[Closed] 2015 Blackbushe Airport crash

[Closed] RD: Howard W. Jones

[Posted] RD: Roddy Piper

Nominator's comments: Called #1 best professional wrestling villain by the WWE; Hall of Fame member since 2005  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support conditional on significant article improvements. Pro-wrestling is not really my cup of tea but the subject does appear to have a decent claim to importance in the field and probably satisfies ITNDC #2. That said, there is way too much unsourced material in the article at present to link on the Front Page.
• Conditional support He's a notable name in wrestling and meets ITNDC#2. The sourcing, though, I agree is problematic. Is "wrestling-titles.com", for instance, a reliable source? "411mania.com"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling-titles is as solid as the world has, for that sort of thing. 411Mania, though, is hit and miss. It's a freelance deal, like every news outlet on the Internet has lately. Depends on the author. Ranks high in Google News, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks much better now than it did two days ago. It'll be nice when this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A legendary and long lived figure in pro wrestling. (Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support pending article improvements See sourcing issues above. Just for importance, I think this barely squeaks by given his importance the WWF at its inception. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An important figure in his field. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Myself and a few other editors are currently working on references and other improvements to the article. Nikki♥311 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - adding mainstream sources for death to the nomination. CNN said The superstar of the 1980s was arguably the top bad guy in professional wrestling history. The Independent said the actor and wrestling legend ... famed for being one of the best heels, or villains, in his profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. They didn't have anything ready when I nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support not only wrestling , but acting too..a very descent actor, not something you can say about any professional wrestler.--Stemoc 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not many, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the most notable wrestlers to ever live.LM2000 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once updated. Notable enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once updated. An absolute legend in the wrestling community and one of the few to speak out against WWE and still return. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article's in good shape. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Headliner for decades, lots of mainstream coverage, etc. It's a pleasant surprise to see a lack of "oppose, wrestling's not notable" votes this time around. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Death has four cited paragraphs now. Refs better, but not perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unmarking sorry, as a BLP this is still under-referenced; just take a look at "American Wrestling Association (1973–1975)" (1 ref for the whole section), "National Wrestling Alliance (1975–1980)" (1 ref for the whole section), "1989–1992" (1 ref for the whole section), first four paras of "Second return to WWE (2005–2015)" (entirely without a single reference). This isn't good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, if and when the referencing issues are resolved. Roddy Piper was among the top figures in his field and one of relatively few to achieve mainstream fame (i.e., it was common for people who didn't follow professional wrestling to be familiar with him) at a time when that was less common than it is today. However, "reliable enough given the subject" is an unacceptable standard. (Unfortunately, it appears to be one to which many or most of Wikipedia's professional wrestling-related articles have been held.) —David Levy 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment was completely unnecessary. Professional wrestling articles are among the most highly edited on Wikipedia. That's a bit of a double-edged sword. It means people edit them thousands of times a day; unfortunately, a huge amount of this comes from IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. However, the professional wrestling project is a small group of active, knowledgeable editors with a thorough understanding of verifiability and reliable sources. The "given the subject" comment did not come from a project member, and it would never come from a project member, because they take proper sourcing very seriously. It's particularly troubling to see this unwarranted attitude propagated by an administrator, who should be able to comment on an issue without taking a cheap shot. I certainly wouldn't say that the problem is no more prevalent in professional wrestling articles than elsewhere on Wikipedia. I just flipped through 10 random articles, and I came up with completely unreferenced articles about a Canadian town, ice hockey, commerce, soccer, religion, and a stadium. One article about a biathlon competition had one reference. Another was about a brewery and had 7 references for the 1270 words. That makes 8 out of 10 articles with reference problems. In fact, the only articles that were well-referenced in that random sample were Bathybuccinum clarki and Robert Alaine, two stubs with a combined three sentences. Nobody in the professional wrestling project would look at the state of the Roddy Piper article two days ago and think it was acceptable, but please note that the number of (unique) references has gone from 63 to 110, with the new references being reliable sources, and several of the old unreliable sources have been replaced. Yes, wrestling-titles.com is an unreliable source. Unfortunately, the history for many of those titles is only available in one book, which is out of print and costs a minimum of $130 on Amazon (one project member owns it but is on vacation). I would hope, however, that the project's activity on this article over the past couple of days has helped you see the extent to which you have apparently misunderstood the project. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm only guessing, but I think the crux of what David was trying to suggest was that the article contained and still contains a surfeit of unreferenced claims. That fails WP:V and WP:BLP in this case. I believe David's quote was a direct response to Smerdis of Tlön's claim that: "Sources are reliable enough given the subject; they'd definitely hear about it if they got something wrong" which is purely subjective and without foundation. We need WP:RS to support claims within a BLP, especially one that's going to appear on the main page. Please also note, it's never the absolute number of references that defines whether an article meets BLP, it's whether the references provided allow someone to verify the claims made within the BLP, especially those considered controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your response has me baffled. I'm not sure what aspect of my statement you are trying to address. If you look above, you'll see that I stated that the project members and I are familiar with verifiability and reliable sources (which you have conveniently linked for me, despite my previous statement). I was clear that nobody from the project would be fine with saying, "These sources aren't reliable, but they're good enough for the subject matter." People are working on the article. The number of references was obviously just an indicator of how the project has come together to source the article. My problem is not a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but rather with an administrator essentially saying, "The article sucks, but that's par for the course from that project", which is neither civil nor accurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to have baffled you, to have patronised you, to have borderline insulted you and clearly upset you. To be fair I was just trying to interpret what David had said. He may be able to explain his position in far more elucidating terms. The bottom line is that until this is referenced per BLP then it "isn't good enough". Hope that unbaffles you. I have no dog in the fight other than not putting an article onto the main page with clear and obvious verification issues. Perhaps it'd be better to focus on that instead of on David's comments, if you really want this to be featured in RD? Just a thought. It is also worth pointing out that numerous other admins may well be happy to post this based on the sheer number of references and the innate reliability of the Wrestling Wikiproject, so it may be posted regardless of my personal concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comments have me baffled, given that I neither mentioned the professional wrestling WikiProject (let alone suggested that Ihcoyc is a participant) nor asserted that similar deficiencies don't exist elsewhere in Wikipedia. It may well be true that "IPs and other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy" have inserted most of the problematic material and that the professional wrestling WikiProject works tirelessly to improve the situation. You're defending yourself against accusations that I haven't made. —David Levy 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Slam! Wrestling (a lot more reputable than it sounds) has a shitload of useful information (scroll to bottom). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As three days have passed since this nom was opened and this has not yet been posted, close as stale.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant (and ongoing) improvements to references make this a good candidate to post while still fresh. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for prompt posting. Personally, I'm not sure where I would come down on sufficient notability, but the consensus seems to be that this is post-worthy from that point of view. The referencing has now been improved, and is sufficient for posting in my view, especially that this is coming up on "now or never" time as a "recent death." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've tagged those claims which need sourcing. I would hope, in light of recent Arbcom decisions, that they are not "controversial" so the item can be posted as the work done has been impressive. Some other admins may disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People ridicule me when I talk about an anti-pro wrestling bias here, but this situation has really strengthened my belief. A month or so ago Dusty Rhodes had sufficient support for posting, then sat ignored for days before being rejected (in spite of several appeals from me for someone to post it). In this case, there is overwhelming support and a number of editors have put in some hard work to bring it up to par. Yet it still sits ignored. Meanwhile, a quick browsing of this page shows that things have made ITN and RD with half the support and in half the time. Can we stop with the games and please just post this already? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Time marches on. I hope if this happens again for Arn Anderson, we can close it as brainbustered rather than filibustered. There's a proposal on the Wikiproject Talk about sprucing up the big name articles, pre-obituary, so this wasn't completely in vain. And, if you think about it, being on Wikipedia's In The News means less, the heavier something is actually in the news. It's a drop in the bucket, then. The semi-famous like Lynn Anderson, Billy Pierce and Edward Natapei could better use the recognition. And no, that's not an insult. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after some improvements. There's still a section in need of attention - otherwise the sourcing looks pretty thorough. One of the most notable of his sport's last half-century, his influence was felt throughout the sport. Challenger l (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted While not FA quality quite yet, that's not the standard we use for ITN. The article has much improved, and most of the major referencing problems seem to have been addressed. --Jayron32 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think WP:BLP is strictly related to FA quality. The article had an orange maintenance tag on the free-for-all filmography section. It has been posted with many BLP claims unreferenced and unverifiable, see the recent edits of User:Kww for context on protecting lists of awards from BLP violations. But that seems to be okay on biographies on the main page, just not on lists of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand how a partially referenced award list or filmography for a non-living person is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case it seems you haven't actually read the BLP policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly have, thank you. Whether or not a deceased professional wrestler once appeared on the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! doesn't seem to fit with "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say it did. I said BLP still applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And actually, unreferenced claims like "He was of majority Scottish descent, with some Irish on his mother's side" can easily be considered questionable or contentious. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent )User:GaryColemanFan, you've inadvertently stepped into the middle of a surprisingly contentious area. By way of just a small amount of background, when the BLP policy was initially created, it focused exclusively on still-living people, and it especially emphasized that negative information on living people could not be included in an article without a reliable source. Unfortunately, this turned out to be too narrow a policy: When a notable person dies, that should not be a signal that it's now okay to start adding unsourced negative information into the article! This is particularly true where doing so could affect still-living people such as the subject's family. As a result, the BLP policy was expanded to the recently deceased; and also over time, emphasis has grown on how it's desirable to have good sourcing for all content in BLPs (and for that matter, ultimatlely in the entire encyclopedia). That being said, there are obviously issues of prioritizing: if an article about an actor (living or recently deceased) says that he won 20 awards in his career and there are sources for 10 of them, then it would be ideal to source the other 10, but if there's no genuine doubt that he also won the other 10, many editors would consider it a stretch to call the situation a "BLP violation."

A separate issue is whether the existence of an unsourced or only-partially-sourced awards section should disqualify the article from being mainpaged, such as on RD. ITN in general and RD in particular help keep our readers in touch with recent events and Wikipedia's coverage, but regardless of the importance of a event or of a recently deceased individual, our article on the event or the person must meet reasonable quality standards to be worthy of a place on the mainpage. For example, an entirely unreferenced article, or one with very few references relative to its length, certainly would not qualify.

There has been a longstanding debate on this page as to whether that means that to be worthy of an ITN or RD appearance, each and every statement or at least each and every section of the article requires referencing. In the past, I have taken the position that where an article as a whole has a decent degree of referencing, the fact that a given section (such as an "awards section") lacks inline cites should not stop us from including it on ITN or RD. Some other editors, including User:The Rambling Man, have taken the contrary view, opining that substantive unreferenced content is disqualifying for the mainpage—and if the content doesn't get sourced before (for example) the "recent death" is no longer "recent," then so be it. (An effect of TRM's and others position on this, operationally, is that holding the RD listing up until sources are added results in the sources actually being added—whereas if the article went onto the mainpage straight away, the incentive to improve it might not be there.) As with so many things on Wikipedia, this doesn't call for automatic, bright-line rules, but for editorial judgment and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I sincerely appreciate people willing to take the time to explain a situation in a helpful manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] India–Bangladesh land swap

[Posted] RD: Billy Pierce

Nominator's comments: Among the greatest baseball pitchers of all-time. Seven-time MLB All-Star, won Sporting News' Pitcher of the Year Award twice (only one Cy Young Award was given out those years, and he lost both to pitchers from the other league). Not elected to the Hall of Fame, but he arguably belongs there. Article is GA, so we'll be featuring quality content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support notability is reasonably clear, even to a non MLB reader, and the article is a tip-top high-quality effort, so this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Notable in the field and article is in good quality. Normally, I would consider the fact that he isn't in the Hall of Fame, but MLB HOF voting is a dramafest approaching ITN/C levels (I kid, I kid) and Pierce could conceivably make the HOF in a future vote. Spencer^T♦C 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not wrong about the problems with the baseball HOF voting. If anyone who doesn't know about what a farce it has become wants to know more, ping me and I'll show you some stories. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See for example Pete_Rose#Hall_of_Fame_eligibility. Pete Rose is unquestionably a top baseball player who would be posted at RD, but he is not in the HOF. Spencer^T♦C 11:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a top pitcher in his day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. His career seems to meet DC2 as very important to his field. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above comments. He appears to meet the applicable guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There might be nit-picky things I see on sourcing (it gets less dense later in the article) but its far from being in poor shape for posting. Importance shown. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment have to oppose a baseball player who didn't make the hall of fame which is a lower standard than RD in my opinion. The GA status helps though.--107.107.61.157 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITNDC #2 says... The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. That is well below HoF standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We posted Minnie Miñoso, a teammate of Pierce's, when he died. Like Pierce, Miñoso is on the outside looking in at Cooperstown. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Miñoso shouldn't have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ebola vaccine

• Sorry, edit conflict with the closing; I'm posting this anyway since several people mentioned renomination later: As noted above, the Ebola ça Suffit redlink was in case an article on the trial is written; I've removed it. I've updated the article. I also toned down the blurb after reading a pre-publication review that contradicted part of the published paper (see VSV-EBOV#History on reporting of adverse effects). Since FDA approval will take the better part of a year minimum, it is to be hoped that the epidemic will be over before it gets FDA approval; the continuation of the trial in modified form is broad enough that vaccine may be administered to all the people who would get it were it approved for ring vaccination (whether this is a good idea is another question). When, if ever, do people think this should be nominated? HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest renomination once the vaccine is approved by the FDA or its European counterpart for general use. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by "epdidemic will be over" you are referring to the outbreak in some west African countries, use of the vaccine in those countries doesn't depend on approvals in the US or its EU counterpart. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest renomination if the vaccine is approved by regulatory agencies. Jytdog brings up a good point - I would likely also support renomination if an African country decides to vaccinate a significant portion of their populace. Mamyles (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2022 Winter Olympics

Nominator's comments: Host city should be announced at 09:30 UTC on July 31. Only two cities are candidates. Could be a first if Beijing is elected, becoming the only city ever to host Summer and Winter Olympics. Hektor (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, once it's actually announced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when the announcement is made and articles are updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably Although given the two choices it seems rather depressing. Apparently the IOC has no interest in barring authoritarian police states from this honor. Hello; 1936 and 2008? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - when host city announced. (probably beijing.. IOC loves awful regimes).--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Isnt this nom made on the wrong day. As the vote is on 31 July? Might be wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot will create the July 31 section in a couple of hours. It would be wise to move this proposal there. Hektor (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on confirmation, and I would have no problem if it was Beijing to note it is the first city to host a Winter and Summer olympics, if there's space for such a blurb. Maybe The ICC selects Beijing to host the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both Winter and Summer events. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Once announced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once announced. I would use 'selected' rather than 'elected' in the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It is Beijing. Hektor (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, this is an election. IOC members vote. Hektor (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elections put people into offices. This is neither a person, nor an office being held. This is a group selecting something. Selecting by vote is not the same thing as an election. --Jayron32 19:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all elections put people into offices. The vote takes place, I believe(but could be wrong) by secret ballot. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is your responsibility to find reliable sources and change the text of the Wikipedia article titled Election, the first sentence of which you claim is a blatant lie.(I don't claim so, but you seem to be proposing that it is). And a referendum is a vote and not an election. Not all votes are elections. Just those that put people into offices. --Jayron32 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything is a lie or even that anything needs to be changed on that page; The IOC refers to the selection as an "election". [1] So do most RS: [2] [3] 331dot (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up the definition on one site, it states "a public vote upon a proposition submitted". [4] 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a public vote. Still not en election then. --Jayron32 00:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should speak to the IOC and RS's then and ask them to use different terminology. My point is that a public vote is not necessarily about people. Merriam Webster lists one definition as "the right, power, or privilege of making a choice" which clearly the IOC had. [5] Other similar definitions not involving people are here [6]. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can be right today. I don't need to win. Congratulations. --Jayron32 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be "right" or "win". It's about using the terminology used by sources, not about what I want. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --Jayron32 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] RD: Lynn Anderson

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Definitely looks notable enough - appears to have been at or near the apex of her field. Once the orange tag and sourcing issues are sorted, looks good to go. 2602:306:31D3:E5C0:11B1:A72B:A65F:E183 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on improvements - Sourcing in the article is hit or miss, but not too far off. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no one expects to always find "perfect blooms". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, conditional on article improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I used to beg my father for quarters to play her on the juke box. The article is in pretty good shape. I hid a comment about collectable models of her horses and removed non-bluelink items from her selected works. I tagged four items as CN, some of those claims like later cameos can be hidden or deleted as unimportant. I'll be busy for a while though, so not going to be much help for referencing. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find those adorable li'l plastic horses now unstabled and fully supported, (y'all)... ye-hah!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we need to fix those [citation needed] tags, as right now I'm going through an Arbcom mudfest where one specific admin will delete all unsourced BLP claims on sight. Perhaps we should do that here. THen it would be ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can count five. But two of those are chart placings?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so remove those, and we have three. BLP ain't gonna quit, and given Arbcom and "other admins", we're all in danger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to source her duetting with fiance Mentor Williams on his Drift Away at the 2007 CMA festival. All the rest have now got sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreferenced source as no non-primary sources can verify it. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marked Ready a few last claims with no verifiable support removed, no remaining tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T♦C 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mohammed Omar confirmed dead

Nominator's comments: Previous nomination by me yesterday was closed due to lack of confirmation from reliable sources. However, now the Taliban themselves are confirming it, and their doing so has been covered in many reliable sources. Additionally, it appears that the consensus among editors of Omar's article is that he is definitely dead. Everymorning talk 18:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - April 2013 is as stale as stale can be.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the most wanted terrorists/war criminals in the world. Even ignoring the problem of the date of death (which realistically precludes RD), I'd support a blurb here on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A major figure in the War on Terror. It's not his fault that it was announced two years after the fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think we've, by now, agreed that contentious reports of death surpass the "staleness" test. This is notable, that's why I'm seeing it on the main BBC News page today. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He's dead Dave. --109.149.122.191 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with this confirmation. It's not "stale" since this was unknown until now. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment marking as ready with a reservation that "spiritual leader" is a little too POV for a blurb. I would suggest we use something more like "Taliban leader..." as a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already says he was the supreme commander of the Taliban, which would seem to make "spiritual leader" kind of redundant as well as being nebulous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the proposed blurb doesn't say anything about supreme commander. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It" meaning the article. I agree that "spiritual leader" is puffery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose again, this is the Taliban confirming. And if you can't confirm the death of your CEO for two years, either your corporation is a sham or a front. Has one single Western intelligence source confirmed this, or did the times get it in an email from a minor Nigerian princeling? Will we be nominating Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead as a followup? μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the world only just found out that Francisco Franco was dead, I would definitely consider that to be blurb worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - both parties have confirmed the death of one of the most wanted people of recent times. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added a (hopefully more neutral) altblurb. Everymorning talk 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reiterating from my support from the previous ITNC (before Taliban confirmed). --MASEM (t) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We still have no reliable source comfirming this, even if they did, that he died two years ago would be stale. Neither a blurb based on facts nor a stale RD is justified. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb. Significant individual and potential implications on the ongoing insurgency. Modest Genius ^talk 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There're report floating that Jalaluddin Haqqani is dead also. Perhaps we can mingle both in one blurb? --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Greek debt crisis

Greece has not made news for some time, and no longer seems to be having any impact on the stock markets or commodity trading. Granted, part of the reason for this is due to earnings season having most of the economic impact right now, but if or until Greece threatens default again in the distant future, I see no reason for this to remain as an ongoing blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal it's all gone quiet over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal for now per TRM; we can always readd it should things heat up again. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Makes Sense μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But you just know that something major will happen over there 24 hrs after we take this off ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's still ongoing, but not really in the news much anymore. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove for now, though I suspect it will come back at some point. This has indeed drifted off the front page and into the business section while the details of the bailout implementation are worked out. Modest Genius ^talk 10:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed --Jayron32 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD/Blurb: Yakub Memon hanged

[Closed] Mohammed Omar reported dead

[Closed] Obama speaks to African Union

[Closing] RD: Jan Kulczyk

[Closed] Ongoing: Turkey–ISIL conflict

• • Comment I think, in diplomacy, the AU is of a whole different weight compared to Kenya. You may read the linked speech notes by the White House to get a more comprehensive grasp. Sometimes speaking can be much more relevant than acting (or induce the latter), as well. This definitely is of historical scale. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Microsoft releases Windows 10

Emergency NATO meeting on Turkey

Nominator's comments: This is an alternative nomination to the 'change Turkey blurb' section under July 24. This is because this event has now reached a different magnitude of importance resulting in NATO calling an 'extremely rare' (according to the Business Insider) meeting to discuss recent terror developments in Syria and Northern Iraq. I suggest we leave the Suruç bombing entry on the ITN as it is (its towards the bottom now anyway) and post this as a separate entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support - notable event. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: rather than a blurb, I think it would be better to bring events in Syria and Iraq back into the Ongoing section. Individual developments such as the Turkish airstrikes don't fundamentally change the war(s), but are part of a long-running conflict. Better to cover that via Ongoing than attempt to select individual events for blurbs. Modest Genius ^talk 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree, the main reason why I thought it would be worthy of ITN is specifically because of the NATO security meeting, which apparently is a rather important and rare event that is all over the news. Nub Cake (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on the general blurb - ITN would rather see what the net action is of the meeting than the fact there is going to be one. However, I do generally support the idea of bringing back an ongoing here as the situation develops. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Masem. It would be better to post the culmination of the meeting, if any notable events come of it. Mamyles (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this meeting was called by Turkey, not called to rein in Turkey. Now, if the outcome is a ground invasion, then that is huge but would require its own article and blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't usually post this kind of stuff until after the event and then only if the results warrant it. Beyond which this is all part of the growing Turkish involvement in the fight against ISIS and their waging war on the Kurds. I am increasingly looking at this situation as a good candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on conclusion of the meeting - this is a major development in the region and a very important development in the Syrian Civil War. Most of the Western jihadist sympathisers that are recruited to ISIL travel to Turkey and cross the border - Turkey is a key player. -- Callinus (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A very significant event on its own; only the 5th such meeting in NATO's 66-year history (going back to Korean invasion). NATO can require member states to come to the aid of any other member state, such as Turkey, subject to an armed attack (i.e. 9/11). --Light show (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - How is an emergency meeting bigger news than the incidents, which are subjects in meetings? The background has more context than emergency meeting section. I can't allow this to be posted this way. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's bigger news because it's unique and potentially a major turning point. The other "incidents," (aka "slaughters,") throughout the region are happening daily. --Light show (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's NATO, an intergovernmental military alliance. Still, I don't see how newsworthy a meeting is aside from incidents in Turkey. Also, I already voted on the other nomination way below (#Change in Turkey). — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if we were to post this, neither blurb seems accurate. The emergency meeting was called because of a suicide attack by IS in Turkey. Yet the proposed blurbs make it seem like the meeting was called because of Turkey's response. Calidum T|C 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still against making the meeting front page news, but here's altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And altblurb3 too. George Ho (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that starting any blurb with "after" some incident, will be misleading and imply a direct cause and effect. NATO wouldn't convene because of any single incident. The phrasing should be more general, ie. "NATO allies met in a rare emergency meeting at Turkey's request about its ongoing conflicts with the Islamic State and Kurdish rebels (PKK) amid a spike in cross-border regional violence." --Light show (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added altblurb4, but I made some modifications, like dropping "rare" and using present tense. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is an ongoing crisis so if we have an item that's properly updated, let's post that to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Edward Natapei

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous politicians from Vanuatu. Died aged 61. Prime minister three times and president once. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1DB8:6C86:4933:9E03 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability, since head of state and head of government. Might need a little more work, but to me, it seems OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - head of state. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article generally in good enough state for posting. Given that for Vanuatu ,the PM holds more power than the President, this is definitely meeting importance as the former leader of a sovereign nation. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a head of state and head of government. Article is acceptable, although I wish it had more details on his first stint as prime minister and his time as president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Clearly meets ITNDC guidelines. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Definitely meets guidelines, but I must agree with Kudzu - could use more details. Challenger l (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Questionable "fame," seeing less than 10 article visits daily. Lead sentence says only, "was a politician from Vanuatu." As the country has about half the population of Oakland, this could set a precedence for adding all politicians anywhere. --Light show (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Light show. I've never liked the school of thought that says prime minister/president = automatic post. This isn't something our readers will be looking for, this is filler. We don't need filler. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we′re against ethnocentrism, then we have to look forward to adding people from all countries. Really, this is how famous someone from Vanuatu can get, domestically at least. 2A02:582:C55:2A00:1CE2:7191:C4B1:20DF (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Light Show. Politician is one thing, world statesman is another. Unless there were some other notable accomplishment than holding office there's no justification for posting this. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Vanuatu is an island (or group of nearby islands). The article doesn't mention greatest accomplishments, even when he was PM for non-consecutive years and an acting President for less than one month. However, as long as his obituary is not a blurb, mentioning merely his name in the Recent deaths list won't hurt much. Also, the article quality is exquisite enough to mention his name. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems to me that Natapei meets the second death criterion as a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Vanuatu. Except for Walter Lini, he was probably the most significant and prominent politician Vanuatu has produced, so I find it hard to see how it could be contended that he doesn't meet the criterion. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per IP,Masem and Neljack. -- Shudde ^talk 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Boy Scouts lifts ban on openly gay leaders

[Posted] RD/Blurb: Abdul Kalam

Nominator's comments: Highly notable personality. Deserves a full blurb. 117.216.149.112 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb pending article updates - There's some tense issues in the article but that's expected for this just happening. Sourcing is fine and not an issue. Clearly RD, but would support blurb as a former leader of the world's most populous country and recognized beyond that. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but how on earth is that article GA? The writing and grammar is full of errors (even in the lede - "was intimately involved in the India's civilian space program"). Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the place of death important? Suggestion : "Former President of India and scientist A. P. J. Abdul Kalam dies at the age of 83". If that is ok, I will add it to the ITN. -- Tinu Cherian - 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've fixed dozens of grammar, spelling and tense problems. I might have missed a few, because the article was in a shocking state prose-wise. Hopefully it's at least acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support blurb, although RD might be preferable. I have gone through and corrected tense issues and some grammatical mistakes where I spotted them. Referencing for the article is strong. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• strong support, he is a very famous person in India, each and every one knows about him. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Surely notable enough for a full blurb. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Doing... Updating -- Tinu Cherian - 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done . Can someone protect the commons image --> commons:File:Apj_abdul_kalam.JPG ? -- Tinu Cherian - 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • c:User:KrinkleBot got it eventually. That edit notice with the huge blinking stop sign is there for a reason; you left the main page vulnerable to goatse vandalism for five minutes. —Cryptic 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. I'm familiar with the rules and procedures and have updated ITN many a times. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you should know that you never upload an unprotected image to the main page. Please do not do this again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            This rule wasn't there earlier (for ITN), if I remember correctly (<2013). I did leave a note here (for a commons admin) for protecting the image. Nevertheless, Will keep in mind. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Blurb - Bharat Ratna + People's President + Missile Man of India + Extraordinary Indian (Beyond Doubt) #RIP KalamSahab Regards, theTigerKing  17:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the quick blurb was a bit generous here. He is undoubtedly RD material at least, but I'm not seeing a large amount of news coverage outside of India - the death of Whitney Houston's daughter seems to be generating more prominent coverage than this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: Bobbi Brown, definitely getting more news than this, but then again, you have to wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Bongwarrior did strongly oppose that other nom, and I do see his point here - but can we assess this mans legacy from the facts in the article instead of relying on depth of coverage? --109.149.137.113 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Google News gives a few thousand results on the news of death. Some other "international coverage":The Wall Street Jounral,CNN, NewYork Times, BBC, The Washington Post -- Tinu Cherian - 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had no doubt that coverage existed, but it's not being prominently featured on many of the websites I've checked. Ideally, this should be front page news somewhere besides India (see Mandela/Thatcher), although that's not an absolute requirement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that is posted I don't mind keeping it, but for future I think full blurb RD should receive slightly a more substantial consensus and voting pool before being pushed on. This guy should probably be posted because he was quite notable in India where a huge chunk of the English wiki readers are, but otherwise it doesn't really strike me as a full blurb material. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question: Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" (unless the guidelines have changed about this)? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support saying pictured. Not to do so is bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is pictured still the practice? I checked the last 5 blurbs with an image and none of them had one. I saw that it was removed from one of them, when it was added. -- Tinu Cherian - 02:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "(pictured)" was removed from blurbs when the ability to use captions for an image was included within the last couple weeks. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks MASEM for the confirmation. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support keeping blurb: he was a top figure in two different fields, his birthday was officially observed by the UN as "students day", he had been the recipient of highest civilian awards of India and numerous titles from other countries. We did post Hisham Barakat's death (I know his death was significant because it was an assassination), but here you have the death of one of the most influential people in India since 1947. Just read the article and you'll understand why this got posted so quickly. 1.39.61.245 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added another blurb which could be used. Cheers! Jim Carter 04:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Support for blurb. However... I must join some of the other editors who have expressed concern about the speed with which this was posted. The same thing pretty much happened with Jules Bianchi. And unlike the current nom which does not appear controversial, the Bianchi one was. Had more time been allowed for comments I doubt it would have been accepted for posting as a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting concerns this blurb was posted within an hour, and while he is clearly a notable individual, we need to avoid this kind of knee-jerk posting of blurbs, particularly as the death wasn't remarkable or unexpected. Add to that the use of an unprotected image on the main page for a while, and, well... messy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Accepted that it was a slightly quick decision on posting the blurb - It was primarily because the subject/said person was non-controversial, snowballing support so far, this side of the world was heading to sleep; and a very notable world figure, a very popular President to approximately one-fifth of world's population at a time. Again, with all due respect to regulars at ITN, Point taken. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that we may have waited a bit longer for creating consensus; as for the death 'needs' to be unexpected and remarkable - most of the deaths are unexpected (if you discount old age and other medical problems - only surefire way to expect a death is if a person is being hanged or someone is at a hospice), Dr. Kalam was 83 yrs old, but his health seems to be ok for the age, so we may argue that the death was unexpected. Describing 'remarkable' is bit more difficult, lets say it has to be something out of ordinary, so a person's death in a car crash might be considered remarkable, Dr. Kalam died while giving a lecture, so we may argue that the circumstances surrounding his death was out of ordinary, hence remarkable (or at least different than supermajority of other deaths). Legaleagle86 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please use 'passed away' instead of 'dies'. 'Dies'seems to trivialise the context. --Lahariyaniyathi (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms: "The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away." Additionally, the usage of "dies" is traditional in ITN. Spencer^T♦C 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Bobbi Kristina Brown

[Posted] RD: Flora MacDonald

Nominator's comments: A trailblazer in Canadian politics. Canada's first female foreign minister, recognized with civilian honors at home and abroad (including the Order of Canada), and key player in the Canadian Caper (dramatized a couple of years ago in the film Argo). Kudzu1 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose almost no cabinet-level ministers ever get posted, including US House Speakers, who are third in line for the Presidency. A much better rationale is needed. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the fact that she was the first woman to serve as Canada's foreign minister (a position with international prominence, by its very nature) elevates her above being a run-of-the-mill cabinet official. Her national and international honors are also highly noteworthy. There are fewer than 150 living Companions of the Order of Canada, and it's not every day that one of them dies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think your nomination is in bad faith, Kudzu1, but I think "first woman to ex" is about as patronizing and meaningless as one can get at this point, given we've had lesbian PM's, and US supreme court justices and VP and presidential candidates. Merkel, for goshsakes. The implication is that there's some reason why we should not expect female office holders. That's sexist in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is great, but MacDonald became FM back in 1979, way before the rise of Angela Merkel or Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir or even Madeleine Albright. She was a trailblazer for women in Canadian politics, and pretty much every news story and obituary I'm seeing now makes reference to that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Eva Peron, Golda Meir, Queen Victoria, Katherine the Great, Joan of Arc, Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, or Elizabeth I? I suggest a long hot bath with some bubbles, a cat, aromatherapy candles, and a copy of Sexual Personae. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I find Kudzu1's argument convincing. Lots of honors (or "honours", as they say up north), in addition to the position. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One of the first women... Great accomplishment. This is the RD nomination, not the blurb nomination. Just name her in the front page, and you attract readers. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• On the question of firsts: The Globe and Mail notes that she was "the first woman in the western world to serve as foreign minister". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this special pleading (Indira Gandhi was a PM of india in the 60's) it's also simply false, as Golda Meir was a foreign minister before McDonald, as well as an Israeli PM before MacDonald was an FM. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, even if you don't consider Israel as part of the "western world" (the definition varies depending on where you are) it's still demonstrably untrue, since Karin Söder's stint as FM of Sweden also predated MacDonald's. (The first female FM of a major country in the modern era would be Ana Pauker in Romania, 1947–53.) – iridescent 08:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems to me that MacDonald meets the second death criterion by being a person who had a significant impact on, or made a significant contribution to, Canada. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While somewhat on the border of DC2 based on her impact in Canada, the good quality of the article pushes this toward something worth posting. Spencer^T♦C 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking ready – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Conceding that cabinet level officials don't usually make the cut for RD, her unique place in history makes a compelling case for an exception. (Oppose blurb if one is proposed.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted RD. Spencer^T♦C 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Chris Froome wins the 2015 Tour De France

Articles: 2015 Tour de France (talk · history · tag) and Chris Froome (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the 2015 Tour de France, Christopher Froome (pictured) wins his second race (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In cycling, Chris Froome wins his second Tour de France title.
Credits:

• Nominated by Torqueing (talk · give credit)

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITNR Torqueing (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Pending updates. Both articles in great shape. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tour article needs to be "past tensified" but otherwise I'd agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I came here to nominate so of course I support. Have been working on 2015 Tour de France for a GAN. I've just sorted the tenses and will do the lead and other bits and bobs. Change Christopher to Chris though. BaldBoris 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hence the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first time here. BaldBoris 20:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No stress, see next comment... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted excellent work on the race article, this is a gold-standard example of an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Mexico win the CONCACAF Gold Cup

RD: Ingrid Sischy

Nominator's comments: Fashion and art critic for decades for several prominent publications, including The New Yorker, Interview Magazine, and Vanity Fair. Certainly appears to have been at the top of her field. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support not a bad shout for notability, pretty poor article, but overall can't oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - this should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak Support" means this should be posted. You don't give a reason. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having worked in the gay press at the time she was at the New Yorker covering AIDS I can assure you there were dozens of names more prominent. I don't actively oppose this being posted, but I don't see any compelling reasons why it should be either. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Merely mentioning her name is good enough to prevent another obituary blurb, which would have been opposed if not for the "Recent deaths" ticker. Well sourced, writing decent (if not good), and well accomplished as a journalist. Then again, readers may not be familiar with this person, but at least featuring her name in the front page will attract most curious ones. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the ready, since the net consensus here is two week supports, and two supporting editors have commented on the poor writing. I could just as easily have closed this with my oppose yesterday. A nice overhaul of the article would certainly improve the nomination, but I don't think we should be posting out of acquiescence to "meh"s. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Though claims are made that she is an influential figure in her field as a published artist of long experience - the article seems to be largely a bullet list of places she worked, without really explaining her connections or influence, beyond a vague mention in the lead. My opinion is that the article could use a very thorough re-write by someone familiar with the community and the subject alike. Challenger l (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Hulk Hogan

[Posted] Change Turkey blurb

Nominator's comments: The airstrikes article still needs updating. We could also just put ISIL back to Ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Turkey finally intervening in the Syrian/Iraqi conflict is important considering they are a regional power. I also think we should wait for more information on the reported PKK air strikes and the potential breaking of the ceasefire and maybe mention that as well. Jeanluc20 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is also major development in Turkish-Kurdish conflict, which shoud be included within blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to that, but the blurb will probably get quite long then? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Altblurb II including Kurds offered above. Source footnoted in article, which alas mentions these developments only in the concluding Aftermath section. Sca (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support switching to alt-blurb II per Sca, but oppose changing the date. It's still at the top of the ITN news feed. It is possible that this could be the beginning of a serious escalation in Turkish military action. If so we may want to consider an ongoing nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb important developments - the involvement against the PKK is noteworthy, and has implications for US led efforts against ISIS and the interaction of the US with the YPG/PKK.-- Callinus (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be ready to post this soon, but would Turkey–ISIL_conflict#July_2015_conflict be a better link for the new bolded article on the airstrikes? The article itself is more directly relevant, fairly comprehensive and well referenced, and has information that seems to be being updated daily. --Jayron32 16:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That article seems to have a very strongly anti-Turkish slant. -- Callinus (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How so? Can you explain and give examples? --Jayron32 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See my change here. That was one of the more notable examples. -- Callinus (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, blurb including police raids, and use Operation Martyr Yalçın article for airstrikes.: Although I don't think the article is 'strongly anti-Turkish', the lead (which admittedly I wrote) did seem to be a bit overtly critical of Turkey's stance on ISIL before the airstrikes. I've reworded it a bit now so it sounds slightly less so. May I propose an alternative blurb, which is:
  'After a suicide bombing in Suruç that killed 32 people, Turkey launches airstrikes and police raids (pictured) against ISIL and the Kurdistan Workers' Party' - Nub Cake (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Operation Martyr Yalçın article is fairly new and currently undeveloped, but I'm developing it as quick as I can. Nub Cake (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article, I think is now up to an appropriate standard to go into ITN. Nub Cake (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, NATO has now held an emergency meeting on the issue. This event has reached a different magnitude of importance and I'm of the view that we should be posting a new entry entirely. Nub Cake (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only airstrikes blurb - The airstrikes article is ready, but the police raids page has one issue, which I tagged. George Ho (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ALT2. It would be helpful in the future if a particular blurb is identified as "ready" for posting, since in this case there were 4 blurbs and 2 bolded articles under consideration. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 18:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "police raids" story was proposed, so I wrote down "Airstrikes only". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Burundian presidential election, 2015

Article: Burundian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi in a disputed election that was boycotted by Nkurunziza's rivals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi, marking his third term.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi, whose third-term is disputed.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Pierre Nkurunziza is re-elected president of Burundi in a controversial election.
News source(s): Reuters New York Times Al Jazeera
Credits:

• Nominated by Everymorning (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: My understanding is that this is ITNR because Burundi is on the page List of sovereign states, as required by Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Elections_and_Heads_of_State. However, given the controversial nature of the election regarding whether Nkurunziza was eligible to run for a third term, I think we should mention the election's disputed nature in the blurb. Everymorning talk 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that for NPOV reasons we should mention the disputed nature of the election. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This ITNR election is especially interesting due to its disputed nature. Mamyles (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article is ready. However I would caution that we on ITN have generally avoided making references to controversy in blurbs about elections. Some very hinky elections have gone through with just a bland statement about the official results. I vaguely recall supporting a similar suggestion about an obviously bogus election somewhere or other and getting shot down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wish to reiterate that I have serious NPOV reservations about the blurb which does not appear consistent with normal practice on ITN. We do not generally add cometary about controversies to blurbs about elections.-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have serious NPOV reservations about the altblurb. The original blurb is entirely factual - the election was disputed and boycotted by opposition rivals. Failing to reflect that in the blurb would fail to reflect the various points of view on the election. As is evident from the news coverage, reliable sources are prominently featuring the fact that the election was boycotted. We are not putting commentary in the blurb - that would be if we said something like "in an unfair election" - we are making factual statements about the election being disputed and boycotted. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative blurb. --bender235 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Altblurb III. (Grammar: In Altblurb II, "whose" refers to Burundi, not to Nkurunziza.) Sca (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we posted the coup attempt. -- Callinus (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a completely neutral and factual blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @David Levy: Can we update the picture to the Burundian President? With the new captioning system, it's gotten more technical to do so. Maybe on the instructions page here we can list admins who are comfortable updating pics? That may be useful so we know who to contact when it is needed. --Jayron32 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already added it to the media protection page here, just waiting for Kinklebot to sort it and then we can list it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, already protected (Krinklebot seems to work on new material within 15 minutes, which is better than heaping all this on poor old David, especially since he kindly set this alt-method up for us), so I've replaced the image. Only thing is that the width of 120 was way to wide, so I set it down to 100, not sure if that was appropriate.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. Thanks! --Jayron32 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't the blurb say "(pictured)" after Nkurunziza's name? Everymorning talk 19:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Pictures now have captions. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. Sca (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  We are no longer encouraged to place (pictured) in the blurb (although this is the second time in quick succession that it has been noted that its absence is confusing...... the irony) as we have the grotesque captions that received some consensus somewhere, I can't point you to it because I never saw a clear indication of such a discussion. It just happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Anthem Inc. buying Cigna

[Closed] RD: Aung Thaung

[Closed] LaFayette Grand Theatre shooting

[Posted] Kepler-452b

Artist's conception of Kepler-452b

Articles: Kepler (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag) and Kepler-452b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kepler finds Kepler-452b, the smallest planet discovered so far orbiting in a circumstellar habitable zone. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet yet found in a habitable zone.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet discovered so far orbiting the habitable zone of a star similar to the Sun.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Hektor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: It seems they have found the most Earth-like planet so far. Hektor talk 16:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on suitable article improvements. This is very interesting news that is getting a decent amount of coverage. I would however strongly suggest that the primary link be to the newly created article on the actual planet once it is ready (it's currently a work in progress). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the most Earth-like exoplanet yet found is obviously a great discovery. Thue (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after article improved. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Fairly routine exoplanet discovery. Many similar worlds have been found, and very many more will be found. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can you point out another similar world which has been discovered? Thue (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: Kepler-438b, which actually ranks as more Earthlike than Kepler-452b. More listed at Earth Similarity Index. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that one is circling a red dwarf. I think it is noteworthy that we found the first earth-like world in the habital zone around a Sun-like star. Thue (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer an improvement on the current article before posting this. With a surface gravity of 2G is not really that much Earth-like. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kudzu1. Another planet just like this was found earlier this year. This type of discovery is now rather routine. Mamyles (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While not an expert in this field, I'm a bit concerned that due to the planet's mass, it could be a toxic volcanic world with an atmosphere like that of Venus. However, we must stick to what the media writes about this, and they have declared it to be the first Earth like planet in the right place that would potentially allow life to exist within the same sorts of constraints as exist here on Earth. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is it a sun-like star which making this discovery special? --Jenda H. (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the combination of the Sun-like star that has the same sort of properties like our own Sun, the fact that the planet is not much smaller or much larger than Earth, the fact that it orbits at a distance where the energy from its Sun will warm it so that water can exist in a liquid form. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - definitely newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support fascinating news getting coverage even during the hourly minute news summary on the car radio today. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'd like to see the blurb tweaked a little, perhaps just to say that the first Kepler is a space observatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although as The Rambling Man mentioned, it would be a good idea to modify the blurb to "The Kepler space telescope discovers Kepler-452b, the smallest planet yet found in the habitable zone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer902 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but there a billions of stars in this galaxy, so please correct it to state "... orbiting a circumstellar habitable zone". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready: Blurb is inaccurate, as Kepler-438b is a smaller planet in its star's habitable zone. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Added an altblurb to clarify that this is an earth-like planet around a sun-like star. Stephen 05:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready: The article needs some editing, then I would support the Alternate Blurb or Wer902's proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

What kind of editing? Which part needs to be improved? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]