Antarctic ozone hole mending

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

[Closed] U.S. military transgender ban lifted

[Posted to RD] Gordon Murray

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)Reply[reply]

• Comment is the target incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
• Support subject to quality. Massive cult following from millions of 60s and 70s kids. Windy Miller (cider) 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • @LauraJamieson: If the RD criteria are preventing quality content from being posted, all the more reason to voice your support of Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, I will do. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• Very happy to see this posted :) Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Rodrigo Duterte

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---

Articles: Rodrigo Duterte (talk · history · tag) and Inauguration of Rodrigo Duterte (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Rodrigo Duterte sworn in as the 16th president of the Philippines (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by 125.212.122.218 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A head of state assumes office. Several precedents. 125.212.122.218 (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Comment This looks like a formality as we post elections rather than inaugurations, in this case Philippine presidential election, 2016. Brandmeister^talk 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Oppose We post elections, not inaugurations. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the exception of the venerated President Barack Obama.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WaltCip: Try again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Muboshgu: Wrongo bongo. Scroll down to January 20th.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I guess I thought you were arguing the opposite; my apologies. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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

[Closed] RD: Scotty Moore

[Posted] Atatürk Airport attack

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• Support. Death toll is at least 28 and 60 more wounded. Very significant event.Egeymi (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Support pending further expansion. Article is skeletal at the time of my comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – Per Cbiskit. Needs more info. Sca (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Strong support Death toll now at 50. 70.51.87.13 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Made the correction. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note - fixed grammatical mistake in nomination ("Explosions...kill" rather than "Explosions kills") 171.66.209.4 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted – Sufficient content to post this now; article will inevitably expand substantially. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted to RD] Buddy Ryan

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • Yep. We need a new look and more comments here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support if a few more citations can be added. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment some good work here, but a few more citations required per the tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cited or removed the statements in question. Meinnaples (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • His head coaching record is admittedly pedestrian, but his impact as a defensive coordinator is unquestioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Marked ready for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted to RD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted to RD] Pat Summitt

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

• 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)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I am.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 10:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • 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)Reply[reply]
• Oppose any kind of listing, lots of unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, you feel that way, but I understand fully your sentiments.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 10:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  @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)Reply[reply]

  @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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  No consensus, actually. — Wyliepedia 13:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  Not according to a real dictionary. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Changed the article to not say "winningest". Suggest same here. — Wyliepedia 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • If eloquence is unimportant, then why the fuss about "winningest"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • @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)Reply[reply]
          • @Muboshgu: Gotcha. It's often hard to tell intent in this medium. ---Crunch (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support RD --Crunch (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support RD - good article, and notable person.BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• support for notability. Ill try to improve the article later tonight if necessary--147.75.206.138 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 21:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • "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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • 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)Reply[reply]
          • 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)Reply[reply]
            • 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)Reply[reply]
              • 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)Reply[reply]
                • 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)Reply[reply]

[Posted] RD:Alvin Toffler

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)Reply[reply]

• Comment is this an RD nomination or a blurb nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

Cites and tag issue fixed. Consider re-reviewing. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  It got those views without benefit of being on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  No, I support it because unlike you I care about what interests the readership. Stop hectoring. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Support - influential and well-known person; and the article is of sufficient quality. --Fixuture (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Posted one unsourced para in there, otherwise it's a nicely improved article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

[Closed] Bud Spencer

[Closed] Copa América Centenario

Expanded Panama Canal opens

 Bruzaholm (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as a major event that will directly if discreetly affect most people in the world. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Spanish general election

Article: Spanish general election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

• Updated by Impru20 (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.

 PanchoS (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• support - a general election is always notable. and so is this one.BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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:

  Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 June 2016‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Posted please save the graphs for elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting question: Shouldn't the word "The" be added at the beginning of the hook? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

[Closed] RD: Dan Daniel

[Posted] RD: Bill Cunningham

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

• Support – notable fashion photographer, with a good article that's well-referenced. Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• Suppoert Quality seems pretty good, and he seems important enough in the field of photography. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - good article about important person.BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• I have expanded the lead a bit. Abductive (reasoning) 07:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Iceland election

Nominator's comments: Voting is today. So results not far. Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose – not ready, disgracefully timed nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is why we DISCUSS problems before posting sub-standard un-updated articles (which has happened)Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose typically premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

^{Walt, you could sum this up as an opprose vote. Sca (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

• You know, it's not about honor alone that we edit Wikipedia, at least some of us. Brandmeister^talk 19:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Implying that Lihaas nominates articles because it's an "honour" is, in my opinion, quite rude - especially since it's apparent (to me anyway) that Lihass is doing this because he / she fits WP:HERE. Banedon (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ironic typo, quite rude, I'd fix that if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article is sufficiently updated and ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
• Support - INTR, article is sufficiently sourced. Suggest posting now per Floydian. Jusdafax 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted at last. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] 2016 West Virginia flood

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Support per Cyclonebiskit. This has been deadlier than the Europe floods, which we posted. 220.179.132.197 (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support for reasons listed above. Skudrafan1 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted and well done on half-decent article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• We probably should for consistency with the tornado blurb (country unlinked though). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Global stock market falls

[Merged] David Cameron resigns

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

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Suggest merge. Updated blurb on this one — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• Ah, I see your point r.e. the wording. Would suggest "announces he is to resign". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Eh? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• Support merged blurb. Obviously the two are inextricably linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merged. Cameron's article is better quality than the actual EU ref one, so no problems there. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • Concurring with PanchoS. Banedon (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
      • 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)Reply[reply]
        • Common sense applies here.... per Smurray. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

Stonewall National Monument

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

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