkedIn's stock performance of the last year. MASEM (t) 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - this is a big acquisition. It might not go through, but it's making the news now, which is sufficient for me to support. Banedon (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Both the acquirer and the acquiree are household names.--WaltCip (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - the service Microsoft are acquiring is of more significance than the business transaction. Which is huge in its own right. I support the importance, most of the outstanding issues are relatively trivial but the business units section needs sourcing. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

≤*Do we post this sort of stuff when it happens or when it is announced it will happen? Nergaal (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

    • Past WT:ITN discussions have concluded that the best point to post important business deals is on their confirmed announcement by both companies, rather than at the point when it happens (if it should still happen), since at the announcement point is where nearly all the news and market response happens. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Plus it is also equally newsworthy if the business deal is broken up in a trustbuster.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Worth pointing out though that we posted Pfizer acquiring Allergan some time ago, and then the deal did not go through. Some editors were unhappy about that, arguing that the deal should never have been posted in the first place. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
          • In fairness, some editors are unhappy that we ever put anything on our main page that does not relate to their favourite country. You do raise a perfectly valid point, but my question would be whether consensus was reached for a different standard? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "different standard"? Banedon (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
              • The standard time to post an acquisition at ITN has generally been at public announcement stage (as WaltCip says, after that point a chain of events cancelling the deal would be news in and of itself). My question was whether consensus was reached following the criticism you mention, that we should change the time at which we post big acquisitions and mergers, from announcement to final implementation. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
                • I see. No, there wasn't. Refer the nominations themselves: [19] [20]. It's kind of a grey area though and something I think we could discuss. Banedon (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have updated LinkedIn (including the unrefed section and a floating CN), Microsoft, and the List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft (though this last is not a target, its just where most acquisition info on MS goes). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, big number. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just another proposed business deal, not newsworthy for the majority of readers. STSC (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The social network that the highest number of people would argue that they need to be a part of, and possibly the best known tech company around? Those are of course opinions, but both ones I think the majority of people would agree with. As business acquisitions go, if this doesn't cut the mustard then I can't think of any past examples that would. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be careful with those statements, because Facebook is by far the largest social network out there, while in the world of tech companies Apple is the world's strongest brand according to Forbes, Google is second, and there are many other well-known names like Samsung, Intel and IBM as well. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone who states that they have a need to be part of Facebook needs to evaluate their priorities. The same cannot be said for LinkedIn. As for tech companies, Apple and Microsoft are nip and tuck in terms of what are traditionally thought of as tech companies. Google I'll give you (though that's almost entirely down to search, despite them having fingers in pretty much every pie), and you could put Amazon in the same bracket. But IBM? Intel? Samsung? Seriously?

    My overriding point stands though, which is that if one of these companies acquiring the other is not newsworthy, I can't think of a single acquisition which would be. With the possible exception of Microsoft's previous – and much cheaper – record acquisition. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposing this nomination (in fact I supported it above); I'm just saying that I'd be careful with those statements because it's entirely possible a reasonable person disagrees with them. Last I saw Facebook was so widespread one in seven people on Earth has an account, which is a penetration far higher than LinkedIn's. Since social networks are heavily dependent on the number of participants, Facebook has an arguably wider competitive moat than LinkedIn. Facebook's market capitalization is also so big ($326 billion as of time of writing) that it's almost as big as other well-known stalwarts like Berkshire Hathaway (that's Warren Buffett's company) and Exxon Mobil, and many, many times bigger than LinkedIn ($26 billion). Tech-wise there are many people who think Microsoft is an old hat, and the exciting stuff is happening in Apple and Google. Accordingly they care little about Microsoft. IBM, Samsung and Intel are all well-known mega tech corporations worth over $100 billion as well, not to be underestimated (and last I saw, Samsung revenue and profits exceed that of Microsoft). Again I'm not opposing this nomination, I'm not even saying you are wrong to make such claims, I'm just saying that I'd be careful with making grandiose statements on things that are not well defined, like "best known tech company". Banedon (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per my above comments. I'll add that the timing of such announcements is a matter of debate, but up until now this has been the way in which we have done it, and I don't see any justification for a piecemeal approach to the debate over when a business merger or acquisition should be posted. In the absence of a definitive guide we should go with the established practise. Therefore, the only question for me is whether this story is notable. Clearly it is. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I was close to marking it ready, but the "Microsoft" article doesn't mention the acquisition in the body content. Also, one of the sections is tagged as "outdated". George Ho (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • As MS has made so many acquisitions, they are all located now at List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft, which I did update too to include the LinkedIn one. Even the previous big one, Skype, isn't mentioned in the MS article body. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. I unbolded Microsoft, as the article doesn't mention the merger (nor should it, per Masem). Smurrayinchester 07:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

June 12Edit

RD: Janet WaldoEdit

Article: Janet Waldo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph NY Times

Nominator's comments: American voice artist, most memorably for Judy Jetson in the Hanna Barbera cartoon The Jetsons MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose as not top of her field, and unless and until the RFC is closed with consensus to change the RD criteria, that matters (unfortunately imo). Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Tony AwardsEdit

Article: 70th Tony Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: The Humans wins Best Play and Hamilton wins Best Musicial at the Tony Awards. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, LA Times, The Guardian

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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support the articles on the play and the musical are decent enough, the Tony's is a bit weak on prose, but good enough. All are referenced, no reason beyond a desire to beef up the Tonys list not to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole ITN lately has been stale. No wonder the overall views are low when nothing interesting gets posted on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nergaal: So fix it: nominate articles about news stories that you find interesting, and then improve the article(s) so that is not a barrier to posting (and Wikipedia is improved regardless of whether it is featured on ITN or not). Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready, since there is no formal opposition to this ITNR nom. I'd like to think that a 2-3 paragraph sourced expansion is decent enough for an awards event. Fuebaey (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted surprised this has taken four days, but in future, suggest nominator or someone else pings an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Stanley Cup FinalsEdit

Article: 2016 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Pittsburgh Penguins defeat the San Jose Sharks to win the Stanley Cup (MVP Sidney Crosby pictured). (Post)
News source(s): 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: ITN/R event. There are numerous photos of MVP Sidney Crosby on commons we can use for a picture. Andise1 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2 Pittsburgh teams average 1 win per 30 months and Cleveland's 3 teams haven't won in 52 years.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The Cavs haven't lost yet, though it's not looking good. But to rub more salt into that wound, the team the Penguins defeated has historic bloodlines which run through Cleveland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support summaries are brief but at least they are there, and referenced to boot. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Content and referencing is sufficient. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Gordie Howe sends his regards. Hopefully this one turns out better. Put it below Orlando in deference to same-day, major non-sports news, but if people want to change it, go for it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to stir shit, and either way is fine by me, but I wanted to point out that same-date stories with a corresponding picture are usually placed above those without. I don't think this is written down anywhere, however (or even if we still do things that way, although I think we do). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I lean towards the status quo, given that the guideline wasn't ignored. "Deference" was a poor choice of words, perhaps a better point would have been that the shooting is likely to remain in the news cycle for longer. A similar point could be made about Ali going to RD after his blurb dropped off the bottom. No special treatment was given to either story that was not explicitly permitted by a policy or guideline, and yet both decisions will result in a longer-term story staying up on the template for longer. Good use of the tools if you ask me. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: George VoinovichEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 15 June 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: George Voinovich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, New York Times, Fox News, All Iranian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of the most influential GOP political figures in the country. Helped shape Cleveland's future, notable opposition of the Iraq war and Bolton's nomination. Very well known and his retirement was well reported globally. His term as senator has been worldly reported such as in the BBC. Very notable in American politics. Article in good enough shape just pending on future obituaries. Death was described as "sudden" by NYT. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but oppose on quality. Article has {{cn}} tags dating back to 2007 and 2010, and I just added a bunch more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. An above average Senator, but I don't think he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose plenty of senators die all the time, this is nothing different. We don't post high-level but inconsequential politicians (he "helped shaped Cleveland's future"!) from every other country in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose didn't operate at national or international level in his field. MurielMary (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of notability. Sca (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pre-trial notability standards.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 13 June 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] Pulse nightclub shootingEdit

Unless (non-speculative) sources suggest otherwise, the blurb is unlikely to change. For death toll updates, please see WP:ERRORS. Fuebaey (talk) 12:22, 13 June 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 Orlando shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a domestic terror incident, up to 20 people are killed at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, kills at least 20 people.
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Police state that this is a domestic terror incident with multiple deaths and injuries. Breaking news and numbers haven't been confirmed. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until more is known about suspect(s), motive(s) and firm count of casualties. Also, whether there's any connection to the other Orlando shooting, discussed below. Unlikely, but we don't know enough about this latest incident yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a major shooting. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when the details are firmed up and the article expanded. Sheer casualty count makes this notable even for the US. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Ideally I'd like a longer article but it's still breaking news and it's not clear how much more relevant is actually known by reliable sources at this point. I suspect that this will get opposition due to the frequency of mass shooting events in the USA, but the way the reliable sources are treating this - particularly with regards describing it as "terrorism" - I feel this is one event that, sadly, is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - a mass shooting which is notable even with US standard.BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A significant number of casualties occurred and this stands out among events. It can be expected to receive much more coverage in the coming hours. Dustin (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support - this is the worst single act of terrorist violence against LGBT people in modern history that I've heard about (the previous one was probably the Mike's Place suicide bombing in Israel, 2003), and the deadliest terror attack on US soil since the 2015 San Bernardino attack. (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as inevitable.Support alt blurb. Surely the article will accumulate quickly. Crumpled Fire (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Opposed to the currently proposed phrase "domestic terror incident". "Domestic" is particularly problematic, as the sources seem to contradict one another over whether it is known that the attacker was US-based or not. Also opposed to the phrase "terror incident". Labelling something as terrorism – even where that label is accurate – implies greater seriousness than other events with similar outcomes. This is a despicable atrocity regardless of the cause, and is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet as a major event without that qualifier. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree, the wording needs work. Crumpled Fire (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Support alt blurb, oppose originally proposed blurb for reasons mentioned above. Quality very hard to gauge but the article seems to be evolving in a measured and well-sourced way, which is all you can really hope for with this sort of event. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC confirms at least 20 dead, at least 42 injured. Alt blurb added. The right to bear arms eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If only gun control hadn't prevented more patrons from being armed this tragedy would have ended quickly. In all seriousness there is more than half this country that are fed up with spineless politicians and gun nutters preventing legislation.... we don't need it rubbed in our faces when tragedy strikes. -- (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Most of the world has stricter gun laws that the US and does not see this sort of thing- but this is not the forum to debate gun policy in the US. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as per Thryduulf. GABgab 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support AFAIK unprecedented in the death toll of a one-man attack on LGBT people '''tAD''' (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted time to make ITN more reactive on clearcut cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there is at least 50 dead. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This delay is ridiculous. Can we flag an uninvolved admin to post this already? This story is immense and record-breaking. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)My mistake for failing to notice. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's already been posted. I updated the casualty count. Smurrayinchester 14:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Should the blurb mention that it was a gay/LGBT nightclub? It seems to be an important part of the story. Smurrayinchester 14:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it should say gay bar, but every source I've seen says 20 or so dead. Where is 50 coming from? EdChem (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Most news sources have now updated to ~50. Crumpled Fire (talk)
First place I looked was front page of the BBC, which also says 50. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It's still unclear - they don't have a good hard number yet, so until that's confirmed, we should stick with the lower bound of 20, which I have boldly changed. An exact count can be assuredly had in a few hours and it can be updated then, but right now, the conflicting reports stories should be tempered. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, actually, as I'm checking now, nearly all the major sites are using the higher ticker number of at least 50 dead, including CNN and NYtimes (minutes ago as I type this). So I'll revert myself to put back 50. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Mayor of Orlando has confirmed 50 dead. Very sad. :( What about adding "gay" or "LGBT"? EdChem (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added "gay". Nearly all top sources lead off by describing Pulse as a "gay nightclub", so this seems both neutral and respecting sources. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - scale makes it notable for me. Blythwood (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment NYTimes, with the updated count, is now classifying this as the worst mass shooting in US history. I only toss out there if that might go in the blurb or not. It might be a bit POVish to add that, so only offering this. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps "At least 50 people dead at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida after the biggest mass shooting in US history."? EdChem (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I think adding it would be premature until we are certain of the precise death toll (50 is a suspiciously round number). I can see the justification in adding it at a later stage of the blurb's life, but not during the newsgathering phase where the facts are changing literally minute-by-minute. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) (indenting to make clear I'm talking about whether we should add "biggest mass shooting", edit conflict made it unclear what I was referring to.) StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we're using the term "gay" rather than the more inclusive term "LGBT"? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There's discussion on this above, and it was also discussed at the article's page. Basically, virtually all sources as well as the nightclub's website itself refers to it as a "gay nightclub" or "gay bar". Also, the Wikipedia article is at gay bar, which explains further about the terminology. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support It's nothing new about the United States but the "biggest mass shooting" in the country's history accompanied with the high death toll is notable in this case. This is also a huge warning about the overall safety in the country and the freedom of access to weapon, which should be immediately attributed very high priority with the enactment of laws that would impose restrictions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It should, and it probably will, but ultimately nothing will happen. It's a real shame, and an embarrassment, but somewhere along the line "the right to bear arms" became "the right to have unfettered access to virtually any type of firearm in unlimited quantities". I realize this isn't the place to vent, but this is maddening every time it happens. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per significant death toll. Mz7 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - News reports are starting to circulate that the shooter may have had allegiance to ISIL. I still think it was essentially a random gun nut with easy access to guns in a country that may as well be the Wild Wild West.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    They're investigating his travels and such to see if there's any legit link. It could have been aided by ISIL training, or he could just be a homophone. We don't know yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    We're still not certain of his motives, apparently, but it seems extremely unlikely that he was a homophone GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    He might be confusing him with the famous Cockney cricket player, 'Omer McBean. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    According to CNN, the shooter apparently called 911 around the time of the attack and announced his allegiance to ISIS. If that is accurate, then it is pretty clear cut that he was motivated in part by Islamic extremism. It seems likely that he was also motivated by anti-gay bias as well. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Who cares what WaltCip thinks. What matters is what reliable source report, and nothing else. Certainly not whatever is going on in WaltCip's head.
    The trouble with these cases is, like Anonymous, anyone can claim to be part of ISIS. The perpetrators of the San Bernardino shootings and the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis pledged allegiance to the group, but it's not clear if there was any actual connection or if they were just looking for glory or mentally ill. Unless a central ISIS authority claims responsibility and this is backed up by some police evidence, I don't think it should be mentioned in the main page blurb. Smurrayinchester 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Guns aren't allowed in Europe, so instead they use bombs, which is a big improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    It's not unique, for example please read Boston Marathon bombing for further information. And Category:Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States which has more entries than any other national entity. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Oh wow, plenty of articles on the US and no articles on improvised explosive devices in Georgia, Paraguay and Togo. I am wondering why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    It's because people like you don't nominate them or improve their articles. I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 13 June 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.

June 11Edit

RD: Rudi AltigEdit

Article: Rudi Altig (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: German cycling legend. --Cyve (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Needs more references, but I'd support when ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support One of only two German Grand Tour winners, World Champion, very visible in public life after retirement due to controversial commentary work on TV. Added sources, should be quite OK now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support appears important in cycling; won world championships twice, which seems just enough for notability here. MurielMary (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
ETA: following TRM's appraisal below, I've just re-read and noticed language errors (prepositions, capitalisation) which need to be remedied before ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per the above comments. 08:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a very quick glance found some issues with the prose (not encyclopedic), some tense issues, and plenty of unreferenced facts, particularly in the claims of his victories towards the end of the article. I do not believe this is ready yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Temporary oppose on quality per TRM. The sourcing shouldn't be too difficult (the general ref at the bottom of the article verifies the main sections of concern to TRM, though I can't tell if it's an RS); a copy edit and cross-checking that the prose is backed up by existing sources will take a bit more effort. Notability fine for RD under old or new system subject to that. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Christina GrimmieEdit

Article: Christina Grimmie (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American singer Christina Grimmie (pictured) is shot and killed by a gunman in Orlando, Florida. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American singer Christina Grimmie (pictured) is shot and killed by a gunman who soon kills himself in Orlando, Florida.
Alternative blurb II: ​A gunman fatally shoots the American singer Christina Grimmie (pictured) and then himself in Orlando, Florida.
News source(s): Yahoo The Guardian BBC Sydney Morning Herald

Nominator's comments: Tragic story that will be in the news for days. Tocino 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Probably may not pass under current post-trial RD criteria, so I've made a blurb suggestion. Unexpected death. Brandmeistertalk 08:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Not influential in her field and not well known at all outside USA or even within USA, as far as I am aware. Her death is tragic and totally unexpected but you have to question whether she is that notable in her field. The only thing that might sway it is her appearance in The Voice but even then she was only a runner-up wasn't she? On the other hand, she is on the front page of a lot of US and UK media websites at the moment but I feel that that is mainly due to the tragic nature of her death and not because of her fame. Also WP:NOTNEWS. This is coming from a Christina fan, I would love to see her on the front page but I can't see it happening. Spiderone 08:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, now changing to support RD, oppose blurb Spiderone 11:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. "Will be in the news for days" is speculation and (regrettably) seems unlikely. If she hadn't been on The Voice we never would have heard about this at all. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in decent shape. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
We reverted the RD criteria back to what it was before the trial, Lugnuts. So yeah, oppose for not meeting the significant standards. George Ho (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Changed vote at the near-bottom of the nomination section. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks George - I didn't know the trial had ended. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support unexpected killing, leading story in Australia, US and UK, just passes significance. MurielMary (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
There are unexpected killings every day in the world. If we posted the killing of every minor celebrity as a blurb(and she doesn't meet the RD criteria), we would be nothing but a news ticker. If she hadn't been on The Voice(which she didn't win) we would never have heard about this. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Support is for RD not blurb. Also that logic doesn't work. If Gordie hadn't been a top hockey player we wouldn't have heard about his death. If Ali hadn't been a top boxer we wouldn't have heard about his death. She was on the Voice, so we did hear about it. MurielMary (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant when it comes to individual notability. That people are killed every day would mean that we would not post about any death. That would not work.BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per MurielMary. I think this death is as notable as the deaths of Gordie or Ali, since both of their deaths were more expected and didn't involve a shooting incident. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hahahahaha, no. I don't think entire magazines are going to be devoted to her, nor is any network going to suspend its regular programming for six hours to cover her funeral. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Mary, as we have now set the bar so much lower with blurbing Gordie, this must be a shoo-in for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't here to discuss adding Gordie, but I agree that blurbing his death (at the top no less!) was a ridiculous choice. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support She's apparently notable enough to have had an article since 2011 with hundreds of edits prior to this, and she was murdered at a concert in a public incident. BBC and are both putting this at the top, that looks like global coverage to me. - Lvthn13 (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - the singer is above the "normal standard" and her death has been mentioned worldwide for a reason.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support for blurb (oppose RD). Murders of celebrities, politicians, etc. are not an everyday occurrence, which makes the death in itself notable, and it does seem to be getting considerable news coverage. At the moment, the news coverage seems somewhat empty since we have neither an identity nor a motive on the shooter, so waiting a few hours could also be a good thing. I don't think Ms. Grimmie has the kind of wide-ranging notability that would incline her toward RD apart from the tragic nature of her death, so I would lean towards a blurb or nothing. Dragons flight (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only – Sadly, this shooting will be Christina's main claim to notability. Sca (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose RD. The news here is that a minor celebrity (who does not meet the non-trial RD criteria) was unexpectedly shot dead. I.e. the news is the death not that a person notable for other things has died. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would have agreed that if her only claim to fame was participating in The Voice then yes, she should not be featured at ITN. But, she had a successful career at Youtube previously to competing in The Voice and has had several of her music singles charting and some interesting collaborations. This one just makes the threshold for blurb inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Tragic, but she wasn't RD-worthy since not at top of field, manner of death is sensational but not remarkable enough for a blurb. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both People get shot in the United States all the time. Some of them are moderately well known (in the United States). Minor news, on a world scale. Jheald (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both This is definitely tragic but 1) she was far from the top of her field and 2) shooting people in the United States is a run-of-the-mill activity. That said, it is not sufficient to qualify either for RD or a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's a run of the mill activity, then how you can really say it's tragic? The two are at complete odds with one another. Either this was a tragedy or it was just another uninteresting death in a land packed full of gun toting murderers; you can't have it both ways, so why not be honest about which one you think is true? - Lvthn13 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lvthn13: The fact that a young person was killed is the tragedy here and it has nothing to do with the frequency of the shooting incidents in the United States. There are several hundreds shooting/stabbing incidents in the world every year and they're all tragic, regardless of whether they appear in the media or not. So, the word "tragic" doesn't depend on the amount of notability that one attributes to the event in which the person was killed compared to other similar events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Shooting deaths are all too frequent in America, but the killing of public figures is rare. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. This is a run of the mill American shooting, from right here in my lovely hometown: You'll note that the victim never had a Wikipedia page, there were no fans as witnesses, and it didn't get coverage throughout the Anglosphere. Now, I personally don't find either of these deaths particularly tragic, not knowing the people involved I see no reason to be dishonest about its emotional impact on me, but I would like to know what invisible line you're suggesting this doesn't cross. Not just you but several others said pretty much the same thing, so do none of you really see the difference between BBC headlines and common violence of local notability, or what's the deal here? - Lvthn13 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb. RD depends on what rules we're using at the moment, but in no way was she notable enough for a blurb, despite the tragic circumstances of her death. == Kicking222 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The standard rules are the ones in use currently as the trial is over. There is though an RFC on making the trial rules permanent, see WP:2016 ITNRD RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. She was notable on YouTube before The Voice, and several news organizations are reporting on her death. Blue Adventure (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, the media coverage is extensive (US, CA, UK, various outlets in India, South Africa's eNCA), she's the top story on BBC News' US & Canada section right now, and she had a career before The Voice. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD based on article quality. To those who said "oppose both" @LauraJamieson, Jheald, and Kiril Simeonovski:, remember that we're doing the RD trial of posting every person who dies to RD as long as they have an article of sufficient quality. Her status in the field of singing isn't relevant beyond her notability per GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh now I'm seeing that the trial ended? Well, I say make it permanent and post her to RD by WP:IAR if we have to. How does not linking this article to the main page "improve" Wikipedia as opposed to posting it? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • How does integrity of posting news not improve Wikipedia? If neither her status nor her death is newsworthy in Wikipedia, then posting her death by a blurb or just her name would not improve Wikipedia. Then IAR would not apply. I don't see rules as not prevent us from approving this nomination, does it? George Ho (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't support a blurb, I support RD, and the "rules" I'd ignore are the death criteria, which the recent RD trial demonstrated hold us back from showcasing relevant quality content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD and support reverting the rules back to what we had during the trial. (was: Oppose both, Death of a non-notable individual: not influential, had temporary local fame, no awards. ) Isa (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • See WP:GNG. Quite "notable". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • This is a guideline on articles, not ITN, and don't just throw links at people. Isa (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
        • You said "notable", not anything about ITN death criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Extreme oppose - Assuming the trial is no longer in effect, the notability of this is that it was a shooting in the USA and that it was a singer. Our notability bar for posting shootings within the USA is appropriately VERY high. This does not meet it.--WaltCip (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
By the way -- what's it going to take to get these dumb pro-gun laws off the books?--WaltCip (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe if Earth were hit by an asteroid smack dab on it's North American continent, that would have some effect. Sca (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If Sandy Hook didn't do it, nothing will. The second amendment is here to stay, for better or (mostly) worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a perfect example of an RD which could have been posted under the trial criteria 12 or so hours ago, with little issue from the community and especially little issue from our readership, yet here we are, duking it out, talking shit and wasting time. Well done Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Couldn't agree more. I didn't realize how dumb the RD criteria were until we removed them. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support promotion to ITN section. – jona 00:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM's reasoning just above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - also for The Rambling Man's reasoning. Andise1 (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jona, Baseball Bugs and Andise1: Do you mean RD or blurb? George Ho (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I support abolishing the "blurb" concept altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I support the blurb. Best – jona 12:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD per sca --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Her article received around 1,650,000 views yesterday. I understand the reasoning for some of the opposes, but clearly people are interested in reading about her. (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sadly, many contributors are not concerned by such trivialities as putting our readers' best interests front and centre. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Furthermore, quickly reading through this particular RD discussion (above) has finally convinced me to throw my support over at WP:2016 ITNRD RFC: IMO, the trial was a success and I hope, in the future, the criteria will be updated and changed. That way we don't get bogged down in this kind of talk. And we can use that energy to, instead, focus on any particular RD-article's quality. Christian Roess (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb It IS in the news (including Russian ones that I read) and has generally good quality. This is how the Second Amendment works, by taking lives instead of protecting them. Brandmeistertalk 08:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment well, this could have been posted to RD 24 hours ago should the trial criteria applied. Instead we have a decent article languishing, a torrent of subjectivity and personal preference yet no action taken. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - A notable singer. STSC (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The threshold for inclusion as RD is meant to be The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region or The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. This unfortunate young woman clearly does not meet these. When the current RfC runs its course, there might be a definition whereby she should be "granted" an RD spot, but at present, the criteria are unfulfilled.
So we are left to consider whether the incident merits inclusion as a news item; there is nothing apparently remarkable about the incident: neither motivation, method, circumstances or results of the shooting are substantially different from what sadly happens far too often. Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with preference for a full blurb due to the unusual circumstances of the death. As someone who supports the RFC on changing the RD criteria, I have no personal objection to an RD. But under a strict reading of the existing guidelines (ignoring the trial), this is one of those strange cases where I think a stronger argument can be made for either blurb or not posting than it can for RD. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there is overwhelming support for the RD criteria change RfC already... can we just IAR and post this to RD? -- (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think IAR is appropriate here as there are strong arguments both ways on whether this should be a blurb or not that need evaluating by an uninvolved admin. Also, while the RfC does have strong numerical support I wouldn't call it overwhelming just yet, and even if it were I'd prefer it not to be closed too early so we can avoid arguments about that down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • She was gunned down and murdered. I dont understand how this can be RD. Point of RD was place for daily barrage of deaths that ITN cant possibly support with full blurbs but not for murders and unusual killings. Makes much more sense to have a blurb here. Either dont post or post a blurb. -- Ashish-g55
  • support full blurb per StillWaitingForConnection. I realize this means we will be posting two (unrelated) Orlando shootings, but the killing of a moderately well-known singer in this way is (thankfully) uncommon, even in the United States (I used to be a full editor, same user as the other SH IP who !voted in the Peru election event). (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I marked it as ready, but then I unmarked it as such, especially when the recent mass shooting in the same city where this unrelated (?) incident occurred is posted. Also, I guess consensus becomes divisive on this. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, due to the unrelated mass shooting (moved portion) as said before, I decide to oppose blurb on the death of this sole person, even when I added the blurbs. I don't think posting it as a blurb is appropriate anymore, and having two different death incidents from Orlando next to each other in ITN looks awkward. No opinion on the RD, however. George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment 36 hours ago this was good to post at RD, since then we've had a dumpload of personal opinions and subjectivity, and nothing posted to the main page, despite the pageviews (in excess of a million) telling us this is of interest to our readers. Well done to everyone who has slowed this down. You deserve a medal for keeping Wikipedia niche and elite and slow and ultimately ineffective. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I fully understand your frustration of what's going on quickly after the end of the trial but, trust me, this is not the right place to vent your spleen. Your last three comments on this nomination consist of fatalistic griping on what others are doing to Wikipedia. I give a full respect to your efforts in improving any segment of Wikipedia (even though I cannot agree with you on everything you suggest) but this is not something that should find its place here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    I appreciate your comment. The problem is that ITN has far too many worms, they suddenly appear from nowhere after months of absence and say "I don't like this thing" and then bugger off again. If I don't make the point, plain and simple, here then it'll be missed. This is fundamentally one of the highest profile murders for a month or so and we are now way over 36 hours from nomination, with nothing wrong with the article at all and just a bunch of bureaucratic and subjective idiocy standing in the way of just two words being posted to the main page. Some of you should read this, realise how pathetic that is, and be ashamed. Wikipedia is not an elite club, it's an encyclopedia and ITN has a primary goal of serving our readers, not each other's egos and bullshit like that. Post this to RD now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD – This nomination is starting to devolve into bickering, but given the extreme interest by readers in Grimmie and the high-profile nature of her death, there's no harm in having her posted to RD. Yes, Grimmie was not at the top of her field so if her death was natural and anticipated, this likely would not have been posted. But the unexpected nature of it give her death greater notability. This is a case of bending the rules in favor of encyclopedic value; we don't have to rigidly follow everything that's written down so long as it's for the betterment of the site. There was some support to have this posted as a blurb; however, given the recent massacre in Orlando, having this as a blurb would be way out of place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this. It's clearly the right decision to post this to RD. The RD criteria suppress encyclopedic content at the whim of our personal biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: If the RD criteria were functioning properly, this could have been posted immediately, with a perfectly legitimate debate on whether to blurb because of the circumstances of the death. This is one of those rare occasions where the nature of the discussion was not the problem (it was crap, and as an aside I think people offering "extreme oppose"'s should be given something to be extremely opposed to, but it wasn't the problem). The old crtieria being back didn't help, but the main problem was that nobody had the guts to make a decision one way or t'other on where to post this, and simply acknowledge that the consensus might change. There was enough support all the way through to post somewhere. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
        • The new RD criteria would have simply resulted in the item being posted before the walls of hysterical text, and would have saved KB of meaningless chatter (including the "EXTREME" items!). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 10Edit

[Closed] RD: Shaibu AmoduEdit

Consensus against posting. Fuebaey (talk) 10:48, 14 June 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: Shaibu Amodu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Cable (sg)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of notable Nigerian football coaches. I believe that he is significant enough in Nigerian football, right? George Ho (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose under current RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose does not meet criteria of a leading person in his field. Also article very brief - one sentence on playing career. MurielMary (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I support the RfC to change the criteria. But to try and enforce them outside of the trial and before consensus has been achieved to make a permanent change, would create unnecessary problems. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:38, 12 June 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] Peruvian presidential electionEdit

Article: Peruvian general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Peruvians for Change candidate Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (pictured) is elected President of Peru. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Peruvians for Change candidate Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (pictured) is narrowly elected President of Peru.
News source(s): BBC News, Deutsche Welle, Reuters

Article needs updating

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: Another close race with mixed exit polls. Article needs work. Fuebaey (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose appalling state, some wrong tenses, plenty of unreferenced sections, almost embarrassing that it has been nominated, even if it is ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We're not going to get a result for several days - until the overseas votes are counted. Neljack (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It appears that Kuczynski has been declared the winner. Time to post? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The update is not fine yet, the article needs some more work. But, if posted, we could timestamp it on today, since the counting took a while. --Tone 18:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suport (as longtime editor, posting anonymously). The article looks mostly fine now, and the election is pretty significant beyond ITNR. The results are in: Kuczynski has defeated Fujimori to become president-elect of Peru. (if there is a problem with my anonymous !vote, please message me on usertalk.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Keiko Fujimori accepted defeat. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved this to the date Fujimori conceded. I originally nominated this because the BBC said then that it would be finalised the next day. That did not happen, probably because it was that close (0.25%). I'll look at cleaning some of this up - any help would be appreciated. Fuebaey (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Declared winner.--Cyve (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - unexpected winner. loser accepted defeat.BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The results of the second round in the results section are still missing. And some more text would help. I am willing to post but someone fix that first. --Tone 16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
'Marked as ready. Have added the results and expanded. Fuebaey (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Euro 2016Edit

No consensus to post to Ongoing at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 15 June 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: UEFA Euro 2016 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Nominator's comments: UEFA Euro 2016 will get a lot of traffic this month and I think it deserves to be linked in the ongoing. Nergaal (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Will be an ongoing event everyday for one month.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - of course deserves ongoing ticker. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Copa America Centenario is happening simultaneously. If this were added, we'd most likely end up with two football ongoings. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a weird one-off event, since the previous one was in 2015 and the next one is in 2019. It is hosted in the US and I would be curious if more people there pay attention to the Euro. Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would only ever justify Ongoing for the Olympics, where you have many different disciplines going on at once, and different winners in each. The UEFA Championship no doubt has similar traffic to any American sport's playoffs or the IPL, which as with the UEFA Championship only have one winner. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to conflict with Copa America centenary and concerns over systemic bias in treating two comparable events differently. Better to simply have blurbs for the closing matches as provided by ITN/R. Even ignoring that conflict I'm not sure if I'd support an ongoing here - better to reserve that for global sporting events rather than regional ones (however large). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose So many sporting tournaments happen, and save the Olympics, none of them get posted to ongoing for their entirety. I don't think we should do so now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the 2016 Formula One season is ongoing for much of the year, and that don't get posted (not saying it should) - it is a world championship, not a continental championship. No need to post it until the finals per ITNR. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Major competition tournament (and I hate football). I don't understand the logic of "we didn't post Copa America Centenario, so we shouldn't post this". Maybe post both.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, high attention event. Most of FIFA World Ranking top 20 teams attend... except the Netherlands.--Cyve (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ongoing is for events that would generate a succession of incremental blurbs, which is not something that we would consider for any single-winner sports tournament so ongoing is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have suggested, Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress. The Olympics are different as a multi-sport event, but tournaments with a single winner should never be posted to Ongoing. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is missing the point of Ongoing, which is to prevent the main section being flooded with multiple stories on the same topic. ("Olympic boxing champion", "Olympic swimming champion", "Olympic running champion"…) Unless something extraordinary happens, there's by definition only one match in this (or any) knockout tournament which is notable by ITN's standards. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I would point out that "Ongoing" was designed with two and only principle sport events in mind: the Olympics, and the FIFA World Cup as both events have broad international representation. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth I agree with every word of this, whilst noting that the FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the year it is held in all but three nations. Unfortunately for the purposes of generating consensus, those three nations are USA, Canada and India... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the IPL is watched by more people than the FIFA World Cup AND the Olympics combined. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The claim isn't that it's the most watched. The claim is that it is the biggest sporting event in almost every nation. I personally don't think any single-winner sports tournament should get an on-going slot (we should post the winner and anything intermediate that is individually notable for a blurb) but I recognise that I'm not in a majority with this view. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just a normal regional sporting event. STSC (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The Euro attracts a great deal of attention worldwide. It may not continuously generate blurb-level news, but one can expect sports columns worldwide to have some stories on the Euro every day. I think that's sufficient for Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What Ritchie333 said below too. Banedon (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose ongoing, but support maybe something else - The tournament has had sustained international news coverage over the past few days, but for all the wrong reasons; principally the near-riots in Marseille, co-ordinated attacks of violence on the terraces, and the threat of banning Russia and England from the tournament. (News search for "euro 2016 violence"). Who needs soap operas? If I type "bbc news" into Google just now, the lead story is "Euro 2016: 150 Russians 'behind' violence". So I think while the opposes would have had merit back on Friday, they need to be re-evaluated. As an alternative compromise, we could create a spin-off Violence in UEFA Euro 2016 and nominate that.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • That really starts getting into POVFORK territory. Not that the violence shouldn't be covered but to do it in a way as to put the sporting event in Ongoing despite opposition to it above. If there is that much violence, and/or if say Russia and England are banned, that would merit a standard ITN/C separate from the tourney results, but not ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly a POV fork (the violence has had more column inches than analysis of the game), though perhaps violates WP:NOTNEWS. So yes, retargeting this as a singular event and dropping the ongoing would work. I would invite readers outside Europe to tell us what news results they get for "euro 2016 violence", as I'd be interested to see if and how, say, sources in the US cover it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it from the US side, there's enough stories, its just overwhelmed by the Orlando shooting news. But I also see that it looks like there's going to be legal litigation in addition to possible bans issued by the overseeing organization that are being investigated now. This I would agree supports a separate article from the actual sporting event, though as no actual action has occurred yet, it's hard to ITN/C that at the present. But presuming that there is a trial and some people found guilty, or that countries are banned at the enxt event, I think theres reasonable ITN/C-worthiness for those stories when they happen. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is a potential blurb regarding the hooliganism and reactions to it, but they do not make the tournament any more suited to an ongoing listed than if they had never happened. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 13 June 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: Gordie HoweEdit

It's at RD, which at the end of the day was probably the correct decision. Howe was one of the greats, so a blurb was certainly a reasonable proposal, but since the ensuing "discussion" is very close to becoming a short novel, it's probably in everyone's best interests to close it and, I don't know, maybe do something else for a while. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:52, 12 June 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: Gordie Howe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Canadian ice hockey player Gordie Howe (pictured) dies at age 88. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Ice hockey player Gordie Howe (pictured) dies at age 88.
News source(s): Sportsnet, Globe and Mail,, Le Parisien, Helsingin Sanomat, Japan Times, New India Express, The West Australian, New Zealand Herald, Xinhua, Süddeutsche Zeitung

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Mr. Hockey. Easy enough. Hockey legend. Floydian τ ¢ 13:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, pending a little clean-up. One of the greatest players in hockey history, and one of the greatest athletes in Canadian history. Resolute 13:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    Support blurb as well. Hopefully some of the sourcing happens during the day, but if not, I'll try to tackle some of it when I'm off work. Resolute 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 23 time All-Star (!). Held pretty much every record in his sport until some guy named Wayne came along. Teemu08 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb If Ali for boxing then surely Gordie for hockey. As said above besides Wayne Gretzky he is probably the greatest hockey player that was still alive -- Ashish-g55 14:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • While I'm also fine with a blurb- Gordie is inarguably one of the sport's greatest and most legendary players- I really hate this line of reasoning. Ali was extremely notable for what he did outside the ring, whereas Gordie was entirely notable for what he did on the ice. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what Ali did outside the ring he was still posted due to what he did in the ring. As a sports personality thats what really matters IMHO. Otherwise blurb wouldnt read American Boxer or Canadian Hockey player etc. -- Ashish-g55 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would be interesting to know how many people in the non-hockey playing countries of Europe would advocate a blurb, while pretty much every human being between the ages of 20 and 120 knew who Ali was. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I dont think there is any doubt Ali was more well known. But again for that was due to his boxing career. More people know Tiger Woods too even though they dont watch golf doesnt mean Jack Nicklaus is any less prominent. -- Ashish-g55 20:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Ali was known for far more than his boxing career. That's absolute fact. Gordie did what else? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements There's some unsourced subjective statements in the Red Wings section (at the ends of about 2-3 para) that need sourcing, as well as his Personal Life section. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb. The argument for greatest hockey player of all time basically comes down to Howe, Gretzky, and Orr. Statistically, Gretzky is in another stratosphere, but historically, only one player was Mr. Hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb - Article improving rapidly. Jusdafax 15:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Quality looks good to me. I don't know if he reaches the level of a blurb, but if any hockey player does, it's him (or Gretzky). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll oppose blurb, support RD. The deaths of Prince, Ali, Bowie etc. that get a blurb have an outpouring of sentiment that I'm just not seeing for Howe. There's news stories, sure, but it's clear this death isn't having the same level of impact as those recent blurbed deaths have had. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb One of the most notable hockey players of all time. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb A name in ice hockey's pantheon of greats '''tAD''' (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Even those who are tragically unsportlich remember this name. Sca (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much of the article is speculative and unreferenced. Hopefully all these ardent supporters can improve the article. No doubting the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    And Oppose blurb per Johan Cruyff who played a genuinely international sport at the highest level for years, and made an impact on the game well after his retirement through radical coaching techniques. We should be consistent. Cruyff got RD, as such Gordie should too. Otherwise it's just more systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb far too prominent, not just in his field, but to the general public, for just an RD mention. oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment just to clarify, should a blurb be posted, we should link "hockey" or replace it with "Ice hockey". There exists more than one version of the game referred to as "hockey". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    Also, there appear to be many claims in the categories that aren't even mentioned which means the article is a blatant BLP violation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I'm not seeing anywhere near the level of coverage required for a blurb here. On the main page of BBC News right now there are two stories related to Ali and a third on the front page of BBC Sport. In contrast, Howe only makes it to the third story on the ice hokey page. Ice hockey is far more popular in Canada than it is in the UK, so I picked a random Canadian City (Toronto) and looked at the website for the first result Google gave me for a newspaper in that city (Toronto Star) and I don't see the story on the main page at all. I picked another combination and looked at the Winnipeg Free Press and see it's the main story and one sports story. Chicago won the 2015 NHL so ice hockey is likely big in Chicago, yet the story is only 3rd in the sports section on the Chicago Tribune main page currently. This is not the major international reaction that is required for a death blurb in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you're not getting the same results we do. I just went to the Toronto Star's website ( and there's a huge spread for Howe, featuring a picture of him with Gretzky, and a number of links to Howe-related stories and videos there. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • This is what I see from – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, it seems I was viewing the "news" page not the home page (I'm not sure what they categorise it as though - I don't see it on either the news or sports pages?). If that banner and number of articles were happening internationally, or his impact was not entirely on a single sport, I'd be supporting a blurb. Simply being the best of your generation and having a long career in one field doesn't merit a blurb - think about how many fields there are and you get the idea that we'd be posting blurbs for the best cricketer, footballer (all types), baseballer, politician, chess player, badminton player, table tennis player, philopsopher, psychologist, etc. Ali wasn't just a boxer, Prince's death generated international reaction, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Give it 24h for the news cycle to complete. His death was announced in the early morning, whereas Ali's was shortly after midnight (allowing it to make the front page that morning). I'd be happy to post pictures of the front cover of the Toronto Sun, Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post tomorrow. I have no doubt in my mind that all four will feature at least a full front page, if not a spread, on this Canadian great. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post have multiple articles each on the subject. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD on quality per above, no question he's notable enough whether the trial is happening or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending reference improvements. Definitely notable enough under whatever system we're using, but am leaning RD as the proposed blurb is dull. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. As NYBrad says below, referencing is just about there (I'm certain the remaining statistical statements are supported by the references, it's just a case of sticking the right ones in the appropriate places). Oppose a blurb because the nature of death is not noteworthy, making for a boring blurb. RD + picture would be the ideal solution. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The only sports Hall of Fame person to actually add substantially to his record after "retirement." Gets 8 articles between 10 June and 11 June in The New York Times alone (extremely rare event, by the way), covered by every major newspaper you can think of - including the Toronto Star ("The legendary Detroit Red Wings star played in 1,767 games and is the only NHL player to have suited up in five decades. He retired as the NHL’s all-time leading scorer and is considered by many to be “the greatest hockey player ever.”"), CBC "The nickname Mr. Hockey says it all." and so on. Major article on BBC [21]. RT even [22]. France, Belgium, German, Swiss newspapers. RAI. You name it, they covered Howe's death. Collect (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hopefully some of those places can provide the references necessary to resolve the sourcing issues... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Hockey is an international sport. Maybe not played much in the UK, but the UK is not the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And pointing that out is not going to speed up a nomination which is being opposed on quality grounds alone... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I had already started doing so before you started whinging about British nationalism (despite not a single person questioning that the subject is important enough to go on the Main Page) whilst refusing to muck in yourself. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't recall saying anything about British nationalism. But good for you for improving it. Now the other user doesn't have to. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not to feed a troll... but what were you intending to imply by noting the prevalence of the sport in the UK? - Floydian τ ¢ 01:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD promptly. The article is above average in coverage and the remaining cn-tagged sentences are minor (although of course knowledgeable editors should still fill them in). No strong view either way on blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blub, article should be good to go now. No one bigger in hockey except possibly for Wayne Gretzky. Mr. Hockey should get a full blurb. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as nom. Aside from Gretzky, who likely has several decades ahead of him, Howe is as significant to his sport as Clay was to his. I'm not sure how to word his significance in an objective way aside from the fact that Howe played hockey for almost as many years as Gretzky has been alive. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Not relevant to this nom, but referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Your Islamophobia was unneeded in your nomination, but thanks for sharing, I guess? Next time, maybe you should just discuss the article at hand and leave personal prejudices out of it. -- Mike (Kicking222) 02:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
          • White liberal guilt alert. Has nothing to do with Islamophobia; it's his birth name. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
            • What is your problem exactly, why can't you call him with the name he changed to instead of his slave birth name that he despised. Is there something that is bothering that you choose to disrespect him Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Which he changed and requested that people stop using his original name, something that all of us have the right to do for any reason. This would be a better world if decisions like that were respected. It has nothing to do with "white liberal guilt". 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb Clear support for blurb + death not timed for the news cycle.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It was completely inappropriate and unnecessary for someone who had voted in favour of a blurb to then post one. Posting to RD would have been fine, as there was no opposition to that, but while there was lots of support for a blurb, there was also some strong opposition and the nomination had only been up for about 12 hours. In those circumstances, I cannot see that this posting falls within the exception for involved administrators to act where any reasonable administrator would have come to the same conclusion. Other administrators might well have decided to allow more time for discussion on whether a blurb was appropriate.
The support for a blurb here seems like a classic case of systemic bias due to the disproportionate number of North American users - particularly as non-American sporting legends who have died recently and are at least as significant as Howe, such as Johan Cruyff and Jonah Lomu, have not received blurbs. Neljack (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Jonah Lomu didn't?!? Cruyff died of lung cancer after several months' notice. Lomu was a bolt from the blue and therefore I assumed a given? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well looks like Gordie was on the exit route for nearly two years, so this is no surprise at all. That Cruyff was voted down and this individual gets a blurb, posted by a Canadian blurb supporter no less, is a shocking indication of nefarious goings-on here. Shameful. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to blurb this individual does not meet any of the criteria for an RD blurb as listed on the criteria page. What is the point of having criteria if personal bias and personal preferences are going to be used to determine whether an RD should be a blurb? There is zero coverage of this death globally - nothing in Australia or New Zealand, nothing in South America or Asia or India or China, no impact on the world, no outpouring of grief nothing. He was a top sportsperson in one sport in one country but no more than that. How can he be on a par with Bowie or Ali or Prince? Recommend removal and placing appropriately into RD.MurielMary (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Dead Canadian gets blurb posted by Canadian administrator with plenty of north American votes for, but plenty of non-north American votes against. It's called systemic bias I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. So we might as well replace the criteria with a statement like "if you personally believe this is newsworthy then go ahead and post it" as the criteria have been completely ignored in this case. Why bother with criteria any longer? MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Many of our contributors don't bother with criteria and when they're scrutinised, you'll get "IAR" or you'll get "the majority of our readership is North American" etc. It's systemic bias at its most virulent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I do agree that it was not appropriate for someone voting for a blurb to then post one, given the way the discussion stands now, and maybe it should be pulled. That said, I do support a blurb as Howe was clearly one of the top figures in the sport. World coverage is not required(and specifically discouraged) and I wouldn't expect this to get coverage in Australia and New Zealand given the level of ice hockey interest there. I'm not sure when systemic bias was expanded to 'North America' but we didn't post a great number of dead Canadians under this criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm guessing you also voted for a blurb for Cruyff... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't recall that discussion so I honestly don't know if I did or not. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Turns out you didn't. There's systemic bias, working as well as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    So it's systemic bias for an American to support a blurb about a Canadian? As I indicated I don't know when systemic bias was expanded to North America. I didn't say I opposed a blurb on the soccer player, I said I wasn't convinced of the need for one. If he was one of the top three figures worldwide in the sport, then OK. Soccer has a much larger following than ice hockey I believe, so that would be much harder for a soccer player. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    To be clearer I do support pulling this due to how it was posted. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    (ec) No, it's systemic bias for an American to vote against a footballer getting a blurb. I don't suppose you even read the Cruyff article. Gordie had a long career during which he set records. That is all. Cruyff was considered one of the greatest players in the history of a global sport and went on to re-define the way in which that very sport was played. Some have described him as the most influential footballer in history. But that's not good enough for the Americans. But an ice hockey player who played for ages and then died unremarkably is. Systemic bias rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    I did not vote against a blurb; I said I wasn't convinced of one. Systemic bias goes both ways here. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    Eh? The long career hockey player warrants a blurb but the most influential footballer in history remains to convince you?? Says enough I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • 331dot, if you would not expect Gordie's death to be covered internationally then how on earth can you claim that he was a "major transformative world leader"?? That is the criteria for death to be posted as a blurb. If his death was reported globally, that would support him getting a blurb. It wasn't reported globally because he's not a majorly influential world figure. Continue to recommend pulling as this is dropping the bar substantially for blurb postings. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ice hockey does not get worldwide coverage; but this is well covered in areas where it does. That doesn't mean that ice hockey cannot ever be discussed globally. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Comment Why was this posted in the news section and not the recent deaths? This looks like an error - please correct it ASAP.
As a comment: I'm wondering in what kind of world we're living that the death of sports-people is considered that relevant. Take a look at the state of the world and ask yourself if one can with all seriousness conclude that the departure of people who achieved great results in various popular games of body-exercise are noteworthier than whatever countless observations, scientific findings, public events and processes, political decisions, sociological and technological debuts were made in recent days. --Fixuture (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb. Widely considered to be among the greatest hockey players of all time, and dying of old age doesn't automatically disqualify an individual from having a blurb. Calidum ¤ 13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb Did he change the world? Was he a Mandela, a Reagan, an Ali ? No. So RD is the appropriate place. Jheald (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the worst reasoning for pulling a blurb in the history of Wikipedia. That is an achievement in itself.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not true BabbaQ - Jheald's opposition is based on the actual criteria listed for a person's death to be listed as a blurb. Which are that the person must have been an influential world leader. MurielMary (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. - is a criteria, and he forfills it. Period. MurielMary, you make it sound that the criteria you are mentioning are the only one to follow. Which is not true. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The criteria you have just quoted is for an RD listing not for a blurb. Go back and read the criteria for a blurb of a death. MurielMary (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
By that standard no athlete would get posted. Sports are a huge part of our culture. I guess for some on Wikipedia, people who made their name through physical activity are beneath them? (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull blurb per MurielMary. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull blurb pas above. Utterly unjustified. (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep blurb - one of the best and most famous hockey players of all time. and the pull blurb !votes above are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it has no baring on a top field hockey player whos death became known worldwide.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not true. The "pull" votes above are based on actual policy - the criteria for a blurb of a recent death, which specify that the person must have been a majorly influential world leader. This person does not meet this criteria. Nothing about personal preference. MurielMary (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@BabbaQ:. The criteria are at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section. Is the cause of the hockey player's death the main story? Or events surrounding the death? Or (rare cases only) was he a major transformative world leader? (Hence my question above: was he a Mandela, a Reagan, an Ali ?) Those are the criteria laid down for a blurb.
Or, on the other hand, was the person's life the main story? Does the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries? Has the update to the article in question been principally a statement of the time and cause of death? Then RD is appropriate. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
BabbaQ kindly add the worldwide sources that you mention to the nomination bar at the top of this discussion. According to my searches this news has been reported only in North America and the UK. Nothing from Asia, China, India, South America, Africa, Australia or Oceania. MurielMary (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - as per BabbaQ and also to not make Wikipedia look foolish. It will be gone in a few days anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • WP looks foolish right now with a sportsperson on a blurb spot which has been previously used for the likes of Bowie and Prince. Looks like the major source of information in the world considers this guy to be an influential world leader. Ugh. MurielMary (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Looking indecisive is worse. And do you have any stats on what percentage of the public gets their daily news from Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't need to show stats because I did not say that the public gets their daily news from WP. I said that WP is the main source of information in the world, which is undisputed given the way WP appears in google searches etc etc. Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with reconsidering a decision and changing it. It's a sign of maturity to recognise one's one errors and fix them rather than allowing the mistake to stand in a bull-headed way to avoid some odd idea that change will result in loss of face. MurielMary (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
MurielMary, I have only two questions. Why are you ranting? And why are POV pushing?. Just asking. If it had been a close call when it comes to notability I would have understood, but not here, sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I am advocating for the criteria to be applied correctly as if they are not applied correctly there is no point in having them. That is neither ranting nor POV. It is objectivity. Without criteria, we just post what we personally think is notable rather than using criteria. Why are you asking me these questions instead of addressing the fact that you've been using the wrong criteria to judge this nomination, as pointed out by two editors now? MurielMary (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong pull - I have not heard of him and I live in Canada. (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
How old are you? Sca (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Have you heard of Wayne Gretzky? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, once or twice. I don't watch TV, let alone hockey. Wayne Gretzky ≠ Gordie Howe. (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Actually, when you said "Wayne Gretzky ≠ Gordie Howe" it became clear that you don't follow hockey, so naturally you wouldn't know them. Gretzky not only broke some of Howe's career records, they had a good and friendly relationship. Gretzky certainly knew who Howe was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Wayne Gretzky ≠ Common man around the world. (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Gretzky said that Howe was the GOAT. Surely he knows something about hockey! (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Google Image for "gordie howe wayne gretzky photo" and there are many examples of the connection between these two, going back to when Gretzky was a kid.'s lack of knowledge of Canada's national sport is nothing for him to brag about. ←