Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2016

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

RD/blurb: Mohamed Abdelaziz
Support I want to nominate him. Maybe just RD. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD/weak support for blurb conditional on improvements. There is an orange tag for referencing issues and only a sentence and bullet point for his entire life between 2002 and his death. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sahrawa? μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remember that during the current trial, importance and significance are not criteria for RD nominations all that is required is an article of sufficient quality. If this was not a comment on the importance or significance of the person you are going to need to be a lot more verbose about the reason for your objection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to educate yourself, please read Sahrawi people. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sitting head of state. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support, Support post to RD but article first needs CN cleanup. Nakon  05:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD/blurb: Antonio Imbert Barrera

 * Support RD Would pass under pre-trial criteria, but some tweaks may be needed. Brandmeistertalk  10:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not much more than a stub - the 49-year gap in his biography needs filling out. Challenger l (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD under trial conditions. A barely above-stub article which needs fleshing out and more references for the uncited material already there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carla Lane

 * Support subject to improvement. One section unreferenced, about half of another section also needs referencing now that referencing issues have been addressed. There are some bare urls, but that isn't a concern for RD. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, nappies allowing, I'll do my best to get this up to snuff tomorrow. Any help is appreciated!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment some updates now completed by an IP, and me.  Should have at least fixed up all the referencing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Under the trial - referencing looks good, biography looks a little short, but passable. Challenger l (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: David Tod Roy

 * Weak support the bio is half-decent yet it seems strongly focused on the one piece of work, and doesn't really discuss much else in the life of this individual. Few references but seemingly sufficient to cite what's there.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tom Lysiak

 * Oppose. Under-referenced and fully half of an already short article is an unsourced stat block. Challenger l (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more refs, per Challenger I. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rick MacLeish

 * Weak oppose seems like the bio is weak and there are a couple of references missing. Just out of interest, why would you think he'd pass the regular RD criteria?  I'm not seeing that at all in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Headlines like "ONE OF FLYERS' ALL-TIME GREATS" and "FLYERS LEGEND". I admit I had never heard of him before this (my knowledge of ice hockey is only so-so), but he was a major part of the Broad Street Bullies. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Chad's Hissene Habre jailed for crimes against humanity

 * Support & added Alt1 - I added alt1 and think alt1 better explains the significance of this trial and conviction. I will make adjustments to Habre's Wikipedia article within the next 30 minutes to better explain the significance of the conviction. This is a landmark trial and conviction. Previously, African leaders charged with crimes against humanity have been charged in courts outside the continent, such as the International Criminal Court or in Belgium (explained in Habre's Wikipedia article).
 * From CNN: "The court in Senegal found Habre guilty of crimes against humanity, rape, forced slavery and kidnapping as well as ordering the killings of 40,000 people during his rule between 1982 and 1990...The decision makes Habre the first African former head of state to be convicted on the continent, according to Human Rights Watch. It is also the first time that a court of one country has prosecuted the former ruler of another over human rights crimes, the group said."
 * From the BBC: "Chad's ex-ruler Hissene Habre has been convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life in prison at a landmark trial in Senegal...It was the first time an African Union-backed court had tried a former ruler for human rights abuses."
 * From The Guardian: "Not only is the trial of Habré the first time a country has prosecuted a former leader of another nation for rights abuses, it is also an important model of how hybrid courts can reconcile the often conflicting demands of international law and local sovereignty."
 * AHeneen (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems a notable development for law in Africa. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on significance (I haven't got time atm to evaluate the article). If the altblurb could be condensed slightly that would be better but I'm not opposing what is there currently. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not very familiar with African politics but the fact that he's the first ex-leader of a country to be convicted by another country for human rights violations (although presumably Ferdinand Marcos could have come close had he not died in 1989) seems pretty significant. That and African events rarely get the spotlight in world news makes me believe that, at least partly in the spirit of countering systemic bias, this should go up. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Featured prominently on mainstream websites. Sca (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment currently nine [citation needed] tags littered across the article which should be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. And now down to just two CN tags.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements The conviction of a former world leader for crimes attributed to their time in office is ITN-worthy. Only thing I see in the article are 2 CNs, those the proseline in the trial section is a bit clumsy but far from a problem to post. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance he will not end up going to jail? Nergaal (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect if he dies, he might not.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – notable developments and article seems ok.BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, Wikilink to Extraordinary African Chambers in blurb, please. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * could you suggest a blurb with that in please as I can't immediately come up with one that both includes that phrase and is concise. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be enough to have a piped link "...by court in Senegal." or something. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All citation needed templates have been taken care of (content sourced and, in some cases, rewritten to match readily-accessible sources). AHeneen (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Maybe the lead needs a little more adding, so it's not just a one-liner. I'd add the stuff about this trial, but is that WP:UNDUE?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Could someone update the picture? 86.187.171.116 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted nice work indeed. The lead is too short but that's just an amber warning and I won't tag it as Lugnuts has indicated that he can add one or two sentences to make it more appropriate.  Good work by the updaters.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With what? The sketch of his face, or the image of him in 1979?  Neither are appropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Should anyone bother looking for a better fair use image? I suppose having no good picture never stops an item getting onto the main page. Just seems a bit odd. 86.187.171.116 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't see how we can use a fair use image, Habre is still alive so it is perfectly possible that someone can take his picture and release it under an appropriate licence for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Should anyone bother looking for a better image? Perhaps people would rather see a central defender man of the match than someone jailed for crimes against humanity. 86.187.171.116 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you (or anyone else) has the time and think the article and/or ITN listing would benefit from another/a better image then then go ahead and look. The ITN image is generally the most recent blurb for which we have an appropriate image, regardless of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Philippine presidential election, 2016

 * There is one citation needed tag (in the "electoral system" section) but other than that it looks like it's good to go. I've added an altblurb that mentions this is a proclamation as well as an election, but I'm not overly fussed if others think we don't need to mention that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think a single CN tag and some odd phrasing here and there, in an article of this size and otherwise good quality, should prevent posting to ITN. The decision to delay posting this, for arcane and inconsequential procedural issues, was a dumb decision.  By the same token that delayed posting this, we shouldn't post US election results until January 6.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it's actually that whole section that's unreferenced, not just a single cn so I've tagged it as such. Once that's resolved I think we can post.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the electoral system of the Philippines is already discussed at Politics of the Philippines and President of the Philippines, so any sources there could easily just be transfered to the election article. In fact, you could actually cite the Philippine constitution as the procedures for electing/proclaiming the President are there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but a whole section without a single inline reference just doesn't cut it for me in any circumstances. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb II, with Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 as the boldfaced article. – H T  D  11:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. The original article no longer has tags and is on ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Alastair Cook reaches 10,000 runs in record time

 * Comment I have concerns on this as ITN, but regardless of those, the blurbs seem wrong/misleading. Quoting the Guardian article "At 31 years and 157 days, Cook has displaced Tendulkar as the youngest player to reach five-figures in Tests." "Fastest" is not really the right measure, though I see where it's coming from. Perhaps "Alastair Cook becomes the youngest player and first Englishman to reach 10,000 runs in test cricket." (I still have concerns on the ITN-worthiness of this record, given 11 ppl have done this before) --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, youngest is correct (and Test has a capital T).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed


 * Oppose - Cricket or not, we generally don't post individual sports records (unless it's Lionel Messi) --WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose We didn't post Peyton Manning setting the NFL touchdown record, why should we post this? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the previous, it's a good record, but nothing earth-shattering and probably more of a DYK than an ITN item. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. If he'd set an all-time record, yes, but "youngest person to reach an arbitrary number" is of minimal interest to most readers, even those with an interest in cricket. &#8209; Iridescent 20:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above, although some fans of cricket might dispute the "minimal" interest it's not someone beating Brian Lara's 501 not out (which I might support). Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Indianapolis 500 and Monaco Grand Prix

 * Support pending updates to the article. The Indianapolis 500 is one of the most significant motorsport races of the year (if not the most significant), and this is the 100th running. –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose even without a race summary, a lot of the existing prose is completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support only if merged with the Monaco Grand Prix, otherwise oppose. In the recent years, we've developed a practice to post them combined.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Monaco article also completely lacks a race summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I would be fine with posting the Monaco Grand Prix once I updated it later today. However, I still do not quite understand why the Monaco race is ITNR... I would not oppose to posting the Indy 500 independently. Needs a lot of work though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Monaco GP is not ITNR (it was removed late last year), realistically it's just a single race in a season of many races, just like this race, however for some reason Indy 500 is ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Indy does hold a more significant place in the IndyCar series than Monaco in the F1 season, I'd say... Just considering that Indy was the main part of the split from CART back in the days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Monaco is certainly the most prestigious F1 race in terms of atmosphere and is arguably the most iconic - it does have a lot of history but the British Grand Prix probably has a better claim to the title of the most historic. However it is first among equals at best - it is the same teams, cars and drivers as any other race of the season and the winners get the same number of points. I don't know about prize money though. I'm not opposed to a combined blurb but I haven't evaluated either article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Monaco (together with Indy and Le Mans) are considered part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport though, so there's that. I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here but winners of the Triple Crown in horse racing is usually posted here, and the Monaco GP was part of ITNR until recently. Perhaps, as suggested above, a combined blurb is an acceptable compromise? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not quite the right comparison, since no driver at the moment can win the Triple Crown in one year, if we take the Monaco GP and not the F1 World Championship as part of it... This blurb does not cover someone winning the Triple Crown, but someone winning parts of it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Stanley Cup Finals and IIHF World Championships are components of Triple Gold Club (and also ITNR), but players cannot win both in same year because of schedule conflict. --61.245.25.3 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The blurb should be "100th running", not "edition". Best I can tell, the latter is not used to describe the race, but "running" was used everywhere I saw this. --M ASEM (t) 14:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt-blurb added I added an altblurb with a proposed merged blurb for Indy and Monaco, as was suggested. The Monaco article now has a full qualifying and race report. The Indy article also seems to be coming along now, so maybe this will even happen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both seem to have been updated. Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Indy 500 still tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 58th Ariel Awards

 * Oppose "Stub" is giving too much credit; the target article consists of three sentences and a table. This can't possibly go on the main page in this condition. ‑ Iridescent 09:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a stub. Also, surely the English name should be in the link per WP:COMMONNAME? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bryce Dejean-Jones

 * Support article in decent nick, good to go per trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely a tragic event but the person doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria in his field and the circumstances under which he died don't change to much to it. If it were James, Curry, Durant or Westbrook, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. Besides that, how can this be ready with only one supporting vote?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't judge importance on RD nominations per the current trial on allowing any subject who merits an article to be posted to RD upon adequate quality. If you are saying this person doesn't merit an article, then it should be nominated for AFD- but as I understand it most professional players do merit a page. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I say that this person's notability is very far from enough for inclusion; nobody here contests on whether he merits an article or not. If any player in a sport league meets the notability criteria for you, then it doesn't and will never do for me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NHOOPS which states that playing in one professional game merits a player an article. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By "notability criteria in his field" I mean notability for RD (of course he meets the notability criteria to merit an article). Sorry if it wasn't entirely comprehensive.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only notability criteria for RD is having an article. I know you don't like that, but it doesn't change the facts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. No quality issues that I can see, the article is updated and the story is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is sufficiently updated. Opposes based on notability are not relevant.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Death of an active NBA player is unusual, story is in the news, article decent. Jus  da  fax   18:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Attention needed: The section dealing with the circumstances of his death has undergone something close to an edit war and is now, in my opinion, rather out of balance in terms of WP:NPOV and also in terms of accuracy in citing sources. There were two versions of the section, one by User:Jim Michael and the current one, by User:Pmaster12. Both were out of balance, in the opposite directions. In any case the article needs urgent attention, in my opinion. If the dispute is not resolved quickly, it may need to be pulled. Nsk92 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page. The version as current (by Jim Michael) seems OK to me (after I corrected the grammar) but it is definitely worth keeping an eye on. If it degenerates to the point a pull is needed then posting at WP:ERRORS is likely to get the quickest response. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I looked at the content dispute which is a bit of a stormy teacup between two erect stallions, it's not serious enough right now to cause concerns for ITN, and as Thryduulf suggests, ERRORS is the place in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] UEFA Champions League

 * support - when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted as ITNR with a decent update. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kai G. Henriksen

 * Support article is brief but well referenced, albeit mainly in Norwegian so assuming good faith on those. Good to go per the trial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact we cannot find proper sources in English says much about the notability of this person. He was nothing more than a CEO of a commercial bank (symbolically the oldest in the country) and a government-owned monopoly company at the time of his death that, I bet, most outside of Norway have never heard about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the trial(see above); "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. ". 331dot (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see Verifiability which clearly states that sources in English are not a requirement for notability. If you do wish to dispute the notability of this person for an article then this is not the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose this on the grounds of an event related to a single but simply because this person doesn't meet any criteria of notability. Can you tell me how this person changed the world? What is the value that the companies he managed created to the society? How he is celebrated, at least, in his country?
 * You' re right, they're certainly not a requirement but a very strong basis to judge someone's notability. It makes me a bit pain to dig deeply on Google without finding a single article documenting his death published in the English-language media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe the article should be deleted, please take it to AFD, otherwise the current RD trial applies, and the article is of adequate quality for posting, so although your current opposition is noted it is effectively meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review this information about the current RD criteria where we no longer judge importance; persons are presumed notable if they merit an article. If you are saying this person does not merit an article, then please propose it for deletion. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't aware about the experiment. But does it really prevent me to oppose it here since it's just a trial with unknown outcome? Anyway, I'll go to the discussion page to oppose it. Thanks for letting me know.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not seeing sufficient notability for ITN here. Death was not unusual, and "top of his field" is a stretch. I am also not seeing consensus for the ready tag. Jus  da  fax   18:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see talk page regarding current trial. "sufficient notability" is now justified by the existence of an article, we are simply concerned with the quality of said article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll ignore all rules and simply say I find the notion that anyone with an updated Wikipedia article who dies therefore to qualify for ITN RD is an absurd idea. I also disagree that my oppose and others like it is meaningless. Jus  da  fax   18:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. You are not alone, although since we have had precisely zero complaints and zero issues implementing it, and as a result of the trial we have had a dozen or so more improved articles and have stuck one in the face of systemic bias, you may be one of the IDONTLIKEIT brigade.  Thanks for your contribution.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I complained on your talk page early on. This trial is a failure and people are getting tired of it. We should go back to the previous method. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * People? Who?  You're another baseless IDONTLIKEIT campaigner.  There's precisely no logic in your position.  You want to go back to arguing the toss for four days over notability while I want to acknowledge that notability has already been established by the existence of an article on Wikipedia.  You like to waste time and get RDs to go stale and out of the news before they're posted while I like to get them on the main page as soon as practicable with high quality.  You are advocating a method which has failed to deliver for years.  That's failure.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 02:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Barack Obama visits Hiroshima

 * I would like to support this on notability as it is a truly unique historic event--Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only use of nuclear weapons as an attack and thus Obama is obviously the only leader of a nation to have used them to visit the actual site in the country they were used against. Certainly of large significance in Japan, the US, and broader significance beyond.  That said none of the linked articles refer to the visit at all.  I can't support it at this point.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With the amount of press coverage, I imagine that a separate article could be created about the visit. shoy (reactions) 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Something gives me the strong impression that he's using this visit to pad his legacy more than for any actual historical and political importance.--WaltCip (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Legacy reflects historical importance. Wikipedia articles have a 'legacy' section to discuss a subject's historic importance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Regardless of the intent of the visit, this isn't anything groundbreaking in politics (compared to Obama visiting Cuba as a sign of the end of the Cuba Thaw). --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem; very little of significance is expected to come out of this visit; it was made clear beforehand he was not going to apologize for the bombing; no new policies, agreements or treaties are being announced. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Masem, 331dot. Had he voiced some sort of apology, that would have been significant, but it wasn't in the cards. (After all, it was a decision made by Truman years before Obama was born.) His was a sympathetic gesture, that's all. Sca (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a mere PR gesture. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Resolutely oppose Echoing all WaltCip, Masem, and 331dot's comments in full, as merely a legacy-cementing measure by a warmonger; in addition, his remarks of ridding the world of nuclear weapons fly in the face of his tacit approval of a 1 trillion USD upgrade to said arsenal. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Arturo Pomar

 * Weak oppose the bio section is seriously under-referenced. 05:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hedy Epstein

 * Oppose being a Holocaust survivor is not a "field" and her role as an activist is far outshadowed by others. There is no evidence of awards or major influence on others. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, remember we're still doing the trial of promoting anyone who died to ITN/RD as long as their article is up to snuff. No more subjective "importance" criteria, at least for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There's some really weird use of quotes in this article. They're all cited, but thre's a lot of things that could be simple paragraph, leaving the quotes to things that are difficult to paraphrase or subjective. --M ASEM (t) 03:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly per Medeis. If she were the last Holocaust survivor, it would perhaps put some weight to consider this for posting. But with no indication about any important event and achievement with major implications in her life, this is far from being sufficient for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, importance is not presently a criteria for posting to RD - the only requirements are for the person to have an article, that article to be of sufficient quality for the main page and their death be in the news. See Wikipedia talk:In the news for details. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got it and already opposed it on the discussion page. But why not just oppose it here, where it's more visible?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's pointless. An oppose over personal approval of notability will be summarily ignored during the trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not ready yet there are a couple of statements explicitly marked as requiring a citation (and they clearly do need them) but when they're sorted it should be good to go. I note the quoting issue described by Masem but I don't see that as a barrier personally. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cannot post in current form. I was going to address the cn tags and post this, but in trying to source the last one, I discovered that almost all of the "biography" section is a word-for-word copyvio of this article, and have had to remove it.  I don't have time to rewrite from scratch, and as a result almost all of the article is now about one speaking controversy.  This needs to stay off the main page until the copyvio issue is convincingly addressed (there might be more copyvios, I don't have time to look further); whoever added that has possibly doomed the article to never making it to the main page until it is too stale to add. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked, I think you may have been mistaken and it is a commenter on that NJ Jewish News article who has copied Wikipedia. The article dates from 2011 but the biography section was introduced into Wikipedia in 2008 (see article talk for more detail). I haven't resorted it as I want other people to verify my thoughts first. You were correct to remove the potential copyvio based on your suspicions though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Thryduulf is correct. Not only the content but the formatting of the comment in that off-wiki article appear to come from our content rather than vice versa. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if so please revert me don't wait for my input. On a phone can't really check anything. Trust judgement of both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked, you're both right, mea culpa. I've restore the text. There's one cn tag left that (because I'm spending all my time lately fixing my own screw-ups) I can't deal with.  I agree with the nom that the controversy section is a little too long, but IMHO it's not enough to prevent posting to RD when the cn tag is dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the last cn tag, and (at the risk of violating INVOLVED somehow) gone ahead and posted this to RD. Consensus above seems to be that these tags were the primary barrier to posting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump clinches

 * Oppose Apart from this nomination being a lazy effort, this is only a press estimation. And even IF he had all the delegates, his nomination is not sure until he is elected at the convention. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nadiya Savchenko

 * Oppose – Interesting episode, but just a footnote to the Ukraine story. Sca (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - for a few reasons. First it's big national news, and it has garnered international interest as well. Second, four of the current five blurbs deal with prime ministers and presidents. I think it's preferable to feature different kinds of news as much as possible. Finally, the oldest blurb right now is over a week old. As with point 2, I think it's preferable to post something more recent. Banedon (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. We should not be modifying our notability threshold per Banedon, that's just stupid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, what 'Ramling Man' refer to as a "notability threshold" is sending ITN into total irrelevance. Right now 4 out of 5 entries are dedicated to presidents and prime ministers (two from the same country) and a constitutional referendum on presidential term limits (an article which is short as a stump). Maybe ITN should be renamed "Recently elected leaders" instead? -- Bruzaholm (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, 'Bruzaholm' you miss the point entirely. What I'm saying is that this story to me is not particularly newsworthy, and we should not lower our threshold just because we happen to have a certain number of a certain type of story on ITN right now.  Mind you, some people would prefer an entirely empty ITN section because their threshold for inclusion is so high, yet sometimes they arbitrarily lower their threshold because they don't fancy the current make-up of the ITN section.  Odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect that the suggested item doesn't fit 'Rambling Man's' subjective opinion of newsworthiness, my point is that the rules favor ITNR-topics such as natural disasters, elected and reelected political leaders, as well as various popular referendums. The Tadjik referendum is a great example of a topic that gains automatic elevation on those merits, although the article is very short and not very informative. No problem, but ITN should indeed have a name which better reflects the situation. However, my nomination was based on the item's own merits, not the fact that ITN happened to lack general newsworthiness for the time being. --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One person being repatriated to Ukraine in exchange for two people being repatriated to Russia is pretty small potatoes in a war that has taken thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands. Ms. Savchenko may be hero (or heroine, if you prefer) to a number of Ukrainians, but she's not widely known outside the country. The exchange doesn't appear to signify a fundamental change in the overall situation. Sca (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to see ITNR removed or adjusted, feel free to make a proposal. It makes no difference at all to my opinion that this particular story is of little relevance and minor newsworthiness.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Ms. Savchenko is not well known outside the country, but that applies to most people that make the news. If you cover up the current ITN, can you name the President of Tajikstan? I do not think it's fair to say the exchange is "just" one person being repatriated in exchange for two as well. If you look at the article, Savchenko's conduct while on trial in Russia has led to all sorts of things, she e.g. got elected into parliament while being held in Russia. She is a very high profile case. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Ms. Savchenko is not a head of state. Sca (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Notable story that has received plenty of attention and has plenty of great sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blurb mentioning Nadiya Savchenko but otherwise the swap seems not sufficiently notable. Prisoner swaps have been posted on the main page, with the last one I remember between Russia and the United States, but with a different and more neutral blurb without mentioning specific names (though the media then centred their attention on Anna Chapman). Anyway, the swap itself is not a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yang Jiang

 * Oppose systemic bias or not, there appears to be a 78-year gap in the biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose, article is in nice shape now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Systemic bias goes away when articles about non-Anglophone topics are improved to the same quality expected of Anglophone topics, not when we ignore major problems in articles. As noted by TRM, this article doesn't have the level of comprehensiveness we'd expect from a main-page worthy article.  -- Jayron 32 00:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements  clearly meets significance requirements. Naturally, systemic bias means that the average editor pays less attention to such topics. SST flyer 14:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quality is now sufficient. Let's face it, it is difficult to source content when the subject lived through the Cultural Revolution. Good opportunity to feature non-Anglophone female topics. SST flyer 09:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not ready until fully cited. It has been expanded since TRM and Jayron noted the gap equal to the average lifespan of someone in a first world country. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if a 40-year-old had died and there was a 20-year gap in their biography I would oppose. I'm not sure what your point is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that I agreed with you, and that the article is better now than it was when it was first nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man, User:Jayron32, User:Muboshgu: All the tags have been fixed. Taknaran (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Harper Lee had a massive gap in her career but was posted at ITN on the same day when she died. That's systemic bias for you.  The article in this case looks fine and there seems to be no good reason to delay when RD is so empty currently. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Harper Lee's article still had 18kb prose in the last edit before her death. And she avoided the public spotlight. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was hardly a 78-year gap, and as Muboshgu notes, the gap was mainly deliberate. Of course, if you want to get into the business of posting items, feel free to run at WP:RFA, it would be very instructive to see how that goes, particularly with regard to your (Personal attack removed) of fair use images.  In any case, there's a consensus here, so all you need is an uninvolved admin to post the item.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support This is the bare minimum for front page IMO, giving it some credit it wouldn't get if there were more English language sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, significant improvements since initial opposes, all but one of whom support now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Burt Kwouk

 * Beaten to the nom Support - Women bow!. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Career section is woefully underreferenced. Filmography is entirely unreferenced.  -- Jayron 32 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well according to some, we can use IMDB for the whole thing, or rely on blue links, or watch the movies, isn't that enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jayron 32 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes? (Not sour grapes...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you've proposed that the article should be posted on the main page. You're the one with the emotional investment to see it through.  You can actually spend the time to fix the problems keeping it off the main page, or you can tease people and act foolish.  It makes no difference to me which you choose to spend your time on, but only one activity will actually result in this getting posted.  -- Jayron 32 15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm asking if Rotten Tomatoes can be used to source the filmography. It wasn't a tease, it was a light-hearted attempt to get you out of your funk.  If you want to get all stressed and narky about it, that's your problem, but as you can already see, I'm making some progress.  It would be instructive if you could yay or nay the use of RT for inline citations of film appearances (like this for "Curse of the Fly"?).  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. It's better than no cites at all.  -- Jayron 32 02:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * imdb should be avoided wholecloth where possible to avoid the appearance of it being valid for thing for which it isn't. As it stands, here is a much more reliable source providing a filmography for Kwouk. G RAPPLE   X  10:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain that this is the absolutely most helpful thing that you could have said at this particular point, TRM... Shall we leave it there for the purposes of this particular nom? BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure. For some cases it seems to some that IMDB is just fine, for others not.  Hence why I phrased it as a question.  But sure, sayonara Bencher. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For something as benign as a filmography, IMDB is not an issue, as TRM has pointed out. It's when people reference the user-generated factoids in the trivia section that the verifiability becomes an issue. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * question someone want to ask what wikiproject film thinks? Daniel day Lewis (GA) and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (FA) have prose career sections with inline references, and tabular filmography sections without. Just FYI --107.77.233.25 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best way to ask what WikiProject Film thinks is to ask WikiProject Film at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP. Not to denigrate TRM's work (hunting refs is something I do more than writing (stilted) prose and a thankless task in comparison) but individually sourcing an article-linked filmography section is unnecessary even for FA/GA/DYK. I dislike seeing how "quality" here is arbitrarily instituting these inane "rules" for posting. Fuebaey (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Forget GA and DYK, requirements there are, well, special. As for FA, well I hope the people that review the unreferenced items follow the blue links and check they're referenced, as a minimum.  Otherwise the FA fails WP:V.  We shouldn't be chasing the lowest common denominator.  Plus, my edits were in response to the opposition who asked for more references (just as I would have done in their position) and we are driven by community consensus, not "what happened in one particular FA/GA/DYK". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * However much I'd like to debate the applicability of WP:V and WP:BLP with you, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I would like to state though that I was referring to the filmography section, not the career section (which should be cited and also cover his filmography), and that one person does not make "community consensus". Fuebaey (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't one person, and as I said, I would include myself too in any case. Relying on blue links simply isn't the best approach.  Just because one FA hasn't done the best it can, it doesn't mean we should all make a bodge of it.  I'm happy to work on referencing and working on making each item standalone and not reliant on other articles whose quality is unknown.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * neutral leaning oppose . While referenced, the career section isn't prose so much as proseline. That's not quite enough to make me oppose (but it very nearly is, and I may revisit this later) but it's not of sufficient quality to get my support for a main page appearance. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it, between nappies (not my own). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work, now support. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Frankly, TRM's work on this article has been admirable.--WaltCip (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work on the improvements.  Well done.  -- Jayron 32 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I'm done really, 90% of the appearances (despite them all having their own article) are now referenced inline and the article has had a general tidy-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sorry, but I don't see anything in the nomination or the article that suggests how he meets RD criteria. He is really only known for one role, (two if you're a Summer Wine fan), and doesn't seem to have won any awards. I don't feel that he can be considered a leading person in his field. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Struck oppose per comment below. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the note about the current RD trial, posting is based on quality alone.  Talk page has further discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What note? This is the first I've heard of any trial, though I admit I've been away from WP for a while. I'm afraid the talk page is a case of TLDR. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For one month RDs are to be judged on quality alone, in an attempt to avoid the protracted and usually nationalistic claims of super notability of one college basketball coach over another British sitcom actor... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing looks solid - according to the present RD trial, this looks good to go. Challenger l (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per trial criteria. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support is ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Point of information: What's the difference between narky and snarky? Sca (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Narky=bad-tempered, snarky=critical or sarcastic. I understand there are a number of dictionaries available should this situation arise in future. &#8209; Iridescent 20:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of information: what is the point of this point of information? Is it a point-making point of information our just a pointless pointed point of information?  Either way, I'd suggest the question is pointless and adds nothing, as usual, to this process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "EgyptAir Flight 804"?
The article may have received updates of May 22 and 23, mostly minor updates in prose. However, neither seems very impactful to the event marked as "ongoing". Of course, the event can be reinserted as just a blurb, but this is the removal proposal, i.e. delisting the event from Ongoing ticker. The ones in "Search and recovery efforts" discusses just an Egyptian submarine and a French boat scanning the possible crash area. The latest one in "Responses" is just a series of latest reactions that do very little effect to the event. The latest one in "Investigations" do not make the event meet the ITN ongoing standards, IMHO. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for a day or two. A lot of editing even in the last 12 hours, and the Egyptian and Greek authorities are caught up in a slanging match now. Smurrayinchester 08:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is starting to slow down, but it is still receiving lots of updates and additional information is dripping out. It'll be worth reassessing this in a few days but for now it is still ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep inevitably will hit headlines again shortly and updates are making it worth keeping prominent, per the preceding two comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep at ongoing for now, review in a few days. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now: still in the news, and updates are still substantive, with pertinent, new information from as new as yesterday being added. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus election

 * Support, the article has been updated sufficiently regarding the results and their analysis. I think a blurb about DISY retaining their plurality (rather than the Anastasiades government, Anastasiades would hold power as an executive president regardless of the result) could be better though. --GGT (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true. I intentionally omitted DISY as the party lost mandates and wasn't cited as a winner. On the other hand, mentioning the two mandates for far-right ELAM, as some news outlets did, seems WP:UNDUE as well. I added two altblurbs but am not overly happy with either of them, so feel free to join in with a better proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Added a third altblurb which I think is nearly there but not quite perfect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * altblurb3 is a good approach. I added yet another one. An admin should possibly chose one of the last two blurbs. --PanchoS (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please can we have (a) some news sources included in the nomination for us to read (b) at least one blurb free from grammatical errors (c) an article with more than just a one-sentence lead and (d) an article that is less opinionated ("Mere months before the 2016 legislative election...", "Papadopoulos had gone even further off the mark stating..."? Others may have further ideas. BencherliteTalk 10:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Tajikistani referendum

 * Support If the head of the Russian observing mission is Sergey Sirotkin (politician), he should be wikilinked. I am quite sure it was not Sergey Sirotkin (racing driver) though ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Does the removal of term limits only apply to the current president, or to anyone who is president?  The blurb suggests the former. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only to the current president Rahmon, from what I've read, making him President for Life. The wording is provisional, so altblurb might be suggested. Brandmeistertalk  09:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why they would do that and change it to allow his son to run at 33 years old- but I digress and will say that I support posting as a notable change to their constitution. Given your reply I'm not actually sure the blurb needs to be changed. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't like the "voters vote" in the blurb, but can't immediately think of better phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and adding an alt blurb that doesn't use "voters vote". Banedon (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Voters endorse. Voters favor. Voters approve. Sca (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Adjusted. Brandmeistertalk  17:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support and second the use of 'approve', which is most appropriate for referendums. Fgf10 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - constitutional referendum is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Eschew the use of the altblurb which invokes passive voice.--WaltCip (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted the article is barely above stub quality, but consensus is strong, so posted in the hope that we can get this expanded reasonably quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Binali Yıldırım appointed Turkish Prime Minister

 * Oppose for now. Needs some referencing improvement.  Especially the following section: Education, Early political career, second paragraph of Member of Parliament, middle paragraph of Minister of Transport, Awards and Honors section. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added references to the parts stated. Awards and Honours section is already sourced. The source at the end of the first paragraph lists the universities. Nub Cake (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article now meets minimum quality standards. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not the result of an election. Figurehead figleaf. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all countries elect their PMs, as a matter of fact. Brandmeistertalk  07:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. It doesn't have to be a result of an election. A blurb about the resignation of the Austrian Chancellor and the appointment of his successor is currently on the ITN. Nub Cake (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not ITNR; as such, I have removed that notation. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Nub Cake. "A blurb about the resignation of the Austrian Chancellor and the appointment of his successor is currently on the ITN". Can't put it any better. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't post one item just because we have posted other items in the same category of events. Each item is weighed on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'd still say that unless someone explains clearly what the difference between Austrian Chancellors and Turkish Prime Ministers are such that the former merits posting and the latter doesn't, then if we oppose posting this because of anything other than article quality issues, it would be a sign of systemic bias. It's up to ITN whether we want to embrace bias or fight it, and I personally think we should have a discussion on that; I do on a personal level feel we should fight bias however, and so I'm supporting. Banedon (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - The fact that it wasn't an election is irrelevant. Most countries don't directly elect senior government officials, not a reason not to post. Fgf10 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't want to formally say that I oppose this but the effect of this seems minimal; the PM is chosen by the President and as such must agree with his policies(in fact, the previous PM was dismissed for resigned due to disagreeing with Erodgan).  The new PM has even suggested his role should be abolished de jure because Erodgan is already in charge de facto. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The senior leadership of the CCP (PRC) is not 'elected' by the wider public, so "it was not an election" is a No-go argument. And until Turkey formally moves to a Presidential system, this is ITN recurring material. <font color="8B0000">Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a recurring item; in fact, the recurring items list specifically states that changes to head of government are discussed on their own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it is a non-trivial consolidation of power in favor of Erdogan, and thru my lens it is clearly by no means an insignificant step in the path towards increased Authoritarianism, and possibly Totalitarianism in the Turksish 'Republic'. <font color="8B0000">Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Though Yıldırım won't be much more than a figurehead, he has been a key minister for years, and both his positive achievements and dark sides are remarkable. Apart from that, current developments in Turkey are very intensely covered in int'l media, and is right in noting that this is another important step towards authoritanism. We should also reward the main author of this contentwise awesome article, though I'd like to see more English-language sources, or at least translations of some of the more important sources' titles. Technically it's a bit early, as Yıldırım has not yet been confirmed by parliament, but it is beyond any doubt that he will be confirmed at the parliament's next session. --PanchoS (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – New (nominal) head of government in a country of 79 million. Sca (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot, actually, determine whether or not this nomination should be ITNR. The criteria states that "heads of state" are ITNR, election or not, but that "heads of government" are not ITNR, election or not.  The definition of Turkey's government, as noted on Wikipedia, the CIA and Turkey's own government webpage, is "parliamentary republic".  This means the PM, as head of parliament, should be the most powerful person in the country, and if ITNR should have any correlation with impact, then surely heads of government should be ITNR for republics.  Now, the difference between "state" and "government" is something of a Western conceit that Turkey (among others) is doing away with, and there's good reason to say that de facto power in this particular "parliamentary republic" actually does lie with the head of state, contrary to their assertions otherwise.  The strictest reading of the ITNR criteria leads me to say that ITNR should not apply here, and this particular case seems to support that.  But the fact that, for many countries on Earth, ITNR would cover the change in a mere figurehead, but not the person in charge of the actual functioning of the state and government strikes me as absurd, and surely this would have been considered when laying down the ITNR criteria.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WT:ITNR is a better venue for this since the item has been posted, regardless of whether it should be included as an ITNR candidate or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed- though they may want to review prior discussions on that subject. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bata Živojinović

 * Tentative support, iconic actor. The article needs some more references, though. A couple of paragraphs are unreferenced (though there has been some improvement since the first time I checked). --Tone 20:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Other than the "Illness and death section", has a grand total of two references, and discounting the section on his death and the list of films is so short as to be a substub. I don't expect everything to be an FA, but I do expect an article on a politician to have more than one sentence about their political positions and career. &#8209; Iridescent 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs references and it's a woefully short article for someone who spent nearly 60 years in his field. Challenger l (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championship

 * Maybe they're melting away like the glaciers. Sca (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More just a matter that this is actually not that major of a tournament, unlike the olympics, World Cup of Hockey or the Stanley Cup playoffs, which are also ongoing. It's an annual tournament that is mostly seen as secondary, as many of the world's best are too busy with their club teams to participate. Tends to be treated more significantly in continental Europe than anywhere else. Oh, and its annual, unlike the quadrennial World Cups in other sports, and even hockey.oknazevad (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose even calling this a stub is pushing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article currently has 133 BYTES of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Trans: Twenty-four words. (Don't believe prose is customarily measured in bytes.) Sca (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:DYK for an example, Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's bigger now, but still only 1,066 characters (or 184 words, if you prefer) and not fully sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Palme d'Or

 * Oppose on length. Article is a stub right now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2016 Cannes Film Festival might be the better target article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support either target. The film article appears to be unstubbed now, so I've removed the stub tag. Haven't watched it, though. Brandmeistertalk  17:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Right now, 4 out of 5 ITN posts are about heads of government/state, and we need something that's not politics. This is ITN/R. Have added an altblurb, emphasizing the director (who actually receives the Palme, and Loach is one of very few directors to have won twice). Smurrayinchester 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with 2016 Cannes Film Festival as the target article, as it appears to cover the event in sufficient depth. Ken Loach has an orange tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length. A sum total of one sentence was added to each since both the film and award articles were nominated. For the film, I disagree that it is not a stub. I'd expect roughly 3 paragraphs on the film (lead, plot, production, reviews, etc) - it currently is half that and doesn't even meet the minimum length reqs for DYK. The award article should describe what happened at the festival - see the 2015 lead or the 2014 awards section. I don't really see a reason to highlight Loach's article; ITN/R is for the film, not the director. Fuebaey (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per Muboshgu. Opposers concerns about article length are unconvincing. This nomination, as noted, is ITN/R, and appears to be ready, so I am tagging it as such. Jus  da  fax   04:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose where is the prose? The film article is very sparse and borderline acceptable I suppose, but the 2016 festival article is just a series of massive tables with 1-2 sentence introductions. ITN/R means that the event is automatically deemed notable enough to appear on ITN subject to an update of sufficient quality. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Austrian presidential election

 * comment Same nom, same time. I just moved my blurb here as altbrlub.Lihaas (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A little early your prophecy in the altblurn, isn't it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea probably, nor surprised at chicanery (a la French election a decade or so ago (what fun I had debating with my [black) French teacher (incidentally best, most neutral teacher ive ever had...spelled out her position and actually discussed with me at UVA) ;))Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * comment point being, we don't determine "narrow" arbitrarily, reader can. And also mentioned party for context.Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Not just a close election but one with many implications for Europe, and within the scope of a turbulent time of Austrian politics. Maybe a merged blurb with new president and chancellor? That would also help with not having this blurb as a sea of blue which it is at the moment... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - close to call election. will have implications for European politics.BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until official results are announced. Postal votes have yet to be counted. The official results are released on Monday so best to wait until then. See BBC article ,
 * Added second alternative blurb in case Alexander Van der Bellen of the Greens is elected although I prefer the original blurb in case either candidate is elected. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support once the official results are known. And what's with the presumptuous altblurb?--WaltCip (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note about altblurb 2: Van der Bellen ran on an Independent ticket. So while it is true he is a Green party member, putting that in the blurb would imply that we won the election for that party, which would be incorrect. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Van der Bellen has now won the election --Tataral (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I also think we can call this a "narrow" victory, per BBC, euronews, Telegraph and other WP:RS. It's not a very subjective interpretation of the outcome nor is it WP:OR. --PanchoS (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Took a slightly trimmed version of alt-blurb II. Picture should be ready soon. Smurrayinchester 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose image – Int'l media was only interested in Van Der Bellen as Hofer's opponent. With a president promising to continue the low-profile role of his predecessors, the lately appointed Chancellor clearly is the central figure in Austrian politics. --PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support image. The head of state is more interesting to an international audience, and more recent. The narrow victory after a day of great uncertainty clearly is a major news story. --Tataral (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Recency is an argument, but why would a figurehead head of state be "more interesting to an international audience" than a powerful head of government? I'm not prejudiced against Van der Bellen, but while Hofer would have changed the political system of the Republic, it is very likely that the international audience won't ever hear about Van der Bellen again. The defeat of Hofer is the big news here, not Van der Bellen's victory. That's why I also strongly prefer altblurb3. --PanchoS (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think altblurb3 gives undue weight to the guy who lost the election. If Hillary Clinton wins the US presidential election, she will continue the legacy of Obama and many previous presidents and not really make any dramatic changes, as opposed to the American version of Norbert Hofer, Donald Trump, who has said he will persecute Muslims, build a wall and so on, and clearly have a more dramatic (in a negative way) impact on his country. But if Clinton wins the election, the blurb should focus on her and not Trump. --Tataral (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Is this outcome likely to be disputed?--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Hofer conceded. Smurrayinchester 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Nenzing shooting

 * Oppose – More of a murder suicide than a mass shooting. Baking Soda (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle, this is a rarity in Europe, although Austria appears to have been unlucky with fatal shootings in 2013 and attacks in 2015. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Tragic for those involved, but not that big an event really. Fgf10 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fgf10. I barely saw international coverage on this, and the death + wounded toll is relatively small as well. Banedon (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Nick Menza

 * Support Featured on 4 Megadeth LP's that have all gone platinum (one went double), and was nominated for a Grammy. Rust in Peace was released on September 24, 1990, and debuted at number 23 on the Billboard 200. Went Platinum after shipping one million copies. Countdown to Extinction debuted at number two on the Billboard 200 with first week sales of 128,000 copies. Went platinum after shipping one million copies.. Eventually went Double Platinum with two million copies. Was nominated for a Grammy. Youthanasia debuted and peaked at number 4 on the Billboard 200, with 143,000 units sold in its first week. Went platinum after shipping one million copies.Cryptic Writings debuted at number 10 on Billboard 200 chart, sold 75,000 copies in the first week, and was certified platinum in 1998 by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for shipping one million copies in the United States. JanderVK (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of what you typed is relevant while we're posting all recent deaths that are of sufficient quality (ie neutrality, sourcing). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until referencing issues noted in the nom are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Akhtar Mansour

 * Support article is extensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this is written in an encyclopedic tone. While sourced, there is a lot of speculation in the article; including his place of birth, his interactions with other Islamic figures and his death. Phrases like 'alleged', 'apparently', and 'claimed' pepper the article. I will also note that the US government have yet to definitively confirm his death, only that they did target him in a drone strike and is "probably" dead. Fuebaey (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as the claims are being made by specifically identified reliable sources and not being made in Wikipedia's voice then there is no problem with those sorts of statements - indeed if the information is disputed by reliable sources or there is no definitive information available they are required. As for the death, last I saw it had been confirmed by the Taliban (and a false claim of death would not seem to be in their interests). Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At time of posting nomination, death was already confirmed by Taliban, U.S., and Afghan intelligence.. Baking Soda (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Sándor Tarics

 * Comment: Barring expansion that indicates major notability in the water polo field, I'm leaning oppose. "Oldest Olympic gold medalist" isn't as notable as "Oldest living human", and his medal was won as part of a team competition rather than an individual event as well.  Spencer T♦ C 04:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We are currently trialling a new system for RD where everyone who has a Wikipedia biography is automatically notable enough, the only criteria we are judging on is the quality of the article (see WT:ITN for more info). Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you for the clarification.  Spencer T♦ C 01:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length of article. A stub cannot be posted on the main page.  If this were expanded to a comprehensive biography, I could support it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. Not comprehensive enough for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article is already quite interesting. Enough is as good as a feast. Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting, and RD worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - stub. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Alan Young

 * Oppose Article needs a lot of sourcing. Ping me if it's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support "Of course". Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs references, per the tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * References for what, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try the Career section for starters. Most of it is unreferenced, relying in some cases on blue links which don't themselves have reliable sources for verification.  Then there's the list of appearances, some of which don't have references or dubious articles to rely upon.  Hope that helps you fix the issues instead of spending all your time editing chat pages! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you accept IMDB cast-and-crew lists as reliable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS/IMDB. Stephen 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like Wikipedia will have to gut a gazillion articles with filmographies in them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, yes. IMDB is no more reliable than Wikipedia.  Please feel free to work on the sourcing issues!  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Using what for sourcing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources. You must have heard about them?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Name a reliable source for filmographies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no reliable source then the information does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:V. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDB is reliable for cast and crew. But if it's not acceptable to you, name one that is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citing IMDb. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. For filmography, IMDB is not "unreliable", it's "disputed". But the info is verifiable, by watching the individual movies, etc. The same can't necessarily be said for "trivia" and the like. So it's reasonable to take a given actor's filmography from IMDB, except maybe in cases where it says "uncredited", which might be harder to verify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you show me where you have reliably sourced an edit to Wikipedia?  I can't seem to find a single one. 2600:8806:4800:5100:E1B2:44F3:FE2C:BCF2 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just not what Bugs does, in fact it's quite the opposite, providing false information without sourcing is his forte. Quite what he's doing here discussing article space issues is beyond me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence immediately above is false. And it's you that claims the article needs references, when it doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to peddling nonsense at the ref desks, leave the encyclopedia to the competent please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Here's a nice example of a RS that you, Bugs, can add: Jimmy Durante co-host. Care to bother, or back to the chat rooms? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need for that kind of effort. IMDB is sufficiently reliable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is why you're welcome to remain at the chat desks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, like this one. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's one of my referenced entries from earlier today. It puts the IP troll's claim to the lie. He's based in Georgia, so he could claim ignorance as his excuse. There's no explaining you, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that an article you referenced?! Try reading up about cricket, football and international flight and providing sources before more errors in future! Cheers for popping to the encyclopedia for a bit though! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "International flights"??? What has that got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Extremely notable person for Mr. Ed and extensive Disney work etc. Cavils about sourcing would apply equally to a vast number of article, but this is the guy who just died.     By the time every article is done, we would have this at the centenary of his death, AFAICT.   If it makes a difference, change entire filmography sections for every actor.  Collect (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange to think that you consider suitably sourced and referenced articles to be a petty requirement. Still, at least we know where we stand regarding your opinions hereafter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For an example of a more reasonably sourced RD actor article, please see Burt Kwouk above. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Very notable person, a much-loved actor for decades, as per Collect above. Once properly sourced, I think it should be good to go. Challenger l (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Long, visible career ; and the "cn" tags are mostly bogus . ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Much like this comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you two would be willing to knock it off? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but for the avoidance of doubt, the "cn" tags are most certainly not bogus, and claiming otherwise is simply false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They were added to ensure that British bias would prevent the American actor from being posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Of course! Cuz Mr. Ed was even more notable than Silver or Trigger! – Sca (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not relevant to RD (beyond having an article) during the current trial. The only thing that matters is the quality of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Ed (7068173189).jpg
 * Unless of course it's the famous Mr. Ed. Sca (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is notability unimportant? What "trial"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per trial criteria. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria require an article of sufficient quality, i.e. one without all the missing references. I'll happily talk you through it if it's unclear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Accession of Montenegro to NATO

 * Weak oppose. "Paving the way for entry" is not the same thing as actual entry.  There's still a few steps for them to complete before they actually enter. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Significance of event is its geopolitical signal (move towards Europe as opposed to Russia). All of NATO's members must now ratify the agreement, with Prime Minister Milo Đukanović expecting Montenegro to join by mid 2017. Baking Soda (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand but as of now I still think their actual entry into NATO is what would be truly notable. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose let's wait until it happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM; something that hasn't happened yet being a bit more likely to happen is not news. There's a long way to go yet; given the realistic possibilities of a President Trump or a post-Brexit UK government including either Farage or Sturgeon, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that NATO won't even exist by mid 2017. &#8209; Iridescent 20:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that NATO endured throughout the Cold War and outlived the entire Eastern Bloc, I doubt it will even flinch from Trump-like persons. Brandmeistertalk  20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Farage or Sturgeon are meaningless here. They are not going to be part of the UK government even if Brexit happens. Trump however may mean US withdraws from NATO, which could indeed mean collapse of NATO or least most of its influence. -- KTC (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. -- KTC (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Christian Kern

 *  Oppose  I clicked on the link in the blurb, saw a 29-year old foreign minister stare back at me and thought "those Austrians sure know how to pick their leaders." Unfortunately the actual article is barely a week old and still a stub. Fuebaey (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, must have been a Freudian slip, when I was in a hurry. Thanks for fixing, though! --PanchoS (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I thought it was another Trudeau moment, albeit a right-wing version. In terms of expansion, could add more on his political/business background. From reading the article, I don't understand how the head of a state company suddenly becomes head of government. Government ministers or people with political experience tend to get high profile posts. This seems unusual. Fuebaey (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Has been expanded and I think it's decent enough for ITN. Coincides with the vote today. Fuebaey (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ... upon article improvements — New head of government. Sca (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article is very short and needs immediate improvements, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support subject to article quality. Neljack (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having expanded the article quite a bit and improved the reference situation, I'd feel quite comfortable now with this blurb getting promoted now. It's still not perfect though, and further improvements are highly welcome. But by and large, it should be on par with the German version now. --PanchoS (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Admin to check quality but otherwise seems to have consensus. Fuebaey (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted ITN will soon become Austrian ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Morley Safer

 * Would've met the normal RD criteria without the trial. I'll support when citations are added. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * support - a notable TV journalist. both in America and abroad per 60 minutes.BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not judging RD nominations on basis of notability anymore; we are judging on whether it meets our quality and reference standards.--WaltCip (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support once the citations are added to awards sections (unfortunately I don't have time myself today but if I have time later I'll help). Agree that Safer is one of the top people in his field in any event - 60 minutes regular for years. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Citations have been added to awards section. Funcrunch (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted now that citations have been added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone Roanu

 * Support, quite serious death toll, article is in good overall shape. Brandmeistertalk  07:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per above mentioned reasons,BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Philippine legislative election

 * Oppose because both target articles suffer from large swaths of uncited text. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The large swaths of uncited texts are backgrounders (electoral system) written in summary style. I could just hide them for the meantime as that's a common practice here... – H T  D  16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't event talking about that. The background stuff on the election system which is citable to other articles is of minor concern.  I was concerned about the larges swaths of text, about living persons and about the particulars of this election, which are entirely uncited.  If you got rid of all of the uncited text in these two articles, you'd be left with some tables and a few bare sentences and lists.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Currently, in the Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2016, the only section that has large swaths of text that involves people is the "Results" section, and every paragraph that I know of has at least one reference. As you've said, the "Electoral system" section doesn't need references, the "District changes" section has a citation for every new district created, the "Retiring and term limited incumbents" section is tucked away to another article, and I'm just waiting for the Commission on Elections to upload the party-list result so that could be done with.
 * In the Philippine Senate election, 2016, I've cited the large swaths of text involving politicians in the "Coalitions" section As for the "Term-limited and retiring incumbents", I'm waiting for the presidential and vice presidential election to have officially declared winners so I can cite who among them won and lost. – H T  D  16:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * support now per improvements. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb. I'd hide the big empty table until the results do come out - it doesn't give any information and just adds more page scrolls. Fuebaey (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Articles sufficiently updated.  Spencer T♦ C 05:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. The big table is no longer empty. Fuebaey (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Marco Pannella

 * Oppose for now. Article is almost entirely unreferenced.  Length and depth are acceptable, but we can't post an article where the bulk has no refs.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, my key problem is that most sources are in Italian, and my Italian is lame. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Fort McMurray wildfire
If Sca hadn't come to the talk page to bother, if not annoy or harass, administrators about the so-called tragic event, I wouldn't do this for him. (No offense, Sca, but that's how I see it.) To be honest, I didn't want to nominate it ever, but my ethics wouldn't be strong enough to prevent this from being posted per ITN rules. Therefore, quality becomes the main concern, which is not my strong interest for ITN... unless I have no choice. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I wonder why administrators like to put tragedies into the Ongoing section, like wildfires, airplane crashes, airport attacks, and attacks on a peaceful city. Nothing against administration discretion, but... never mind. As said before, personal feelings and ethics and morals are useless per ITN rules. Well, as I hate to admit, <U>Anyway the article has events of May 16 and May 18 since the delisting. I don't know whether that is enough to relist the tragic wildfire, but maybe we should do the same with other American wildfires... right? George Ho (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Reluctantly modified post. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's no longer in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose as the article 2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire article is not getting significant updates. Nor is the event generating major news stories (they're mostly just local tickers). Also, George Ho I would suggest depersonalising the nomination and making it solely about this event. If you want to discuss anything more general then WT:ITN is the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the rule against such... "personalization"? George Ho (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More importantly, why would you feel the need to personalise this in any case? Are you trying to make a point?  Take it up with Sca or to a talk page if you must.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) The 'rule' is that disputes with other editors should not be taken to this page; this page is to discuss the merits of nominations, not settle disagreements or disputes. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried discussing the discretion in the talk page, remember? I got the scolding. George Ho (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me the policy or guideline, so I can strike it out. George Ho (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you must see a policy, then here is WP:DR. Maybe more specifically WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck out the part about administrator discretion, but I want to leave in the first sentence (unless I feel pressured to strike it out) because I fear that the discussion started by Sca wasn't going anywhere. George Ho (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck out also the part about mocking the "quality" criterion. What else shall I strike out? George Ho (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has not been receiving regular, substantive updates over a time frame that would make ongoing a good idea. If there is a specific event regarding the wildfire that you'd like to see mentioned in a blurb, please feel free to nominate for that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Timothy Wiltsey "cold case" conviction
Nominator's comments: Long the primary suspect in Timothy Wiltsey's 1991 murder, despite a lack of direct evidence, his mother Michelle Lodzinski was finally tried and convicted in a successful "cold case" prosecution that attracted widespread media attention. —Patrug (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see any reason to highlight this court case over all the other murder convictions going on worldwide. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hierarchy of death/dead baby syndrome.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a parochial story with little or no wide-ranging impact outside of the immediate tabloid fascination with such cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] EgyptAir Flight 804

 * Support - Aircraft missing with 66 on board, not likely to be a positive outcome. Major aircrashes generally get posted. Mjroots (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Aviation incidents like this are super rare. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for some reason I remember seeing this kind of incident on ITNR, but it's no longer there ... Banedon (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, aircraft crashes have not been on ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support make sure the blurb is correct at time of posting (66 people on board per BBC). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some Daesh looney bin may well claim this,..Lihaas (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Man, look at the time stamp since I called it. #policestate running its course? so eas to guess #falseflagLihaas (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support and marked as ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Will post as soon as the image is auto-protected. Smurrayinchester 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot about that, but hopefully it'll be good to go in about two minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted by Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Fritz Stern

 * Support for a blurb – For anyone interested in 20th century German history, Fritz Stern is a must-read. In January 1990, he trenchantly observed (in the New York Times): "The moral sphere also needs a reciprocal recognition of crimes committed, and apologies offered and accepted." That process still is still going on. Sca (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in any form, article is highly under-referenced. Blurb not necessary in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some to article, w/refs. Sca (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose article quality and length is not commensurate with his stated importance. If this were cleaned up (mostly referencing issues) this could be posted easily.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No blurb This is an RD case. But I agree it still needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb regardless of quality - "retired professor dies aged 90" does not merit a blurb unless there is something more to it than that or there is exceptional public reaction. Oppose RD while there is only thin prose with missing citations. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Chibok kidnapping victim found

 * Oppose – Non notable progress in the case. Baking Soda (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we post this finding of one of the girls, it would be hard to not post every instance of one of the girls being found.  If this was the last missing girl, that might merit posting, or if a large operation rescued a significant number of them, but not just one. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Baking Soda and 331dot. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Iraqi civil war
On the May 17th current events template, the following news article is mentioned: "At least 44 people are killed and 90 injured in three bomb attacks in Baghdad, Iraq." The Iraqi civil war article piped in the article leads to a 2016 timeline with a running ticker of serious events going on in Iraq, mostly localized around the capital city. The death toll is mounting and continues to mount. We can turn a blind eye to this no longer. This is a hot war and it needs to be posted as an "ongoing event".--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment problem is that the civil war article isn't updating with this, and the main sub-article, Timeline of the Iraq War (2016) seems to have just three entries for April and May combined. Not exactly pulling up trees.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ongoing is to direct people to Wikipedia articles that cover ongoing events with timely information, where the events and updates to articles are coming too fast to have a reasonable blurb. I'd not be opposed to a blurb about this one event, but as yet you have provided no article receiving timely, frequent, and well-written updates for us to direct readers to regarding the ongoing war.  As TRM notes, the two best targets don't seem to be receiving such ongoing updates.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not what ongoing was designed for. There are several ongoing "hot wars", and many dozens of legitimately serious stories that have been bubbling in and out of the headlines for months or years (European migrant crisis, Greek debt crisis, 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic, 2015–16 protests in Brazil, 2015-2016 Nepal humanitarian crisis, Territorial disputes in the South China Sea...). We can't plausibly highlight all these (just look how full Portal:Current events/Sidebar is), and so we only use ongoing for stories that are so fast moving that they would be constantly generating blurbs (in theory, at least. European migrant crisis stuck around for many months, even after the article stopped being updated). People interested in a broader picture of what's happening in the world have the link to Portal:Current events right there on the main page. Smurrayinchester 11:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Guy Clark

 * Oppose because the career section is under-referenced, as is the entirety of the discog section (chart positions etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Emilio

 * Weak support A few cn tags need cleaning up. The article could possibly be expanded a bit in a few places; the last 8 years of his life and career is entirely undocumented there, as well as anything between 1997-2008.  The current way the article is written, about 1/4th of the prose deals with a single car accident in 2008; that creates WP:UNDUE and balance issues that could best be remedied by fleshing out the rest of his career, which has to be more a more important part of his life story than a single car wreck late in his career.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for an eminent musician, his article seems to focus entirely elsewhere, the music is secondary... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. This is near stale, and will be taken off RD tomorrow, and still has some weaknesses mentioned by Jayron and TRM, but posting for 1 day as a bit of a reward for those who improved the article since the nomination. Article isn't in fantastic shape but adequate for RD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a good use of IAR, the discog section is entirely unreferenced and marked as such, but I suppose some improvement is better than none and that's what the trial is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Man Booker International Prize

 * Oppose current target, as the amount of information about this specific story is no more in depth than the current prose. Though if either the work had an article (it doesn't) which was of appropriate length OR if we highlighted her biography article (and it was expanded to contain a reasonable amount of prose about the work and the prize) I could support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support novel as new target. Looks good!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same reasoning as Jayron32, we need a significant discussion, whether at Kang's page or as a new article on the book itself, even if its not the featured link. It might be possible to borrow from the foreign wikis to do this. --M ASEM (t) 03:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support as the book article was sufficiently expanded. --M ASEM (t) 14:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I chose the prize article because it had a good description of the new format, however I'm open to switching to the article about the book. Han's article is okay - mentions the book and prize - but more importantly, only highlights half the win (the writing, not the translation). Though I'd very much like to be proved wrong, I don't think an article about a 28 year-old Brit working on Twitter can be expanded past a stub. Fuebaey (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem if the prize article remains the target for the blurb, its just that we need more on the book somewhere, and obviously the prize article is not the place for that. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Have updated and bolded the novel beyond stub. I suppose that should be acceptable to pass this. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also added a bit to the prize article. Pinging Masem to ask if they have any other objections. Fuebaey (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. The article on the novel now reaches our minimum requirements. It's on ITNR and we now have a postable article. Marking [ready]. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Youngest F1 winner

 * Support - broke Vettel's record by a good 2 years. Unlikely this record will be broken for a very long time. Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trivial record, unless I'm missing how his age affected the race. First Dutchman, too. If he'd broken the time record, that'd be something. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not quite understand what you mean by time record? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I'd figured racing was a matter of getting across a finish line, over and over. But now I see it's somethig about points. Excuse my ignorance and replace "time record" with whatever measure would make him objectively better than the last guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * He won the race, which makes him better than the others in that particular race. Nothing more to say there. But he was the youngest to be the fastest in a race, a record unlikely to be beaten any time soon, considering that with new regulations, no other driver will be allowed to enter the sport at the age that he did. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I may still be mistaken, but I think I might be talking about a fastest lap. If he breaks the record for most in one season, I might be impressed. Unless that doesn't actually mean he's consistently driving fastest. Probably best to just forget I said anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, May 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose This goes back to a ITN/C a few weeks ago, I think the election of the mayor of London, and my logic there that posting "The first X to Y" when we would not normally post Y is problematic. If the Spanish Grand Prix was an ITNR, I would see no problem calling out the age of the driver as part of the blurb, but here, that Grand Prix is not ITNR, so we're resting the weight of this story on the interesting fact about his age. That makes it perfect for DYK, but not ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 14:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we're going to highlight something from this race I'd go with the Mercedes crash. This sort of vindicates Red Bull's decision to promote him but I'd agree with Masem, in that this is otherwise trivial and more suited to DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - since it's a dual record, first Dutch winner ever (add this to the blurb!) and youngest winner by a mile. If it was a couple of weeks, fine, but this is almost three years, and pretty damn unlikely to be beaten any time soon. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say first Dutchman is really not quite a great achievement. Where you were born (he actually holds a Belgian passport and only later got a Dutch one) makes no difference to driving a race car. Age and experience does. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does. If you were born in a country with an impressive F1 record, you're are much more likely to get proper training when you happen to be talented. (Even so, I agree that it is much less important than his age; see below.) Steinbach (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I know, it is not absolutely relevant, but we posted the previous time this happened, when Vettel won Italy 2008. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a darker time, and it appeared needed to lighten the mood. Today, good news is already leading bad news 5-1, and even the bad news article is just the anonymous, statistical sort of grim. Hooray! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, May 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Support posting the youngest part. F1 is widely recognized as the top event across motorsports, and breaking this sort of record by this much is really impressive. Also, motorsport entires never get posted outside the end-of-the-year champions. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Formula One is a "team sport" but also one where the individual effort is much more visible than in soccer or baseball, for example. He is only just old enough to drive unaccompanied in his own country, the country where he won the race, and most countries in the world. This is the end of an eight-year-record, so it's not something that will be re-entering the ITN panel too often. And for a completely trivial point, the government of Niger would consider him incompetent to drive a car for the next five years of his life. But Dutch winner, no that is trvia &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Had he won in the US, he would not even have been allowed to drink the winner's champagne... Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , well I do remember Vettel being 23 and not being allowed to drink in Turkey after winning due to a new law. But, discussion of Turkey's new political positions can wait for another day!


 * Support This victory is comparable with Leicester City winning the Premier League: it is against all odds, it just shouldn't be possible. The fact that he is the first ever Dutch winner can be mentioned in the passing, even though that is much less remarkable than his age. Steinbach (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support the backstory makes this more than your average F1 win story. Plus it's a shedload more significant than whoever wins the Monaco GP or the Indy 500.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * support - like it nor not, this is notable and historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in decent shape. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - per Masem. Only thing is that some of the blurbs currently featured are rather old, and so this could still be worth posting for freshness. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is an interesting and significant record indeed, which doesn't get broken very often.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Relatively not often. Happened three times in the last thirteen years and at least ten times in the half-century since Cleveland last won anything. And a national championship that someone must win every year is only relatively prestigious next to a world championship that depends on someone beating the best. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:12, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * 64 years, not 50. And what does this have to do with Cleveland?  The nominations are independent.  This is a global sport we're talking about.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fifty years since Cleveland's losing record started, I mean. Breaking this one is relatively common. F1's more of a European thing, and MMA is more a North and South American one. So the significance is relative to where we're from, too. If I'd nominated Miocic's while North Americans were generally awake, it may have fared better. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * It was 100% opposed by mostly American editors. And if (on average) once every six years is "relatively common" then I'll eat my hat.  The Cleveland superstition thing is great tabloid stuff, this is much more the real deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Six years is common, relative to fifty. I'll take your word that you even wear a hat. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:52, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Not when around 100 races take place every six or so years. You probably need to drop the Cleveland stick, you should know that a superstition doesn't belong on the main page of Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The superstition part only regards why they hadn't won in so long. The skid itself was undeniably real. I personally think it had to do with not playing well enough. Boring and true. Stick's dropped, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * A weird comparison. You take an alleged "curse" (ridicuolous in itself) that apparently involves their major sports team (all exclusively American sports nonetheless), and fabricate the curse broken by a MMA fighter? Where is there even a connection?! But well, that nomination was closed, and rightly so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fabricated, maybe, but not by me. It's in the news, regardless of In The News. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:52, May 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. It's just a piece of trivia from an ordinary race. Post the winner of the F1 season etc, but not this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Two records in one blurb. Go, go, go!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this seems more suited as a DYK entry. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 10.5 + and 5.5 - and still not posted? Nergaal (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose given that nominations for Lydia Ko's numerous "youngest ever" achievements have been consistently rejected here on the basis that ITN doesn't post "youngest ever" achievements. For example, a quote from November 2015: " "Youngest to win" is really only an interesting enough tidbit to mention in passing." Why the double standard here?? MurielMary (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Very few people care about women golf compared to F1, 2) Rule changes mean this record can't be broken again unless the rules are changed again. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That nomination was about an award, other comments included: "We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport ", "This golf award is honorary", "We practically never post individual sporting awards, including much better known awards.", "we wouldn't post the men's equivalent award for the same reason"... so it's easy to cry foul and present only one aspect of the debate. P.S. And when you say Ko's achievements have been "consistently rejected", could you link me to each of them please, just for my interest. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MurielMary, can you provide links to where Ko has had multiple nominations that have been consistently rejected please? Stephen 23:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove "Fort McMurray wildfire" from Main Page?
I know that the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire has been ongoing. However, the response two days ago by Justin Trudeau was just thanking the community for trying to wither the current wildfire. The May 9 update was just statistics. Anything else after May 7... I don't see any other. Unrelated, but if 2016 Brussels bombings was delisted per consensus, this one might. The addition by administrator was... I can't say negative about it for fear of being retaliated, but I've said much already. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it was agreed (again) only a few days ago that if an event is or might be still ongoing when its blurb falls off the bottom of the list that it is correct to add it to ongoing. Removal can be discussed at any subsequent point, but that discussion must not be initiated with an assumption of bad faith about the addition - your final sentence is wholly unnecessary and I would encourage you to remove it with apologies. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * remove. There have been no significant updates to this story since the 13th, and that was just the routine-for-these-sorts-of-events visit by a national leader, and I'm not seeing any significant news coverage from outside the region since then. If it flares up again and threatens somewhere significant then I think a new blurb would be in order. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're allowed to say I made a bad decision! My reasoning was a) there's a current event tag on the article, b) there's been a fair bit of editing in the last 48 hours (including a 20% increase in the number of buildings destroyed), c) it's still in the news (residents are just starting to return) and d) it felt strange bumping it for Eurovision. Smurrayinchester 10:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – As news it seems to be over. Even the CBC carries only one story – about an app using satellite images to document damage. Though dramatic, it wasn't so extensive as the wildfires in Western U.S. states last summer. Sca (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove for now, with the note that the addition to ongoing was fully warranted when it happened, and the admin who did so deserves to be commended for wise judgement. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 00:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

European Rugby Champions Cup

 * Oppose on article quality, given that as I write this it has more about the ticket price than about the actual match. &#8209; Iridescent 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fo sho. If I had more quality time here, I'd do something about it, but as it's ITNR, I thought I'd just remind the community that it needs to be addressed.  Feel free to join in.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to remember that. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to do something useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment some work has now been done on the match summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * very weak support the current prose about the match is the bare minimum (1 paragraph supported by a single source) but I'd really prefer something more in depth. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  I'd expect more prose on the background, like last year's final. I'll look into it when I get time later. Fuebaey (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article, with a couple of caveats: The background is still quite short and the route to the final is indirectly sourced. The match summary now has more than one source. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: the article is still bare bones, with one source on the match and a stub section. Needs work. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging to reassess this article, which will roll off in 12 hours. Fuebaey (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Christy O'Connor Snr

 * support - top of field in his sport in his days.BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * support on improvements. During the trial importance is not a criterion for RD, but I would support on those grounds if it were. Currently the only requirement is an article of sufficient quality, and while it is nearly there it needs more references and while not essential more prose would not go amiss. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on Thryduulf's concerns. This is underwhelming, particularly for such a "World Golf Hall of Famer".  Given the number of titles listed at the end of the article, I would expect to see more prose about at least some of the more notable/interesting of those.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment have expanded and added more references. Fuebaey (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging to ask if they have any additional concerns. Fuebaey (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Source 11 which is used, seemingly, to reference every single element in the "Tournament wins" section contains almost none of the information within the "Tournament wins" section, nor do the results match the source (24 vs 23 etc). More work required on sourcing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, only the final sentence of the "Early life" section looks referenced. The same source could be used I think to reference the rest of that section (and probably is intended to) but it's not clear whether it is being used to do that or not - make it explicit if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man: I beg to differ. From source 11, the table in the article falls under 'European Tour' and the other two headings split 'Additional wins'. The scorecards in the table are indirectly sourced to each linked tournament article. I will concede that one listed win is missing from the table (1970 Bowmaker Tournament), because our article on the tournament has a conflicting winner, but unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, his other wins are sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then a footnote should be added to explain why the table differs from the only source. Relying on other articles to do your sourcing is also unwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Fuebaey (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf: The Guardian obit (ref 1), like DYK, covers the entire paragraph. I am unaware that ITN, or Wikipedia in general, has a "one cite per sentence/fact" policy. Unless there's something contentious content-wise (please point it out), I don't see a need to change this. Fuebaey (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2016

 * Support iff the blurb mentions that the winner is a non-gay/trans/minority type of person. Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are funny.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Aha! So this is why you've written and improved all those singer-articles. :) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  20:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Once that format mess is cleaned up, but that will undoubtedly happen in a second. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. You can always rely on our very dedicated Eurovision editors to get articles into shape quickly. I based the blurb on last year's for consistency. Smurrayinchester 07:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * post posting support and comment This is an extremely good article about a recent event and shows what can be done with some effort. I would love to see even a tenth of the prose here on many of the sports competitions which get nominated at ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I remember saying something about only the winners mattering when Romania was booted. I should stand by that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Cleveland curse broken

 * Oppose I don't think encyclopedias should report on superstitions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Cleveland sports curse (is that the article we are meant to be evaluating? the blurbs are very unclear) article lead strongly implies that it is only talking about the Baseball, NFL and Basketball teams and last I looked UFC was none of those meaning the curse hasn't actually been broken. The article is, confused, chatty in places and not encyclopaedic in tone. I also want to explicitly oppose altblurb2 even more strongly - we are not here to advertise what any one TV channel shows or does not show. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as spurious. The nature of the Cleveland sports curse is in my view extremely dubious. The Cleveland Cavaliers have won two conference titles (including the 2015 conference title) and five division titles. A soccer franchise based in Cleveland was successful in the 90s. A UFC win would not break the curse in any case. FC Barcelona winning the 2015–16 La Liga title is a more promising candidate for promotion in my view. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conference and division championships are nice, but they're not quite the top. American soccer in the '90s wasn't a major sport. The La Liga article could use a mention of what sport it is in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, May 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I find calling this "Cleveland wins a championship" dubious(even if that's what the sources are saying) given that this is dealing with an individual sport.  Miocic won the championship, not the city of Cleveland. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Cleveland won it, and wouldn't say so if the Cavaliers win, either. The important thing is a notoriously disappointed city finally has someone to celebrate. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, May 15, 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said it, I said that the sources are saying it,including the CBS link above. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem saying that with the Cavs, as they are a team representing the city. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A source saying something doesn't mean the blurb or articles have to. Judge those on their own. According to Miocic's teammates, he represents Cleveland with every fiber of his body. They wear it proud, too. If they didn't, we wouldn't be talking about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, May 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there've been many disappointments on national level (e.g. Denmark has never won the Thomas Cup, despite making the finals many times). Why would a disappointment at city level be worth posting? Banedon (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's been the losingest major market in North America, across all major sports. Denmark's won a few games since 1964. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, May 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The curse only applies to MLB, NFL, and NBA. Less popular sports aren't included, for example the MI S L Cleveland Force won several championships but not was to have considered breaking the curse. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because American soccer is way less popular than UFC. You can say you don't approve, but you can't say this doesn't count. That's for the reliable sources to decide. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dick McAuliffe

 * Weak support - Prince was featured as blurb despite some bad quality. This article has a couple or few unsourced sentences. Nevertheless, good job. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support contingent on the claim which I've just marked [cn] being referenced, making POV statements like "take the radical step" without refs isn't acceptable.  What this has to do with the posting of the Prince article is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when the statement highlighted by TRM is cited or removed. I too am utterly baffled about what connection there is between the RD proposal for the death by old age of an American baseball player/manager and the blurb for the sudden death and unexpected death of an international superstar musician. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I can cite Smith's unusual step to move Stanley's position but I'm struggling to find one for McAuliffe's "calming influence". Pinging Muboshgu, who knows more about baseball than me. Fuebaey (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I do not know of him. This info can either be sourced or removed. Let me look. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, I've provided two references that discuss the move by Smith of Stanley from CF to SS during a World Series as being an unusual move, and one in which was also a major event during the 1968 WS. I can provide more if needed.  Support FWIW, the article seems good enough now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron fixing it before I could check into it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sammy Ellis

 * Weak support - Good work on it despite one or two uncited statements. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support contingent on the [cn]s being resolved. Glad to see we're not incorrectly rushing to upload images of these individuals.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is fairly short, but not too short so as to prevent main page inclusion. I've fixed the cn issues. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Jayron32, but note that the last sentence of the "Professional career" section needs a citation (I've just tagged it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull Not in the top of his field nor a widely recognized/-able individual. 46.198.191.228 (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that we are currently testing the idea of posting any deceased person who merits an article, as long as article quality is adequate. Please see WT:ITN for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a bio that wouldn't have been posted prior to the trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And look, for someone who we would have deemed unsuitable for main page inclusion, 12k hits in a day! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Venezuelan state of emergency

 * support - important and escalation of events in the country.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think I would say I oppose this but is this really that surprising given the nature of the government there? 331dot (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think states of emergencies are ITN-worthy, provided there's enough info. Regardless of how Maduro might explain it, that may entail some unpleasant stuff by the very definition of the state of emergency. Brandmeistertalk  14:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as excellently argued by Brandmeister. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but some of the grammar would benefit from improving and the last sentence of the lead "The last state of emergency happened last year at near Colombian border for suspending constitutional guarantees." seems to be missing some key words. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; you wouldn't know it from some of the more hysterical reporting or from the Wikipedia article but this is an economic, not a military, state of emergency, and "state of emergency" in this context means temporary tax increases and limits on the transfer of currency out of the country, not tanks on the streets. The language may be more overblown than usual, but this kind of thing is fairly routine in any country experiencing rapid changes in the inflation rate. &#8209; Iridescent 14:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An economic state of emergency is still a state of emergency. For comparison we posted the January US Blizzard that also led to a non-military state of emergency. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An economic state of emergency is a routine mechanism for allowing a government/president to temporarily freeze assets and/or vary tax and spending rates without parliamentary/congressional approval. "State of emergency" isn't a magic phrase which makes a topic as newsworthy as a natural disaster or a military crisis; there are currently 30 different active economic states of emergency in the US alone. &#8209; Iridescent 08:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When was the last time an economic state of emergency involving freezing of assets and / or varied tax rates without congressional approval was declared by the US government? The states of emergency you gave aren't states of emergency on a national level. Banedon (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1971–73 was the last time crisis rules were imposed by decree nationwide and across all sectors in the US, but it happens on a fairly regular basis in Europe, most notoriously in Greece and Ireland a couple of years ago, while in parts of Latin America (particularly Argentina) "state of emergency" is pretty much the default setting. An economic emergency is really not a big deal, particularly in a country like Venezuela which is heavily exposed to fluctuations in the oil price; it's just a fancy way of saying "tax revenues are lower than expected so we need to either make some cuts or raise more money and can't wait until the next budget is due". &#8209; Iridescent 18:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent, this seem a combination of trying to prevent the economy from falling out too much and a bit of political weight, but nothing like a military or natural disaster emergency. The articles note they called one about 6 months, so it's not an infrequent tool used there. --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article needs major improvements, not clear from article that it is an economic state of emergency, scant on details. Baking Soda (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability only. If article is properly expanded, suggest 2014–16 Venezuelan protests also be included in blurb. Baking Soda (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Baba Hardev Singh

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs significant expansion the article is only barely above a stub, and a large proportion of the "Spiritual career" section is not even about him (I also had to read that section several times before understanding it). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - stub.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mike Agostini

 * Support Quality looks sufficient to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as updater. I did not nominate it because I thought it would be stale by now as more people keep dying! §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Susannah Mushatt Jones

 * Support for blurb only. The death of the confirmed world's oldest person seems like something we'd need to explain, and this seems like the sort of death, because of the particulars, that is better suited for a blurb than RD.  Article has no glaring errors.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article looks good on references, and as Jayron says, makes far more sense as a blurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb  – Per previous. Would be good to have a photo. Sca (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It's not significant that an old person died, and it is not a hugely uncommon or significant event. Posting this would lower standards for death blurbs immensely, and I'd rather not have consensus that every oldest person death should be posted. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about a separate category for when the oldest Californian dies? Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every oldest person. Just those with good enough articles.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Nohomersryan. If it was the oldest person ever, that's one thing, but the death of the oldest currently living person is too common and predictable. Some years, we'd be posting this story two or three times. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * She's the second to last 1800s person and the last 1800s American. Did we post any semi-trivia like that with the last World War One veterans? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment this was marked "ready for RD" but I don't see enough opinions expressed about RD for there to be a consensus. As of this timestamp there is also no consensus for or against a blurb but I don't think discussion has yet concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be posted to RD per the current trial. It's been my experience that this sort of thing is not generally posted as a blurb, and even had a hard time under the traditional RD process(as being old is not considered a "field") but given the trial, can easily be posted that way. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, old person dies, and tomorrow, another old person dies, etc, so blurb is out for me. Article is interesting and detailed enough for passing per the trial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, just RD then. Sca (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Marking it as ready; making the oldest person's name posted for the first time in this trial, if not ever. Quality superb; information adequate. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - notable enough per highest age.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Discussion about a blurb can continue, but consensus is leaning against. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work by One of Many in scarfing up the photo cited Friday. Sca (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Dilma Rousseff suspended

 *  Conditional Support pending update and once the copyedit tag goes away. Brandmeistertalk  10:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits, now that both houses have voted. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Significant political event, and her suspension seems to be the right moment to post it. We can of course post again if she is found guilty, but that's months (years?) away. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe she is suspended for 180 days(which is when the trial is supposed to occur). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * She technically hasn't been impeached yet, just suspended; see this New York Times article for instance. shoy (reactions) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support altblurb 1 or 2 btw. shoy (reactions) 16:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Though we need to be careful about language (in Brazil "impeachment" only occurs if she is convicted in her "impeachment trial"), and I would like to see a few more updates to the target article.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment added image. That the blurbs are longer than what has recently been added to the article betrays a lack of detail. At very least, it should include that attempt earlier this week to annul the lower house vote. Fuebaey (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support - it's way past time we posted a blurb on this. Banedon (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt. – The fact that she's been suspended from office would seem to make it fairly likely she'll ultimately be removed. Sca (talk)
 * PS: Our impeachment article says flatly that Rousseff "was impeached" by the Chamber of Deputies" on April 17, and AP headlines it "Senate impeaches president." However, BBC makes it "to face impeachment trial," Reuters refers only to "her suspension," and the Guardian confines itself to "stripped of duties." Suspended does seem the best choice. Sca (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is different in Brazil but in the US impeachment is the House vote to refer charges to the Senate, and the Senate holds a trial to decide whether or not to remove the impeached official; in Brazil it seems that both the House and Senate must vote to impeach and then the Senate holds a trial. The trial isn't part of the impeachment process; that is how the trial starts. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It must be noted that the correct wording is "Impeached". She has been impeached.  Being impeached means "being put on trial to decide if we want to remove her from office or not".  Impeachment is NOT the removal itself, impeachment is the indictment.  In the U.S., both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were actually impeached.  They were just never convicted, so never removed from office.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the legal scholars in the NYTimes article cited above, she isn't "impeached", as the Brazilian's define it, unless she is convicted and permanently removed from office. You are right that the US concept of "impeachment" is different, and applies essentially when a President is indicted, but that's not how the Brazilians use the term.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone speak Portuguese? What verb do the Brazilian media use? This one refers to processo de impeachment. Sca (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Original Blurb we don't need an overlong headline to explain that this is a process, not a conclusion, and the "suspended" part makes that quite clear. FYI, You can say impeachment or impedimento if you are google the news. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - no mention of Vice President Michel Temer becoming Interim President? 116.14.21.143 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb is already too long, can you suggest a neat way of including all that information with fewer characters? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Such a smiley face photo for someone impeached? How about a bit serious kind like.... Maybe crop it to suit ITN requirements. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't object to it being changed, but I see no problem with using her official presidential photo. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With that frozen 'cheese' smile, it's pretty obvious it's an official photo, which seems appropriate to the context. Sca (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We routinely seek to avoid displaying "smiley" photographs of people in conjunction with negative news about them (and when we fail in that respect, this invariably draws complaints).
 * Posed photographs typically are more suitable than candid ones, and while they often are "official", that isn't a trait for which we have a particular preference.
 * Recentness also is a consideration. I found an appropriate photograph from February 2016 (more than five years newer).  —David Levy 16:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, IMO. Sca (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Same-sex civil unions in Italy

 * Oppose The target article has referencing issues right now. The entire first block of the "History" section has zero refs (where does all this information come from?).  Also, the Italian Parliament article shouldn't be bolded.  It doesn't contain any information about the event (nor probably should it, being an overview of the body, and inapporpriate for highlighting one piece of information).  If we can clean up the referencing, this would be a fine article for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, being the last "major western country" to do that is more like trivia, unlike the first country or the last country in the world. And picking just western countries is rather a geographical bias. Brandmeistertalk  07:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Although this is fairly routine at this point, and it wasn't done in an interesting way (unlike Ireland, where it was done by referendum, or USA, where it was a court decision), this is Italy, where the Church still has massive sway over social politics. Given how thoroughly the Italian Parliament rejected similar bills even just a few years ago, I'm surprised this happened so soon. By the way, I don't think Italy is the last major Western country to approve same-sex unions. Certainly, Poland is still missing (and you can quibble about whether some other Eastern European states count as major), and by the modern definition of the West, South Korea and Japan are too. Last in Western Europe, perhaps. Smurrayinchester 09:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was attached as a kind of rider to a vote of confidence in Matteo Renzi, so that's quite interesting. Smurrayinchester 09:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support. The news is - if possible - even more relevant than last years's Republic of Ireland's referendum on same sex marriage, because Italy hosts the Vatican which has always opposed any regulation of whatsoever (either etero- or homosexual) partnership different than marriage, and because Italian politicians have been for years (and in some way some still are) prone to listen to Vatican's diktats on ethic issues. In political terms a wall has been torn down. -- <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#C00000">SERGIO  <span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style,Palatino Linotype,Times New Roman;font-size:8pt;color:#000000">aka the Black Cat 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per TRM and Blackcat, since it is Italy. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my error; I'm not entirely sure why I thought you did. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. A nice development to this ongoing international shift in social attitudes, but at this stage I just don't think we can justify posting every nation that legalises same-sex marriage. Nor do I see any particular reason to single out Italy - yes it's a religious western country, but so what? Additional interest in western countries is just systemic bias, and there are plenty of other religious places. Now if Vatican City or Saudi Arabia were to do this it would be a different matter... <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why can't we post every nation that legalizes same-sex marriage? It's not something that happens often, and it's also something that happens only once. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because even if it takes 15 years for the rest of the world to catch up, that's still an average of over one post per month for the foreseeable future, even if we only do each country once. I don't think it's justifiable to post two hundred stories on a single issue at that rate. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely believe that the number of posts made on a subject is relevant. After all, the number of posts made about general elections even for a specific country basically approaches infinity.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but elections are ITNR, and with 200 countries in the world hosting elections at a pace of roughly one per five years, that's something like 3 stories / month, but we still have elections on ITNR. Also "catch up" is unfair: it makes it seem like legalizing same-sex unions is morally superior to not legalizing it, and there are lots of people who will not agree with that. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Modest Genius.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose late to the party. I think now we're at the stage where it would require Uganda, Iran or Saudi Arabia to legalise gay marriage to truly make our heads turn. Even among European countries, Italy is not religious conservatism's "best horse", that title would go to Poland &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn't post it three years ago when France instituted full-blown gay marriage. At some point we're just checking off a list. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tony Cozier

 * Oppose right now, for one of the greatest commentators (and I agree), his article is way below the standard we need, it's barely above a stub. I'll see if I can get some time to look into fixing it, like John Warr.  18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on expansion. He was top of his field of cricket commentary and near the top in cricket writing so I would support this nomination even if the trial removal of the importance criteria were not ongoing. The article doesn't seem to have any major problems, it's just lacking in depth. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Thryduulf, this lacks depth in the way that a puddle lacks the depth to float a cruise ship. The article is marginally above a stub.  Placing an article on the main page is telling people we have enough good information on a topic to make it worth their while to read it.  This, is not up to that standard.  He may be a legendary commentator and writer, but if that were true, there would be more to say than 2 short paragraphs on his legendary commentating career and one sentence on his legendary writing career.  I would support this in a heartbeat if I could read about the full breadth of his career.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Lacks depth in the way that a puddle lacks the depth to float a cruise ship" - Jayron32, I assume you won't mind if I lift that simile for writing my novel.--WaltCip (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A thank you in the acknowledgements page is all I ask... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support. The article has expanded enough that I wouldn't stand in the way of it being posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose regrettably. No doubt from me that Cozier was one of the great commentators and writers, and the voice of Caribbean cricket for those of us in England and elsewhere, but I'm with Jayron32 on this - the article just doesn't reflect Cozier's notability in his field and isn't worthy of being linked from the main page. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Has been expanded and is well-cited. While it could still be improved, I think it meets the standards for the main page. Neljack (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after some really decent expansion work from, and , marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm involved so not sure if I'm allowed to vote. Assuming I'm allowed to vote, then Support, otherwise just ignore this vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Following the excellent expansion work.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Baghdad bombing

 * Support per notability, altblurb. Page quality below standards. Baking Soda (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb – Per Soda. Another mass slaughter – AP sez at least 93. Sca (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt once the article has been expanded more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no need to make the article super huge or something. It is fine as is for now. Time to bring this to light. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted by Jehochman. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mustafa Badreddine

 * Support Enough well-referenced information to qualify for the MP. No major errors or problems. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed a source. It's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mark Lane

 * Support Solid article. A few missing citations, but in a bio of this length and depth, I don't see anything overly contentious missing a citation, and on the balance this is easily good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted per trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Sally Brampton

 * Support per trial. Article is new, but has enough detail and is well-referenced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is minimally comprehensive and well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per trial per Jayron. Could use an infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment nearly happy to post this but I'm uncertain as to how secure the claim of Fair Use that image is. After all, she has only just died and there is most likely a good chance that we could find a free alternative, so I'm wary about posting an item with an almost certain image copyvio.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you find a better excuse not to post her name? The mere image should not hold off the promotion. I support giving her an honorable mention despite some image. George Ho (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If my above comment won't do, I replaced the previous image with a screenshot. However, I don't know how long; the uploader still insists on using that portrait image. --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well unlike you, I don't wish to post articles to the main page which abuse the fair use of images. It's clear that you completely misunderstand this situation, perhaps better to avoid this area of Wikipedia since here, a little knowledge is most definitely a dangerous thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're just mentioning her name. It's not as if her death deserves a blurb or anything. George Ho (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it. Do you even look at the target articles, check them for quality or for abuse of fair use?  I'd knock that aspiration to be an admin on the right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous image was not a "copyvio", it was a non-free fair use image like the new image that has been uploaded by George. I don't see how the new image is any better than the old one, certainly it's worse visually. As for the other comment about a free image certainly being available ... Please find one if you can, I couldn't. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have formally disputed the fair use rationale for the image. I do not believe that any image used soley to identify a recently deceased person who was a high profile figure in a western country can meet the fair use criteria - principally repeatability - unless it can be proven that a free image is not and can not be made available. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - well referenced, and per trial.BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to image the article is well referenced, but like TRM I cannot support posting an article to the main page with an image that does not comply with the non-free content criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Motiur Rahman Nizami

 * Oppose plenty of unreferenced sentences in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support – highly notable execution with political ramifications. Baking Soda (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is the story here the death itself or the event?  I would concede that this likely would merit posting either way, but I don't think we should be using the trial RD process to slip in events that really should be a blurb(and get the regular discussion process). 331dot (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite so, I have added a blurb to test the water. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Although he had been sentenced to death for both, the article suggests that he was executed for the 1971 war crimes charge, and not the later arms trafficking one. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, feel free to amend the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, if a little wordy. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb / oppose RD - the story here is the execution of a prominent politician, RD is for when the death of a notable person is the whole story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now based on the quality issues TRM has noted; there are plenty of statements which could be contentious which are not clearly cited to a reliable source. Would be blurb for this one, for the reasons Thryduulf notes; the story here is the trial and execution, not merely the death.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support for either blurb or RD. 174.95.4.78 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to support this for a blurb, as it is both unusual and notable. But as noted, the start-class article on the subject has issues. It's also a topic area I don't know much about. Jus  da  fax   03:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note too stale now for RD, so blurb comments only. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Kang Young-hoon

 * Weak support For such a high-level leader, I would expect a longer article, but the article is minimally comprehensive, and fully referenced to reliable sources. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Changing my vote based on discussion below. I had been supporting this, but the closer look that Fuebaey has made me take in the article has changed my mind; the article is too highly flawed and incomplete to direct readers to.  If someone were to fill out the vast missing areas from his life's work, I would change my vote back.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Jayron. The basics are there, and cited, but it's hardly sparkling.  Could use some expansion, let's hope  can do that so we can post this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, unless there's something specific that I have overlooked I can't possibly fix something as vague as "minimally comprehensive". Although, if it only takes someone three minutes to write a comprehensive review then perhaps you're looking in the wrong direction for expansion expertise. Fuebaey (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I said "weak support"? I also suggested you could expand the article a little (just as Jayron had alluded to) since you had shown enough interest in the subject to nominate it.  If you aren't going to do anything about it, fine.  I'm sure another admin can judge it on its merits (and post it if appropriate).  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want a model for the level of comprehensiveness one would expect of the leader of his nation, take a look at Michel Rocard, a person who held an equivalent position, in a different country, at the same time period as PM Kang did. While that article has a few issues as well (mostly a few referencing issues), surely a high-level politician who held the highest office in his country, must be worthy of more than a page of text to describe his entire life's work and history?  The article we have now on Kang is minimal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man: Yes, I can read. I'm not sure why you're being so defensive at my request for a more informative review.
 * Not at all, in any case it seems that Thryduulf may have been more informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jayron32: The thing is you're comparing the French prime minister (head of gov) with the South Korean prime minister (not head of gov). If you want to standardise articles like that it's unlikely that we'd have posted Young onto RD yesterday or any Asian/African/Latin political leader for that matter. What I was hoping for was if you could actually point out missing aspects of his life (does the article lack a ministerial post?), or whether a specific quote was missing a citation, or tag and discuss like Thryduulf did below. I'd prefer that to article padding. Fuebaey (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need, of course, to be anywhere near that long. But I was just pointing out how lacking the current article is.  Surely, there's more than can be said about his political career and early life than what currently exists in the article.  ITN exists to inform readers with well-written articles, not merely just make announcements.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no offense, but I don't think you understand what helpful criticism is to an editor. While I'm not expecting DYK/GA/FA style reviews, hand-waving is as about as useful as saying "there's a problem, I just don't know what it is". Fuebaey (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The section on Political Career mentions almost NOTHING before he was appointed PM. It gives no prior posts, and only a cursory mention of some events in 1961, some 27 years before his premiership.  Are you saying the man did NOTHING in public life for 27 years, and then suddenly got appointed PM out of the blue?  What prior posts did he hold?  What actions did he take in those posts?  The section on his post political life lists only an honorary knighting in 1995 and his death in 2016.  So, you want specifics, here's specifics: We have, in the article a range of dates that indicates he was a public persona from 1961 until his death in 2016.  Currently, his biography only covers events from a few brief windows of that time period.  Even the section on his premiership has massive holes: one would expect a high-level official would be regularly in the news, and yet we only have the following events 1) an uprising in "Spring 1989", and some meetings with North Koreans in September-December 1990.  Did he do nothing else to attract attention during the rest of his premiership?  The biography should be a summation of his career; this one has giant holes which make it look like a bunch of random unconnected events based on whenever anyone who wandered by decided to add a random fact.  You want specific things to flesh out, how about everything between 1961-1988, between his appointment to spring 1989, from spring 1989-september 1990, and since his ouster in December 1990.  That's what's missing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And to be fair, if you're prepared to nominate it, at least do some work on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When someone cares to define "work", by all means. I can't subjectively mind-read. What's unfair is that you've assumed that I don't/won't edit articles, and a simple glance at this nominated article makes your accusation look awfully hollow. Besides, unless you can point to that consensus, I'm not going to be changing my nomination procedure to satisfy your own personal opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't really care, I'm not expecting you to do or say anything, but if you're that bothered, please actually present something we can post, even in this trial period where it really couldn't be easier. I couldn't care less in fact.  Your hollow nomination(s) need your attention, or else we'll start to treat them as flippant and disruptive.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tis a bit sad that you don't care about improving articles, but if you'd prefer to treat "my nominations" as disruptive please understand that you don't have to respond to them. Fuebaey (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. I apologise if I hit a nerve; my goal was for more detail, not to piss you off. I respect that some here expect "high quality" articles without clicking the article edit button, and I don't anticipate that changing. However, if you expect myself or another nominator/editor/interested party to improve it, a superficial review (like the drive-by !vote) is not the most efficient method to elicit a positive response. Fuebaey (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - I've just had to add an orange tag as the lead section has left me very confused. See the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article a fair bit. I don't expect this to be posted, given the heat and general lack of interest, but in case anyone is (or would like to point out more problems), feel free to read. Fuebaey (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Chuck Curtis

 * Oppose some expansion is needed; more summary of his coaching career, such as a season-by-season prose synopsis of his whole career, would help. What little there is right now is poorly referenced as well. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. Please work on some of these nominations before adding more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. For the record, I would also strongly oppose this nomination if it were not for the trial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds. I think the high school names should be unpiped. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Warr

 * Oppose article is too short. Barely more than a paragraph summarizing his entire personal life, career, and biography is far to cursory for inclusion on the main page as a target link.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. Please work on some of these nominations before adding more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added some references. I don't know why expansion is necessary for a lesser known personality. George Ho (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Expansion is most needed for lesser known personalities, as the article needs to inform readers about the entirety of the life of a person they probably have not heard of, it needs to be well and comprehensively referenced so we are not spreading misinformation. The lesser known a person is, the less likely it is that a reader will recognise an error in our article and the more likely that Wikipedia will be used as the primary or only source for journalists writing obituaries leading to a higher chance than normal of circular referencing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I have already found at least one unreferenced claim, and one error. We need to do better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now taken the time to expand the article a little bit beyond when it was prematurely nominated. I think it's quite a bit more comprehensive and hopefully now error-free. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Weak support. Thanks to TRM for putting in some work to expand this beyond the stub phase.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Comply or Die

 * Oppose article is not extensive enough for inclusion on main page. A large stub.  A comprehensive biography, with all race results, and a prose biography of his whole life, would be useful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. Please work on some of these nominations before adding more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: Wasn't there a decision some time ago that RD is limited to humans? At a minimum, perhaps "importance is no longer required" should not necessarily be applied uncritically in that context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Walther Leisler Kiep

 * Support article is GA quality, which is good enough for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support much rather a GA article in the recent deaths rather than the usual bare-boned articles which receive a splash of paint after the subject's death. Sure this man was not a holder of one of Germany's top offices, but we posted Charles Kennedy for the basis of a long career in politics. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose As long as we're still using the RD criteria, let's use them. He doesn't seem to be sufficiently important, and article quality is not a factor in his favor. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the trial run was just enacted. Okay. Support as index case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI Note that this article likely meets the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox here: In the news. For the next month, ITN/C won't be evaluating the "importance" of someone when deciding whether to include them in RD or not, just on (a) being in the news, and (b) article quality. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Floquenbeam. GA quality is definitely sufficient to post. Mamyles (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted per the trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Philippine presidential election

 * Wait until official, but then I'll support. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until official. See you in a month. – H T  D  16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, but only post once properly declared as the winner. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't realise the Philippine system requires Congress to declare before the vote becomes official, else I wouldn't have prematurely nominated this. Having said that, his two main rivals have conceded - making him de-facto president-elect - and this item is currently in the news. The only thing that is missing is a paragraph describing this. If consensus is to post now I'll write something up, but if it is still to wait till June, I'll leave it. Fuebaey (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Transit of Mercury

 * Weak oppose. I'm all for science noms, but is there anything special about this transit? Other than it being the only one in the next three years? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not particularly (although having 3 years between transits is an unusually short interval - the last was in 2006, so a decade ago, and the average gap is about 8 years), but there's nothing special about individual eclipses either (which are much more common). Moon crosses sun, Mercury crosses sun. This is a rare astronomical event, which is getting a fair bit of popular press (not just in places like the New York Times or the Guardian, but even in the Daily Mail). Smurrayinchester 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Oh, while it doesn't make a big difference May transits are rare - transits more normally happen in November.) Smurrayinchester 14:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this particular astronomical event doesn't seem super-rare. The 2012 transit of Venus, for instance, was posted because it happens roughly every 243 years (btw, it coincided with the death of Ray Bradbury). Brandmeistertalk  16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2006, 2016, November 2019, 2032 isn't that big of a burden. ITN barely existed the last time. There's no other planets between us and the Sun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As much as I like astronomical stuff, I doubt it's that important. Venus' transit is rare, but that of Mercury less so. Transits aren't among ITNR celestial events. Brandmeistertalk  18:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (off topic) there are two planets between us and the Sun: Mercury and Venus. Banedon (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this was tongue-in-cheek (hence the (off topic)) but of course I meant "besides the ones already mentioned". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this solar system centric item. As a relatively frequently occurring event, it does not stand out as any news of astronomical importance.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - if we're going to have meteor showers and eclipses on ITNR, this kind of event should also be ITNR. Sure, it has little astronomical importance, but same goes for these other celestial events. Objections based on relative frequency do not convince as well. Total solar eclipses are ITNR, and they occur more frequently than Mercury transits. For that matter there are many annual events on ITNR (like the awarding of Nobel Prizes, winning the Premier League), and those occur more frequently than Mercury transits as well. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comment  – What is, or was, the practical effect of this 'event' – ?? None, as far as I can see. Sca (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most astronomical events that are posted probably don't have practical effects either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at the criteria for evaluating ITN items but "practical effect" wasn't mentioned. That suggests this "oppose" is simply "IDONTLIKEIT". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, mon ami. It's not that I don't "like" it – I have no like or dislike notions on this matter. However, in view of the 'trial,' I withdraw my oppose. Nuff said? Sca (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, although the trial only applies to RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Doh! In that case.... (∧) Sca (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Austrian PM resigns

 * At the moment, there's no update - no explanation why he resigned or who'll take his place. This is needed before I can support. Smurrayinchester 13:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now updated with some context. Support. Smurrayinchester 15:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ... pending article improvements  – Apparently the resignation is related to the poor performance of the Social Democratic Party (Faymann's party) in the first round of Austrian presidential elections April 24, in which the populist FPÖ won a surprising 35 percent. Note, however, that according to Zeit his resignation was long expected due to eroding support within his own party. Sca (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements The resignation of a sitting national leader is important, but we absolutely need to document why this happened in the article before ITN posting. --M ASEM (t) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Smurry. It's just a paragraph, but a fairly detailed one. Sca (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the added para is sufficient for posting now. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: William Schallert

 * Oppose - The only significant part about SAG is its awards; nothing more. Also, unions of actors may be losing their grounds. If SAG were a country, I'd favor honorable mention of him. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With the current trial, we no longer judge on importance- though I would state that even under the prior criteria of doing so, leader of the Screen Actors Guild would make him important to acting(which does and has done more than just give out awards). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose during trial as inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bulk of the article is unreferenced. We can't post that to the MP.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I note that the often cited de.wikipedia.org main page lists his article which is almost entirely unreferenced. Along with two German footballers.  Systemic bias, much?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That German Wikipedia does something shitty does not bind us to the same level of shittiness. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, quite the opposite I imagine. I was just surprised to see how poor quality the items featured on its main page were.  Grim.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Young

 * Support per trial. Comprehensive biography and sufficient coverage. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Khurram Zaki

 * Support Good article with lots of sources. Neljack (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a couple of [citation needed] and a couple of external links inline to address before this is ready to go. Plus odd phrasing like "To understand the context of this and other protests with repect to Lal Masjid read this article by...." needs to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. A small number of problems, but serious enough to keep off the main page; problems with WP:SELF and WP:EL, especially in directing readers explicitly to links outside of Wikipedia in the main body of the text, and a few cn tags that should be resolved.  The odd phrasing noted by TRM is also an issue.  These are not insurmountable, but should be cleaned up before posting to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ann Day

 * I oppose because the article is currently tagged as a stub. I'm not sure it is relevant given the current trial but I think this is only in the news because she was related to Sandra, and it wouldn't have been otherwise. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is WAY too short to be considered useful for a main page link. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bernardo Ribeiro

 * How many barely notable soccer players die at 26 per week? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Is that rhetorical? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too much of the biography is uncited.  We need many more references for what is written there for this to be considered for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think we are starting to see the results of the trial run. A very minor player who only played 52 games as a professional and was never on his national team is to now be considered to have significance enough to put on the RD list? 52 games is not even two seasons of games and that's spread out over 5 years. Yes he died young, but based on his early career was he really expected to be a significant player in the future? If this is the level of football players that make the cut, then practically EVERY American football player will make the cut! Is that the way we want to go?? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that, as it stands now, he didn't make the cut; adding this article is opposed on quality grounds. Comments about the trial run would be more useful on WT:ITN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The trial results so far have been very encouraging. People have worked on more RDs than ever before because once they are up to scratch, they will be posted.  This is a good thing.  But as Floquenbeam notes, this article is not ready to be posted, but should you wish to work on it, improve it to the standards required for main page inclusion, so much the better!  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Kentucky Derby

 * Support Both articles appear updated, reasonable long enough, and sourced. Item is ITNR so importance there. --M ASEM (t) 03:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - I've used a blurb in the style of what we have posted in previous years. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Event is not very significant and no discussion has occurred before posting --LL212W (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This event is on the Recurring Items List(ITNR), meaning that no discussion is required on the merits as this has already been determined to be notable. This is very significant to the horse racing world and sports in general(over 160,000 people gathered to watch a two minute race)  Still, if you feel that this should not be on the ITNR list, you are welcome to propose its removal, though I think it unlikely to succeed. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD:Chris Mitchell

 * Oppose I for one oppose the trial run, but can't vote as the discussion has been closed. Similar to Ekeng or Piermario Morosini. Unfortunate death, but career-wise hardly RD-able. Brandmeistertalk  08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because a situation where the death is the story instead of the death of a notable person(which the nominator concedes) should be a blurb, and this does not warrant a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The above arguments are of course valid positions, but don't take into account whether or not the quality is sufficient. I deliberately chose this figure to trial the trial as trials should be trialled. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Patrick Ekeng

 * Comment agreed, if it's not posted before I wake up, I'll work on the article tomorrow morning to ensure it gets up to the standard required during this trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you TRM &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This death is interesting enough that I'd probably support it even without the trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I've added a couple more refs and there's nothing unreferenced that's remotely controversial, marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape and his death is receiving media coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, died while playing, and—it seems—might have been saved if not for poor medical treatment.  Abductive  (reasoning) 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Reg Grundy

 * Neutral/Weak support - Boy am I torn on this one. We don't get much of an opportunity to nominate RDs or events from Australia. However, it's hard to say whether or not this lives up to RD's objective criteria for posting. I am inclined to let this one go through as a litmus test.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment he died on 6 May. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article quality is not terrible. Everything is referenced, and the article isn't a stub, which is usually the minimum necessary.  It would be nice if someone so important were to have a more extensive biography, which is why this is "weak" for now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI Note the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox here: In the news. For the next month, ITN/C won't be evaluating the "importance" of someone when deciding whether to include them in RD or not, just on (a) being in the news, and (b) article quality. Please evaluate this nomination based on this new criteria. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until orange tag is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of that and everything should now be sourced. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom07  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Margot Honecker

 * Weak oppose Unless they did something spectacularly radical, I don't see how a former education minister is ever going to rise to the level of justifying inclusion at ITN, since every country will have dozens. With the possible exception of Prince Philip when he finally drops off, "married to famous person" has never been considered grounds for notability on Wikipedia, by very longstanding consensus; we made an exception for Nancy Reagan but that was very much a special case, since she was an internationally famous and influential person in her own right. &#8209; Iridescent 21:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose following Iridescent's rational above. There's a hint that her role as ministry of education and forcing military training is a significant (if possibly negative) contribution, but what's described in the article towards that is non-existent. I'd also beg that with the Controversy section with two maintenance tags, that absolutely would have to be resolved (and not just by blanking) before considering this for posting. --M ASEM (t) 23:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although Frau Honecker did hold an official position in the DDR, she was known mainly for being the wife of that last drudge of Stalinism, Erich Honecker. Thus she fails on notability. Sca (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI Note the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox here: In the news. For the next month, ITN/C won't be evaluating the "importance" of someone when deciding whether to include them in RD or not, just on (a) being in the news, and (b) article quality. Please evaluate this nomination based on this new criteria. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't taken note of the 'trial.' Sca (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose until orange tags are resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CSECTION, I've incorporated well-cited text from the "Controversies" section into the main biography where it would have chronologically belonged. That should resolve any issues; everything is well-cited and the article is comprehensive enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Request: in view of "the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox", explained by Floquenbeam, can you explain how this was posted (as part of the new month-long trial)? Presumably on the basis that the orange tags mentioned in the one oppose vote were removed and in the light of one support vote? Why should one bother voting at all? You can judge article quality yourself? 217.38.119.164 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite so. I assessed the updated article and decided that it was of sufficient quality for the main page.  You can vote, or not vote, that's up to you.  You may spot some quality issues, or holes in articles, that would be helpful to an assessing admin prior to posting.  Thanks for your interest in the trial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Irish government formation/election of Taoiseach

 * Support articles look to be in good shape. The blurbs are a bit wordy; I'm wondering if there is a way to condense it a bit.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - Importance clear. The government formation article is fine, but Kenny's has several CNs and a handful of unsourced paragraph, including one under the Vatican part that includes unsourced quotes, which absolutely must be fixed. --M ASEM (t) 17:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - but please make the blurb a little shorter and less "specialized" for people not so well versed in politics. Maybe a simply "Enda Kenny is re-elected Taoiseach of Ireland and forms a minority government." is just fine. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Yes, but make it "Taoiseach (prime minister)" for English-speaking readers, please. Sca (talk)
 * Support alt II, without the "(prime minister)". The English term for Taoiseach is Taoiseach; the mention of "prime minister" in the article is an explanation of what the role entails, not a job title. &#8209; Iridescent 09:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Taoiseach: "The words Taoiseach and Tánaiste are both from the Irish language and of ancient origin."
 * Oxford: "Taoiseach – The prime minister of the Republic of Ireland. – Origin: Irish, literally 'chief, leader'."
 * – Why not write in a manner that is readily understood by most readers? Sca (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same reason we don't call Angela Merkel "Chancellor (prime minister)", or Li Keqiang "Premier (prime minister)"; because "Prime Minister" is never used WRT Ireland, even when writing in English. Note that the term doesn't appear once on even the English version of his website. &#8209; Iridescent 14:46, 7 May 2016
 * Chancellor and premier are in general English-language use; taoiseach is not. The term taoiseach would never be applied in English to any government leader except the Irish one, and won't be comprehended by most of the world's 1.2 billion speakers of English as a first or second language.
 * This is not British Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia. Sca (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor is it American Wikipedia, so we stop using terms like "plurality" then, yes? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it's not American Wiki. It's the English-language Wikipedia.
 * Is plurality unknown in British English? Sca (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you're told every single time the issue arises here; the British equivalent would be "largest share of the vote". Incidentally, since it appears to have escaped your attention, Ireland is not in fact in Britain. &#8209; Iridescent 18:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Escaped my attention"? I know that, and I strongly suspect that you know I know that.
 * However, for historical and geographic reasons, I believe Ireland is – or traditionally was – considered part of the British Isles, and that the English spoken in the Republic of Ireland is a variant of British English. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now, how about having a civil discussion of the issue, without snarky asides? Sca (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing further to discuss here, the hook is accurate, the terms are linked where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I don't believe I've ever used the word plurality here, and I'm not fond of it for ITN purposes since it may not be readily understood by many readers. Sca (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of the term taoiseach. That's what the office is called, just because some Yanks don't know the term, doesn't mean we can use it. If we applied this in reverse, half the politcal stuff on here wouldn't be posted. Fgf10 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More like "no Yanks." Sca (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And no Brits know the term 'plurality'. Your point is? Fgf10 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Boaty McBoatface

 * As much as I would love to support this – it's a story that pretty much everyone saw and had a small chuckle about – oppose as an entirely forgettable blip in the grand scheme of things. I do wish we had something like the German Wikipedia, where they put a few links to interesting articles that are in the news but don't deserve full blurbs. This would fit nicely there. Smurrayinchester 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK. Isn't this pretty much tailor made for DYK?  Did you know ... that an online poll to name RRS Sir David Attenborough recommended the name Boaty McBoatface?  Dragons flight (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivial. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose but strongly support a DYK on this since the article was just created. --M ASEM (t) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - How dare they did not go with the most publicly favored option Boaty McBoatface.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite easily, it's a ship, not a boat. Shippy McShipface would have been a more accurate name. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose but what Masem said. This should definitely be on DYK. Nice article. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  &#xF0F6;   17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a form of protest. I refuse to recognize the boat as anything but Boaty McBoatface — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Mayor of London election

 * Weak support for the 'first Muslim' angle. de Blasio was not a groundbreaking candidate.  That said, I understand not posting mayoral elections in general. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both bolded articles are in decent enough shape for the main page, fully referenced and extensive enough. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I added another altblurb, the formulation "Muslim Mayor of London" has some grammatical/parsing issues (makes it sound like there's a singular position called "Muslim Mayor" and he's the first person to hold it.) I've rephrased to avoid the ambiguity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Still only a mayor, even if London is a top-25 metro area.  Unless he is somehow promising to promote an Islamic agenda, his personal religion is a rather trivial matter (as is race, gender, family's national origin, what college he attended, etc.).  For me, that bit of trivia doesn't overcome the fact he is a still only running for mayor.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree that his religion is a trivial matter when David Cameron comments on it: 331dot (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How does that change anything about the event? Sca (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel it doesn't change anything, I respect that, but it is not trivial when the head of government of a country basically states that a mayoral candidate in the country's largest city is associated with 'extremists'. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's part of the (domestic) news of the day, all right, but IMO not up to ITN standards. Sca (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe trivia is not quite the right word, but in our world of identity politics it is hardly uncommon for politicians to comment on personal characteristics that have little or no obvious connection to a candidate's capabilities and policy. We often see religion, race, gender being brought up in contentious campaigns.  Just because it is a part of the political rhetoric does not necessarily mean we should also give a lot of significance to someone being the first X to be elected Y, if we wouldn't ordinarily regard being elected Y as a sufficient reason to post.  Incidentally, due to a quirk of London politics, he is also only the third person to be directly elected Mayor as no such elected office existed before 2000.


 * Oppose – Per Dragons. And, note that posting the election of de Blasio was unanimously opposed by five ITN regulars in 2013. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This type of nom (the first X to be Y) is one we have to be really careful about because it has the possibility to propagate out of control. If we would normally post Y, then mentioning X is fine (eg mentioning Obama as the first African American US President) but going out of our way to post Y to feature X is a problem. But that does make for a good DYK... --M ASEM (t) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We should make a decision if we want to fight bias or embrace it - we did not post Donald Trump winning Indiana, but every now and then some people will argue that so-and-so article gets so many page views which means people find it interesting, and if we're not here to serve our readers what are we doing? If that argument is acceptable, then since page views arise because of bias, we should embrace it. If we elect to fight bias then I would oppose this; if we elect to embrace bias then I would support. With all that said I personally think we should fight bias and therefore I oppose this per arguments raised by Dragons flight. Banedon (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak something or other I don't really mind either way, it's one of those stories that is interesting but possibly not notable enough. Would be a good hook for DYK (and we certainly need more of those). Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem's comment re the first X to be Y. Sca (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose mentioning religion, if posted I don't mind either way if this is posted, but if it is I would oppose mentioning Kahn's as it's not relevant to the position or his politics, despite the Conservative campaign going out of it's way to promote racism. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support I have seen this among the leading news items in France and Spain, no idea about elsewhere. On the subject of religion, it is true that this is not a defining part of his platform (he has spoken of the retribution he has faced for supporting equal marriage) but it has been the main cause of muck thrown at him by opponents. I see in the lead of John F. Kennedy he is mentioned as the first Catholic president, and that is notable in a historical context because of bigotry in the campaign against him, despite him obviously not turning America into a theocracy. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sub-national election of an official with limited powers. Yes this is important for London (and for me personally, as a recent Londoner and frequent visitor) but ITN avoids posting local elections for very good reasons. Khan's religion is neither here nor there; the UK has long had elected officials from minority religions. The fact that this is the first time an elected London mayor has been a Muslim becomes even less impressive when you remember that he's only the third person to hold the position (after Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, of those two, Livingstone has said in interviews that based on her name and lack of records, his grandmother may have been a Jewish refugee, and Johnson has Jewish and Muslim ancestors. There aren't too many Londoners who can trace their roots to the same city over centuries. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And Zac Goldsmith, who came second, has Jewish ancestry (although is not himself Jewish). London is indeed a multicultural city. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is pretty unremarkable, it's a mayoral election, I don't ever really recall seeing mayors of NYC, Paris, Tokyo being posted on here – so it's mundane unless we mention that he's a muslim. In this case, it may seem remarkable to an outsider who has the idea that we Brits live in some kind of Mary Poppins land, but it's really not. London is a multicultural city, which has elected plenty of non-white British MPs over the last decades, and Sadiq is in fact only the third person to ever be elected Mayor of London. So it's really nothing special, and posting it this way will just serve to legitimise the divisive campaign played out by his opponent. So not feeling it qualifies as world news. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  &#xF0F6;   17:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Legitimizing it or not is irrelevant; we don't make judgment calls like that here; it is what it is and will be discussed as such. While you might not feel that it qualifies as world news, many news outlets would disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Extremely weak support on the grounds of him being elected as mayor to one of the largest cities in the world. I do not think the religion is relevant. JFK's Catholicism would not have been emphasized were ITN existent around this time.--WaltCip (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong support: Alternative blurb as first choice, its historical and significant.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do the above comments represent the Extremist Vote? Sca (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan becomes the first Muslim Mayor of a major western city after being elected Mayor of London. Nub Cake (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Change of leadership of countries is one thing, leadership of a city is another. If this is posted, then the results of the Welsh and Scottish assemblies/parliament elections should be announced as well. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the only real shaft of interest is the muslim angle, and since we're not in the game for righting wrongs, this isn't really a story of any interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: the only thing really a story here is that he's the first Muslim mayor of a major western city, though this also has problems no matter how you phrase it. I propose the following blurb:
 * Strong oppose – Local level elections are not posted barring something exceptionally contentious and posting this would set a highly unwanted precedent. The only angle being pushed here is Khan's religion, and it's not our place to highlight that as the most important aspect (it's decent trivia material, though). If you take out the religion, all you're left with is a routine election of a mayor, a story no one would consider posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a quote from his article "Tabloid sources reported that the imam of a Bradford mosque issued a fatwa in which he declared him to no longer be a Muslim; and police subsequently advised him to review his security" which alludes to him being a Muslim only in name. Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, the key issue here is how Khan himself identifies himself. That 1 local mosque imam disowns him should not be given disproportionate importance. --Soman (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can issue a fatwa. Khan isn't even from Bradford and has no links to this mosque - it's just a radical trying to cause trouble (if you read the sentence before, it was a protest against him voting for same-sex marriage). Khan doesn't drink and fasts at Ramadan, so I don't think there's much reason to doubt that he's a Muslim! Smurrayinchester 08:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose; parochial election of a local official to a largely symbolic post with few actual powers; the mayor of London isn't equivalent to the mayors of Paris, New York etc who actually exert significant control over their cities. Also strongly oppose the "Muslim" angle if this does run; "city which is 15% Muslim elects a Muslim candidate one time out of five" is totally non-surprising except for some (mainly American) media outlets who appear to think London is populated entirely by cheery Cockneys and loveable toffs. &#8209; Iridescent 08:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[Ready] Ahmet Davutoğlu resignation

 * Support on improvements/update - Importance is clear, and while the article is nearly there, there's a couple paragraphs that are unsourced and refer to "claims", thus absolutely requiring sources. Further, I would expect there to be a section regarding his resignation, while will likely have updates over time, but should be established now to describe the events leading up to it. --M ASEM (t) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – notable political event. Baking Soda (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Mention is VERY brief in the lede. The main text of the article (probably the Premiership section) should be updated with a more elaborate text explaining the particulars and context of his resignation.  Otherwise, however, the article is really solid, extensive and well referenced.  If we can have a more extensive update, this would be a great article to link from the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with a different blurb: Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (pictured) resigns following disagreements with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - also with an appropriate picture (see left). I've added a sourced section detailing facts about the resignation on the article. Nub Cake (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting this into the alt blurb and adding image into the nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - this kind of thing should be ITNR, even if they are not "recurring". Banedon (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know where the nomination page is. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – This domestic political tussle may or may not presage any subsequent change of significance. On Thursday Davutoğlu was still making strong statements of personal loyalty to Erdoğan. Undecided. Sca (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably know that what public figures state (lie, often) in public vs. what they state in private is not entirely harmonious. I think Davutoğlu's public statements of loyalty to Erdoğan may have been in part to save face and in part to keep damage to the Turkish lira to a minimum. <font color="8B0000">Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious wait till it happens. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has happened. He announced his resignation 5th May. Nub Cake (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously, major political news.BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment so has he resigned (per alt blurb) or has he announced his intention to do so (per main blurb)? Will we be posting his replacement at as ITNR in a couple of weeks time?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Resigned effective 22 May (per my blurb) at the next AKP session. <font color="8B0000">Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well, oppose until it happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - looks like the resignation is happening. Also, the article on Ahmet Davutoğlu is remarkably comprehensive. Christian Roess (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to post "Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announces his resignation", full stop. The "effective 22 May" addendum bugs me in a way I can't quite explain. Is my suggestion acceptable, or does omitting that part suggest that the resignation was immediate? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added your suggestion to ALT2. George Ho (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – It's been three days – at this point it's getting stale and has faded from news sites. Considering that the practical effect of his resignation remains unclear, that pushes it off the ITN stage, IMO. Sca (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] California marijuana legalization initiative

 * Oppose I think this should be posted if it passes and not now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Per TRM, I'm not opposed towards posting an article about this topic, but this is the wrong time. Petitions aren't binding, and when this becomes law would be the appropriate time to post it if we have a quality article to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments. First, this is widely expected to pass based on polling. Second, the story is going to be swamped by US federal elections this fall. – Brianhe (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit crystal bally for me. We can't just post it based on "wide expectations". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait per TRM. Unless there is major controversy about it appearing on the ballot and this makes news outside the region of the relevant ballot (in which case we would consider posting news about the controversy, not about the ballot), then this should be posted only if it passes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in any case. Per Cannabis in the United States, it's already legal in at least four states. So legalization in California isn't particularly newsworthy. Brandmeistertalk  10:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oppose under any circumstances. This is not groundbreaking as marijuana is already legal in Colorado, Washington state, and a few other places. Maine already has a referendum on the ballot for this year as well(disclosure: I started that article). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait - The principle of this is not to be understated; if California goes, the rest of the U.S. is sure to follow suit. However, it actually has to go first.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jean-Baptiste Bagaza

 * Support on notability. Article is a stub but what is there is well referenced. I'm about to fix the plain citations but don't have time to expand the article. There is plenty of material in the New York Times and Le Monde (if you speak French) obituaries to flesh out the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support notability but oppose quality. Needs expansion beyond stub.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length only. If the article were expanded to be a significant biography of his life and work, this could be posted.  There's very little there now, however.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Baking Soda (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality - it's a stub article and a sad state of affairs for a person that has at least 40 years of history in the politics of their nation. Challenger l (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] IBM's 5 qubit quantum computer is made available to the public via the internet

 * In-principle support - a successful quantum computer will represent a huge increase in computing power. This is not a breakthrough - according to timeline of quantum computing quantum computers have passed the 1000-qubit mark - but it's still an interesting step in that development. With that said, I think for this particular news item, both quantum computing and IBM are too wide to be target articles. An individual article on this computer would be OK. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1000-qubit claim associated with D-Wave Systems is highly controversial. Their quantum annealing chips operate on a different principle than most quantum computers, and it is disputed whether they are using quantum entanglement at all.  They can't implement Shor's algorithm, for example.  The largest systems not produced by D-Wave are much, much smaller.   Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Won't say I'm an expert on quantum computers (I know the theory, but not the experimental realization) - still the Shor's algorithm lede says "Since April 2016, the largest integer factored on a quantum device is 200099, using D-Wave 2X quantum processor " ... (off topic). Banedon (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose IBM is beta-testing a new product and has put out a press-release. See WP:SOAP and churnalism. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ctrl-Alt-Delete - Manufactured puffery; churnalism as Andrew D. so succinctly put it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose A very silly publicity stunt (although I'm still going to have a play with it). 5 qubit quantum computers have existed for ages and can do virtually nothing more complicated than add 2 + 2. A conventional computer could simulate a 5 qubit machine without much problem. Smurrayinchester 08:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but quantum computers are fundamentally different from classical computers, with vastly greater potential. An analogy - the first steam-powered vehicles could barely move and had to be rested very often to allow the boiler to cool. Today, cars are ubiquitous. The same might apply to quantum computers one day. As for the publicity stunt angle, we have posted items in the past that are arguably advertising (e.g. AlphaGo), and will probably do so again. So for example if Virgin Galactic lands someone on the moon or a fully autonomous car become commercially available, I imagine we would post that too. It comes down to significance. Perhaps my background makes me attribute more significance to quantum computers than most. Banedon (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They may have existed for ages but there is no way you could have accessed one from your living room until now. There are interesting things you can do with just a one qubit system, e.g. measuring how it interacts with the environment. Suppose that the qubit is not going to be flipped from |0> to |1> due to interactions. But the environment will evolve differently depending on the state of the qubit. So, the environment + qubit initially in a state |E>|> will become |E0>|0> while the initial state |E>|1> will become |E1>|1>. Then how can we measure this effect by only measuring the qubit, as the qubit is not affected at all? This can be done by initializing the qubit in the state |0>, and then applying the Hadamard transform U which changes |0> to U|0> = 1/sqrt(2) [|0> + |1>] and |1> to U|1> = 1/sqrt(2) [|0> - |1>]. Note that U is its own inverse, applying U twice to a qubit brings it back to the original state. But due to the interaction with the environment this isn't the case. Computing U|q> with |q> = 1/sqrt(2) [|E0>|0> + |E1>|1> ] yields 1/2 [(|E0> + |E1>)|0> + (|E0> - |E1>)|1>]. So, there is then a probability of 1/2 [1 - Re(<E0|E1>)] of finding the qubit in the state |1>. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious oppose. I don't know where this recent trend of nominating things at ITN that don't have Wikipedia articles can come from, but can it please go back there? What exactly are you asking us to judge the quality of? &#8209; Iridescent 20:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Fort McMurray wildfire

 * Comment Blurb seems overexaggerating. Linked news stories and our article clearly note parts of the town are destroyed, but certainly not the entire town. (The full evacuation, however, is correct). Also to note that no deaths have appeared to be reported yet, making this a common wildfire and likely not ITN worthy, but I'm not yet fully assured on that point. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, blurb is overexagerated. This is big enough news as is. No need to make it seem bigger. (80k refugees is a fairly big number for wildfires, AFAIK) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well 1,600 structures affected.(BBC) Also this is map of damage in city. We should wait, but I thing all possibilities are on table. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1600 structures (though I did see a number may be mobile homes) is still a significant value, so I Support Alt2, which seems accurate without exaggeration. --M ASEM (t) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb. For now Weak support Article is barely above stub stage.  Would be nice to see it expanded some.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article could use some expanding. 80,000 does seem like a really high number for wildfire refugees, though. The municipality's Twitter page is showing that the evacuation was successful with no injuries or casualties. Canuck 89 (converse with me) 16:40, May 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and propose Alt2 - the Premier has revealed that over 1600 buildings have been destroyed (the previous worst in Alberta's history was one third of this) and there are fears today could be as bad as yesterday. This is, without exaggeration, becoming one of the most significant natural disasters in Canadian history. Resolute 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT II - article needs a bit of structure (lede, May 2, May 3, May 4 etc?) but is otherwise good to go. Everything is referenced, significant evacuation of a major city. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support and comment I have restructured the article and provided some significant updates. --<font color="#000000">Natural <font color="#228b22">R <font color="#000000">X 18:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but no real decision from me on the blurb. This was the second news story on my radio this morning, and considering my radio was thousands of miles away from this disaster, I'd consider this to be noteworthy.  Article is just about good enough and will no doubt evolve.  Marked as ready, with a tinge of guilt as I don't know the best verbiage with which this should be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above explanations about notability. I've proposed a third altblurb as I don't like Alt1 and Alt2 is way too wordy for my taste. If mine didn't start with a number I'd have just posted that, but as it stands I want to get another opinion on it first. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, with my own version of Alt3, tweaked a little more to avoid starting the blurb with a number. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Maybe we should mention that it's the entire city that has been evacuated. Tinss (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't actively object, but the reason I didn't take that bit of info from the original blurb is because we generally need to keep blurbs relatively short. So info like that, or the fact that the 88,000 were evidently evacuated with no injuries, etc., etc., would quickly overwhelm the section. That info is in the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was weighing that when I proposed Alt2. I decided going with the absolute number was better for the blurb since it sets a figure people understand at a glance.  Without knowing how many people live in Fort McMurray noting that the entire city was evacuated doesn't offer much context.  i.e.: The entire community of Slave Lake was evacuated for similar reasons in 2011, and that was only 7000 people. Resolute 20:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Another blurb proposed: A state of emergency has been declared in the Canadian province of Alberta, after a wildfire forced full-scale evacuation of Fort McMurray. --Jenda H. (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering how big the fire has become i suggest updating the blurb as well. Something along the lines of proposed blurb by Jenda A state of emergency has been declared in the Canadian province of Alberta, after a wildfire grows to over 850 sq km. -- Ashish-g55 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Are we sure all 88,000 have been evacuated? From what I've seen, the big evacuation convoy was only getting under way Fri. a.m. (UTC -7:00). And keep in mind there were 49 fires burning in an area of some 300 sq. mi. (210,000 acres). Sca (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the number of actual evacuees according to the government. And it can get confusing because a large number of people on Tuesday were forced to evacuate north, into the forest.  The convoys you are referring to are moving those same people south, back toward population centres. Resolute 16:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. How does this fit into that? Sca (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Convoys are making their way south. Best place to cover this is cbc probably not bbc. The fire are roughly the size of new york city. Our blurb seems to point out an outdated stat that doesnt necessarily show how big this fire is. again i suggest updating -- Ashish-g55 22:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * CBC noted. TNX. Sca (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Donald Trump wins Indiana

 * Strong oppose First and foremost, the only clear point to post about the elections in the US is on the first Tuesday in November, when it happens. What goes on in the primaries is not appropriate -- barring the potential of the brokered convention, and even that would be an iffy ITN. --M ASEM (t) 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. A party choosing its candidate for an office(which hasn't even been formally done here) does not merit posting. Imagine ITN being loaded down with this sort of story from countries all over the world. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW close Of course not. (A) It's only one contest and there are more to go, so (B) Trump hasn't clinched anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Honestly, I don't think we've ever posted someone winning a party nomination, let alone someone winning a single primary. Resolute 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Moratorium on all U.S. election stories until the final general election in November, when the winning candidate is decided.--WaltCip (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The winning candidate will be officially decided on January 6, 2017 at 1:00 pm. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless it's something truly exceptional (by which I mean something as significant as the death of one of the candidates or the election being postponed), I would tend to agree with that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thryduulf, but because of the possibility of the truly exceptional happening, I would oppose a moratorium on all US election stories. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Violence at a convention, on par with the 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity, might be the only thing between now and November that could merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Snooker World Championship

 * Support when updated It needs a summary, as you say, but is otherwise in decent shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Hundred of millions watched this in China alone. Shouts of 'pro-British' bias coming from the Septics on here in 3, 2, 1... 213.105.166.119 (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - anybody know where Mark Selby comes from?? 86.181.130.187 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical question I guess, but it's Leicester. Not relevant here. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And they all thought Leicester were "dead and buried"? 86.181.130.187 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support of course, as per WP:ITNR and all. This could be a very Leicestery In The News! Cream147 Shout at me 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone would think someone had found a King in Leicester!!! Torqueing (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I know we wouldn't normally do this, but could there be a case for saying "Mark Selby of Leicester"? Then it sort of ties the reader's mind the premier league item above, that this is a doubly good day for the city. Just an idea anyway &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Leicester City Win the Premier League

 * support - historic result.BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but remove the sentence before the "," . Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why remove it? It has universally been called "remarkable" and "historic".
 * Support Alt. Greatest ever in this context is very subjective and not very encyclopedic, no need for that at ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, oppose the inclusion of 5000/1 or other specific odds. These values only really proves that the specific bookmaker(s) offering those odds wasn't very good at predicting the outcome.  Yes, that's an indicator of being "unexpected", but not one that I would highlight in ITN.  If one can figure out a pithy way of saying how bad their previous season was, I might support that.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - will never be repeated, maybe the 'In what has been called the greatest sports story in history' could be removed, but I'd keep the first-ever championship. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In what has been called the greatest sports story in history" is one of the least encyclopedic clauses I've ever read. There's nothing in the article to suggest it's anything out of the ordinary. That uncorroborated phrase better not be included in a posted blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly haven't read any of the sources if you think this is nothing out of the ordinary. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the Wikipedia article to suggest it's out of the ordinary. You clearly haven't read the target page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support For the reasons already stated. However, I agree that the "In what has been called..." part is unnecessary. While there hasn't been anything to compare this to, I don't see why a simple "In association football, Leicester City win the Premier League" isn't sufficient enough. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT - I'm not a footy fan, but this is a historic win. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I edit conflicted this nom. While I don't mind either way, chances are this won't get posted until some prose is added. Someone needs to add an update of the season so far or at least write something like what we posted last season. Fuebaey (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - The odds before the season were 5000/1. Ranieri just sacked from Greece? The pizza deal?? Jumpers for goalposts, ooh, you know, isn't it?? 86.181.130.187 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of what you just listed out is currently in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously going to be posted, but it needs updating and the article is woefully short on prose. When posted I support using alt1. AIR corn (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb to emphasise how unlikely this win was. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article does it say they were 5000-to-1 underdogs. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Something needs to be said about how incredible the win was. The links given show how historic and unlikely it was and also put it in perspective for the American users Torqueing (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this is just the regular end of the EPL right? They got the most points and won? If so, it's ITN/R and gets posted every year (even if it's just a qualifier for EN teams to get into some European contest that we also post). --166.173.250.245 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Premiership is a simple league, and Leicester have won by getting both more points than anyone else and by being further ahead of the second place team than there are points available from remaining matches (They have 77 points, Tottenham in second place have 70 but they have only one match remaining and so cannot score more than 73 points). They have won the most prestigious* competition in English football (*although some people might say the FA Cup is equally so). There is no equivalent to the post-season seen in some(?) US sports, after next week's matches the season is over. By virtue of winning the premier league Leicester will qualify for some European competition (Champions League I think) next season, which they will play in parallel with the domestic season starting in August/September. Other English teams are also in this (qualifying rounds for) and other European competitions (e.g. by winning the FA cup), but again that's next season. Thryduulf (talk)
 * Sorry to imterrupt, Clive, simple game or not, but Spurs have got two games left and it might just be that they get to 76 points. Ericoides (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 the other two blurbs are sensationalist. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until someone who is knowledgable about and enjoys this sport adds some prose to the article. Its pages of tables with no summary of the season.  Can we get at least a page of text on season highlights?  A paragraph about Leister's season and the importance of the win?  Some text would be nice for the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 - normally posted as a recurrent event, but this season more than most. Conay (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 – Definitely the greatest achievement in English football history. Article does need a little updating, but I think it should be in the news anyway. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 06:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole? I don't know about you, but in my mind the "greatest achievement" would be a record like the best season ever, or the most consecutive wins, or the most championship titles.  Being the most improved team, or overcoming long odds, makes for a great story but that doesn't seem like much of an argument for being the single greatest accomplishment in football ever.   Dragons flight (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what you personally think. The reliable sources are using phrases like "one of the greatest sporting stories of all time".  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a great story. Who doesn't like an underdog?  It might even be among the greatest sports stories (though that phrase clearly gets overused, and isn't a very encyclopedic thing to say in our own voice).  But we are grading on a curve.  If Chelsea or Manchester had a 22-11-3 season to clinch the title, we'd still post it, but we wouldn't be thinking it was greatest thing ever.  We could equally point to reliable sources noting that Leicester are among the least successful teams to ever reach the title , with only a handful of teams managing to earn the title with so few wins.  Regardless, a winner is a winner, even if it wasn't the winningest of seasons, they deserve to be on ITN.  I like the Leicester City story, and I think it is a great story, but labeling it as the greatest achievement in football still strikes me as bald hyperbole.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, it doesn't really matter about your personal criteria, we'll stick to the reliable sources and what they say. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You often make that argument TRM, but as far as I am concerned, ITN is an area where considerable editorial discretion and judgment is important. Obviously, we rely on the reliable sources, but our blurbs can only post a tiny fraction of what they say.  And only a tiny fraction of all news stories make it to ITN at all.  If we were just going on what reliable sources are saying, we would probably be leading with the Indiana primary right now.  Obviously, what goes in articles can elaborate multiple viewpoints, but this discussion page needs both sources and editorial judgment.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If my opinion is in the minority, that's fine. I'm a big boy.  I can move on and it doesn't matter.  But saying my opinion (or other people's opinion) is irrelevant isn't really in line with how consensus is expected to work.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the top story on the global BBC website with the subheading of "one of the most unlikely achievements in sporting history". That's reliable, that's just fine for us.  Anyway, it's posted now and this is serving no purpose at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ALTs 1 or 2 (ALT2 might be more "sensationalist", but it's also more interesting to people to who only casually follow footie) - but I think Leicester City should be bolded. BTW in previous years we waited until the season ended, but this would be a mistake - a) this is in the news now, and b) all the European leagues finish at pretty much the same time, so the box ended up totally stuffed with football. Smurrayinchester 07:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The article Leicester City redirects to Leicester City F.C.. Also suggest that the blurb links to 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season in addition to (or instead of) Leicester City F.C. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted now that 2015–16 Premier League has its text update. Used alt-blurb 2 (but would be happy to change to ALT1, since both seemed equally popular) - didn't link 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season since it's effectively just an almanac with no text. Smurrayinchester 09:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that Leicester City is linked to Leicester City F.C.. Oh, and post-posting Support, obviously. One of the biggest sports stories in a long time; the coverage is literally worldwide.  Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support for ALT2, which is the current blurb. Good to reflect the outsider status. starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  10:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly? We're going to editorialize - and face it, you are editorializing - with loose English and slang like "5000/1 outsiders"? Yes, Leicester City's run is pretty damn special for those who are aware of the context, the current hook is pretty damned unprofessional.  Resolute 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Solomon W. Golomb

 * Oppose on article quality - almost completely unsourced section on academic achievements; claim at end of lede about inspiting Tetris is uncited etc etc. Also the article on Golomb coding has no citation to the claim that he invented it. And also don't see this RD in the mainstream media. MurielMary (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Article quality issues are easily surmountable (the Tetris claim, for example, is in the Daily Trojan article linked above).  Golomb was a notable figure in the field of recreational mathematics; IEEE has already posted an obituary and we can expect further obituaries and eulogies in other media as the news propagates. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is still showing a maintenance tag. If the issues are easily surmountable, please surmount them and let me know so we can get this posted, otherwise it's going to drop off as stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on sourcing improvements per MurielMary and Psychonaut. Importance seems met otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan sweet poisoning

 * Uh... is anyone planning to write an article about this topic? Sca (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I started the article. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is mostly nearly stale. The first reports, which included confirmation of at least 25 deaths, took place on 25 April.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)