In the news toolbox |
---|
|
This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.
|
How to nominate an itemIn order to suggest a candidate:
There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN. Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template. Headers
Voicing an opinion on an item
Please do not...
|
Suggestions
July 22
Portal:Current events/2016 July 22 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
July 21
Portal:Current events/2016 July 21 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
July 20
Portal:Current events/2016 July 20 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Posted] RD: Pavel Sheremet
Article: Pavel Sheremet
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, Guardian, CNN
Nominator: Yakikaki (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Prolific critical journalist, very probably murdered Yakikaki (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Lots of news coverage, detailed article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support contingent on the one very important [citation needed] tag being resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
RD: Betsy Bloomingdale
Article: Betsy Bloomingdale
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter Vanity Fair NY Times The Telegraph LA Times
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: American socialite and philanthropist. Statements in artilce are cited to reliable sources. MurielMary (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd feel better if there was some more mainstream news sources(outside of niche sources). 331dot (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Apparently that's no longer a criteria under the new rules? MurielMary (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominated RDs must still be shown to be In The News- that has never changed. I'm not necessarily saying that the sources you have given mean otherwise- just that some more mainstream ones would make me feel better about it. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Per331dot, the requirement that nominations actually appearing in news sources has not been removed. What has been removed is people's personal likes or dislikes, awareness of or lack of awareness of, and other similar criteria based on people's opinions of "importance" or "merit" or "notability". --Jayron32 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently that's no longer a criteria under the new rules? MurielMary (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - If the person is important or notable, the article needs to be properly and sufficiently cited as such.--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- The person is already established as being notable as they have a WP article (non-notable = no article). The article is already cited to reliable sources. Not sure of the basis of the opposition vote? MurielMary (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment have added two further sources, from NY and the UK. Jayron and 331dot can you direct me to where the criteria of "mainstream sources" is recorded in the RD criteria? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Article length and sourcing is good. While this death happens to be on the NY Times front page, I agree that even if the death is mentioned in a very smalltown newspaper's obituary section, as long as we have a quality article it must be posted under the new criteria. Mamyles (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose while I agree with the majority of the previous post, this is hardly a comprehensive article, it's just about avoiding having a stub tag. 36 years of her life are completely overlooked, presumably when she was most active as a socialite and making the most of life, so I can't support the article in its current, incomplete state. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except for her husband having an affair, what is missing from the article? It seems pretty much in line with the NY Times source. She was known primarily for hosting parties with a lot of powerful friends, and writing books about it. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Mamyles - how is the article incomplete? What is missing? Her whole adult life is covered. Well above stub status. MurielMary (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- When I reviewed the article, there was no mention of anything that she had done (besides having three kids) between 1946 and 1982. That's what I considered incomplete. It's marginally better now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Mamyles - how is the article incomplete? What is missing? Her whole adult life is covered. Well above stub status. MurielMary (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Except for her husband having an affair, what is missing from the article? It seems pretty much in line with the NY Times source. She was known primarily for hosting parties with a lot of powerful friends, and writing books about it. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose See, this is where the criteria fall down. Having a Wikipedia article = Notable. Why? What is she famous for? Holding parties, buying clothes, and being friends with some famous people? And people wonder why Wikipedia has a gender bias. This is not an important person. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- If you are saying this person doesn't merit an article, there is a process for that. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. Therefore all the bios of socialites and philanthropists should be deleted from WP? This simply raises the inherently subjective question of "important to whom" or "notable in whose eyes". If someone is reported on internationally, both while alive and on her death, how does that fall below notability? MurielMary (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't waste my time. This is an inherent failing of Wikipedia, not of ITN, that unimportant people who have achieved nothing apart from being friends with other "important people" can merit articles. They certainly shouldn't be given the dignity of an RD. But, for the sake of WP:GNG, the article still doesn't explain why we should care about her. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- To sum up the article. Was born. Married someone. Bought clothes. Got fined for importing clothes with fake prices. Was in a bit of a scandal with her husband's mistress after he died. Threw parties. Was friends with a First Lady. Did a bit of charity. Died. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the location to question the existence of the article. One person's 'unimportant' is another's 'very important', hence the change in RD criteria. I've said what you can do if you feel this person does not merit an article- but you declined to do so. If you do not wish to suggest the page for deletion, please move on. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- To sum up the article. Was born. Married someone. Bought clothes. Got fined for importing clothes with fake prices. Was in a bit of a scandal with her husband's mistress after he died. Threw parties. Was friends with a First Lady. Did a bit of charity. Died. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you are saying this person doesn't merit an article, there is a process for that. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Meets criteria - has article, is in the news. Appears to be of sufficient quality for the front page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
RD: Radu Beligan
Article: Radu Beligan
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post AGERPRES
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • )
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Well-known Romanian theater actor, the oldest one alive in Romania and one of the oldest in the world. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly unreferenced lists of non-notable appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
RD: Mark Takai
Article: Mark Takai
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Honolulu Civil Beat, USA Today, NBC News
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives dies of prostate cancer at 49. Does need some more sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Weak support on improvement This is a tough call, because we normally don't place Congress members in RD, even incumbent ones (such as Alan Nunnelee). However, his election in 2014 was hotly contested, with Takai winning by 51–47, so his death might have a bigger impact. I think we could get this posted if we can get the article up to standard. Support based on new RD criteria; the article still has a couple of "citation needed" tags, but I don't see any glaring flaws. EternalNomad (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- @EternalNomad: Remember that the RD criteria changed, so now we're back to posting articles as long as the quality is sufficient, regardless of our interpretation of their "super notability". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per new RD requirements. Article could be a little more substantive, but is sufficient for now.-Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose references required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] Dollar Shave Club
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles: Dollar Shave Club and Unilever
Blurb: Unilever buys Dollar Shave Club for US$1 billion.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • )
Updater: Grapesoda22 (talk • )
Other updaters: RJaguar3 (talk • )
- Question: I'm not too familiar with the shaving industry--is this a record-breaking deal? In the Dollar Shave Club article, it says that the company has 2 million subscribers, which doesn't seem that large in the grand scheme of things, but correct me if I'm wrong. This seems like a routine corporate acquisition. SpencerT♦C 17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose US$1 billion is fairly small in terms of business acquisitions. Unilever is a massive multinational company but I don't think purchasing a startup that has yet to turn a profit meets the bar for ITN. Also, each article only has single sentence updates. Fuebaey (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. $1 billion is pennies in the business world.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's cutting-edge technology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose great advert, great story, small business transaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose $1B is tiny, and this is not a dramatic shakeup of the shaving industry. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD: Mohammed Shahid
Article: Mohammed Shahid
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Indian Express NDTV
Nominator: John Jaffar Janardan (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Mohammed Shahid Indian hockey legend of the eighties, who was part of 1980 Moscow Olympics gold medalist team, died at the age of 56.
- Oppose what's there is okay, but it's a stub and not a comprehensive biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{CN}} tags need to be resolved. Seems to be longer than a stub now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support when fully referenced. The article has enough prose now to post, although reference expansion is always welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The article makes an uncited claim that he invented a novel hockey stroke. I played field hockey myself at school and am not convinced – it seems to have been a regular push pass with a good strong technique. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
July 19
Portal:Current events/2016 July 19 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Posted] RD: Carlos Gorostiza
Article: Carlos Gorostiza
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Infobae, La Nacion, Telam
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Argentine playwright. Fuebaey (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Article seems pretty thorough and well-sourced. Teemu08 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Quality looks sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Looks complete; marking 'ready'. SpencerT♦C 17:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted. Wasn't that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
[Posted] Turkish purges (replace current blurb)
Articles: 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and 2016 Turkish purges
Blurb: The Turkish government purges tens of thousands of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
Alternative blurb: The Turkish government arrests or suspends 45,000 officials, judges, teachers and civil servants in purges of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
Alternative blurb II: The Turkish government arrests 2,700 judges and suspends 36,000 education staff in purges of alleged Gülenists following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290 people.
News source(s): BBC, WaPo
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • )
Nominator's comments: The follow up to the coup story, in some ways even bigger than the coup itself, since it reshapes Turkish government and entrenches Erdogan. About 3.5 million people work in the public sector in Turkey, which means that one in every hundred public servants in Turkey has been arrested or fired, and a third of judges and every single university dean is gone. Smurrayinchester 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Agree with the nom that this is bigger than the actual coup. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support the idea. We need a decent blurb that's not too bloated and rambling though... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
OpposeThe first blurb is succinct enough, but the 2016 Turkish purges article needs fleshing out first. The actual updated content (after the background section) is mainly a timeline of events. Multiple headings proceeded by one sentence shows how sparse the article is. Fuebaey (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt#Arrests and purges is decent enough. Can replace purges and omit the last link so we're not pointing to the same article twice. Fuebaey (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Simple solution is to merge the content, which I've gone and done. Smurrayinchester 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt#Arrests and purges is decent enough. Can replace purges and omit the last link so we're not pointing to the same article twice. Fuebaey (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support but agree article needs fleshing out. Here's a somewhat shorter blurb suggestion:
- The Turkish government arrests 2,700 judges and suspends 36,000 education staff in purges following an unsuccessful coup that killed over 290.
- I don't think we need to clutter up the blurb with "alleged Gülenists." Let them read about that in the story. Sca (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is too restrictive, since these are biggies, but he had much more down: 24 TV stations had their licenses revoked, all public servants and all academics are restricted from leaving the country, and the latest is that 626 educational institutions were closed. We shouldn't mention specific portions of these, because the sum is much, much greater than the parts here.
- Update - I think the original blurb is OK, and the updated blurb should be placed at the top of the box. Banedon (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - This is actually really big news. It could very well have major implications for democracy in Turkey. Kurtis (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I made some updates to the article, and I think it's in a decent enough shape. The original blurb is reasonable, and since Gülen is being insisted on so much by Erdogan, I think it's worth mentioning. LjL (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support original blurb or second alt-blurb. This is a massive story, and I think it should be posted as a new blurb rather than just an update of the existing one so it doesn't drop off prematurely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I mean 50k humans being imprisoned? That is a rather ridiculous number. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Nergaal and marked Ready. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Garry Marshall
Article: Garry Marshall
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (Variety), (Daily Beast)
Nominator: Fuzheado (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Legendary movie and TV show director in Hollywood. Creator of "Happy Days," and director of multiple films. Fuzheado | Talk 03:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvements Much of the career section is unsourced. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Needs sources, lead should be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Inducted into multiple entertainment hall of fames, he was a well respected director and actor who created some of the most iconic sitcoms in the 1970s. SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose until the rest of the article is adequately referenced. I keep adding {{cn}} tags where I think it needs to be addressed but a pathetic IP editor keeps removing them, and I can't be bothered to fight with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Subject and his most notable works are legendary, and it looks like the article has been sufficiently improved.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
July 18
Portal:Current events/2016 July 18 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
July 17
Portal:Current events/2016 July 17 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Closed] [Posted] 2016 Open Championship
Nothing more productive happening here, some odd soap-boxing starting up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: In golf, Henrik Stenson (pictured) wins the Open Championship
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • )
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
- Support per WP:ITNR. The article(s) are in good condition. 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:C3E:8A1A:4F78:8E42 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on principle but article needs work; the "field" section needs quite a bit of clean-up as it looks untidy and unprofessional. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Watching a man hitting a ball with a stick. How dull! Now when's the cricket on? Slugnut Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
-
I don't think this !vote should be taken into consideration because, as this is ITNR, we are not looking at the notability article but more the quality. This is borderline trolling and no help to the ITNC. I recommend the closing admin disregards this !vote. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Fair enough WaltClip; you are right so have strucken the comment. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, article's in good shape, etc. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Lugnuts: Split personality? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ITN/R, but maybe another picture, ideally from Stenson on a golf course, would be more appropriate. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @HandsomeFella: Just FYI support on the merits is not required with ITNR items; its presence on the list presumes such support. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @331dot: so what should I do? Per "Please do not ... ", a simple "Support"/"Oppose" is not sufficient. And I'm not the only one to refer to that. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to say support or oppose at all with an ITNR item. Discussions on ITNR items are only to determine if the article is adequately updated and agree on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Constructive comments about what picture to use are also welcome, and are just as important as the wording of the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- File:Henrik Stenson.JPG is a little more suitable I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Constructive comments about what picture to use are also welcome, and are just as important as the wording of the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to say support or oppose at all with an ITNR item. Discussions on ITNR items are only to determine if the article is adequately updated and agree on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @331dot: so what should I do? Per "Please do not ... ", a simple "Support"/"Oppose" is not sufficient. And I'm not the only one to refer to that. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support. I think the article is in good enough shape. The "Field" section could be better formatted but that is not a blocker imo. I do agree with HandsomeFella about the picture - we only have the one of him outdoors (see right) and that's from 2008 but I still prefer it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Would like to see more prose in the earlier rounds, similar to Test cricket/NBA finals/World Series ITN/R articles (4 rounds/matches/games, 4 paragraph summaries). It would also help if prose was cited. The "Field" section is standard across golf major articles - I don't see a reason to change the layout to suit ITN. There's either a 2-year old picture of Stenson at an awards ceremony or an 8-year old one of the Swede at a tournament. If there's no obvious change in his visage, we could go for the latter. Fuebaey (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: we could add ", with a championship-record 20 under par total" to the blurb. It's noteworthy. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unless the record literally cannot be broken again (perfect score or something, note that I'm not really familiar with golf), I don't think it's necessary to include this information in the blurb. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The only way a "perfect record" could be scored in golf is if somebody would ace all holes, which is of course impossible. The only person ever to come close to that is the former North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, who in 1991 (or 1994) posted a 38-under-par round of 34. The round included 11 holes-in-one, at least if you believe North Korean media.[1] Humor aside, this was the 145th Open Championships, arguably the world's most prestigious tournament. The record has received much attention in media, and is thus notable. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unless the record literally cannot be broken again (perfect score or something, note that I'm not really familiar with golf), I don't think it's necessary to include this information in the blurb. -SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: should it perhaps be "wins The Open Championship"? pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 01:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, that would imply that the 2016 issue is "the" championship. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment whilst the prose is a little sparse this could have been posted, except that the final round prose is entirely unreferenced. Stephen 04:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stephen I've added some inline refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks TRM, could you proxy post this one for me as I'm on mobile for the next few hours. Stephen 07:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Shock horror, you'll get me desysopped at this rate... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I would suggest to change the text to "In golf, Sweden's Henrik Stenson wins..." Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Stenson is on the front page to embarrass Americans, notably Phil Mickelson, who has the largest number of second place finishes in major tournaments. I'm sure if most other golfers had finished second to Stenson, a mediocre golfer until this tournament, nobody really would have noticed. But the Swedish and other Scandanavian editors want to sitck it to the United States, a very unpopular country to many in that part of the world. DavidSteinle (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[closed] Baton Rouge shooting
Consensus is against posting this, at least for now. I'm closing the nomination to stop any more off-topic political discussion. If there are major developments or an article is written that would be suitable for ongoing, these can be brought to ITN/C's attention via a new nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers
Blurb: At least three police officers are fatally shot during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Alternative blurb: Three officers are shot in an ambush killing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
News source(s): NBC News
Nominator: 116.216.0.49 (talk • )
Updater: Parsley Man (talk • )
Other updaters: Blue Eagle 21063 (talk • )
- Support Police relations with black people / Black Lives Matter / whatever you want to call it, it's coming to a head in the U.S. Especially with the Dallas shooting having fallen off the ticker, this story is appropriate for posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Copycats aren't likely to look to Wikipedia for inspiration. And this will likely be a major issue in the upcoming elections. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, unfortunately, we can't post every violent event to ITN. While it is one of the day's leading stories, only three were killed. Especially after the Dallas attacks, this number isn't quite as noteworthy. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Though Dallas is obviously very fresh, multiple shootings of police are usually very rare. Aside from the Dallas attack, I believe that it has been several years since the last time at least 3 police officers were killed in a single incident in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait If this is connected to the previous shootings/protests from last week, then we should post; on the other hand, if this is just a random crime, then it's a sad domestic crime and not ITN appropriate. I know they have pointed out Baton Rouge was one of the sites where there was protest in response to the shootings, but that only indicated a coincidence, not a consequence. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment. People being shot in America, even policemen these days, is commonplace, and if this is supposed to be somehow related to the previous issues, I would seek to find an appropriate "ongoing" news story to post, otherwise this, in isolation, is not newsworthy for the whole of the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is related: "Dallas and Baton Rouge, two beautiful cities now linked in unthinkable tragedy". What ongoing article would there be? Police shootings by angry people in the United States? Maybe we need an article to capture this better, since BLM doesn't advocate for the killing of cops. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well there's clearly a cultural issue going on in the US, so an article should be written, I don't think it's necessarily about angry people (per se) but yes, there's enough evidence now to construct an article reflecting these commonplace events, i.e. police shoot black people, police get shot, police shoot black people, police get shot cycle. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- What evidence can you cite for your claim that the killing of American police is "commonplace"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well there's clearly a cultural issue going on in the US, so an article should be written, I don't think it's necessarily about angry people (per se) but yes, there's enough evidence now to construct an article reflecting these commonplace events, i.e. police shoot black people, police get shot, police shoot black people, police get shot cycle. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is related: "Dallas and Baton Rouge, two beautiful cities now linked in unthinkable tragedy". What ongoing article would there be? Police shootings by angry people in the United States? Maybe we need an article to capture this better, since BLM doesn't advocate for the killing of cops. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait I do think this is going to end up on ITN especially if this is politically and or racially motivated. But the situation is very fluid and we just don't know enough to say much beyond that a shooting has occurred and three police officer have been killed. We are not a news network and there is no urgent rush to get this up. Let's wait to get enough verifiable details to actually write a decent blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, now part of the new normal of police-community relations in the US. Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Police officers being ambushed is not, nor will it ever be, "normal". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- But somehow, innocent people being ruthlessly and recklessly killed by police has seemingly been "normal" in the US for a long time, with little more than some social media +1's and shrugs. So far, anyway, there is nothing in the present article clearly stating that this was an "ambush" or that it was related to the Dallas event or that it was an actual planned attack against cops rather than an exchange of fire between police and criminals as, you know, police are meant to have. Post if/when that becomes clear. LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- There were other incidents before and after Dallas. I supported the posting of Dallas because the shooting occurred during a protest. Ambushing the cops is more common than you might think. Abductive (reasoning) 04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Police officers being ambushed is not, nor will it ever be, "normal". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem, oppose for now. If this is another revenge and/or somehow related to the Black Lives Matter, then yes, but an isolated incident isn't worth posting, just like killings of police officers in countries like Iraq or Pakistan. Brandmeistertalk 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. This is plain and simple. In the USA, People. Get. Shot. All. The. Time. Because the pro-gun lobby won't institute any sort of sensible laws. This is literally old news.--WaltCip (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It has nothing to do with political motives. It's a fact that these shootings are happening on a constant basis in the USA because the gun control is non-existent. That, regardless of your political beliefs or motives, is utterly and totally indisputable.--WaltCip (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strict gun laws didn't protect the people of Paris (several times) or Nice, did it? Your logic is not quite indisputable. If you wish to continue this, please just email me instead of continuing this here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with political motives. It's a fact that these shootings are happening on a constant basis in the USA because the gun control is non-existent. That, regardless of your political beliefs or motives, is utterly and totally indisputable.--WaltCip (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose People with guns end up getting shot. Not news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is America we're talking about. I know that some users are borderline WP:SOAP when they mention this, but you need pretty extraordinary circumstances to post an American shooting. For example, take the Umpqua shooting, when an individual nihilist killed a dozen people. That would be remarkable in Holland, Ireland, Denmark but not in America. If there is discovered to be a terrorist organisation that is behind all of these cop-killings, I would reconsider, but at the moment this is just everyday Americana '''tAD''' (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I question your knowledge of what is and is not "everyday Americana" since you seem to have no idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's European snobbery, which is in evidence here all too often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I question your knowledge of what is and is not "everyday Americana" since you seem to have no idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – The sad truth is, this is comparatively minor in relationship to other recent acts of violence. Sca (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- 3 dead cops is minor and 5 dead cops is major? How do you figure? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Misconceptions aside, mass killing of police is still rare even in America. Dallas was unfortunately recent, but aside from that event it has been years since as many as three officers have died in a single event in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Years? The last triple homicide of US cops was in Puerto Rico[3] in December. Martin451 00:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- My list wasn't including US territories. Perhaps that's unfair to them, but whatever. Anyway, I believe the last 3+ homicide against police to occur on the mainland (aside from the recent events in Dallas) was the November 2009 Lakewood, Washington, police officer shooting. Dragons flight (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Years? The last triple homicide of US cops was in Puerto Rico[3] in December. Martin451 00:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sigh, it's just another shooting in the United States. I also don't agree with the comment immediately above that killing of police officers is "still rare" in the country, as this is the second such incident in a timescale of only ten days.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Two events in ten days, how many in the previous ten years? Happening twice doesn't mean it's not "rare". And again, since when does an event have to be "rare" to be ITN? Where's that in the criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- We've never posted an item solely based on its "rarity" but on its general significance and potential impact. Having seen that the frequency of these incidents in the country increases and the authorities do absolutely nothing to change anything means that all these events are highly insignificant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your "insignificant" is an extremely offensive statement on its own. And you can't possibly know what the impact of these shootings will be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Letting the access to weapon be one of the freest pleasures that anyone could afford even after all this is repeatedly happening for years doesn't give me any insight that someone is worried about it. Sorry if you find this "extremely offensive" but the reality cannot be healed with grief and sorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- To call murder "insignificant" is offensive. And you have know way to know whether something will be done or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Letting the access to weapon be one of the freest pleasures that anyone could afford even after all this is repeatedly happening for years doesn't give me any insight that someone is worried about it. Sorry if you find this "extremely offensive" but the reality cannot be healed with grief and sorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your "insignificant" is an extremely offensive statement on its own. And you can't possibly know what the impact of these shootings will be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- We've never posted an item solely based on its "rarity" but on its general significance and potential impact. Having seen that the frequency of these incidents in the country increases and the authorities do absolutely nothing to change anything means that all these events are highly insignificant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Two events in ten days, how many in the previous ten years? Happening twice doesn't mean it's not "rare". And again, since when does an event have to be "rare" to be ITN? Where's that in the criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as the article currently makes no claim (except for vague suggestions) that this may be either related to the Dallas attack, or generally speaking a planned attack or "ambush" against police, as opposed to an ordinary (if particularly bloody) exchange of fire between cops and ordinary criminals. LjL (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for now usual American staff. Reconsideration if race motive confirmed.--Jenda H. (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- American Staffordshire Terrier? This is the sort of vote we can disregard, even without the typo. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Fourth multiple killing of US law enforcement officers this year, third in the last ten days. Two multiple killings last year including a triple homicide, three multiple killings the year before. Martin451 00:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - the problem is that ITN is stuffed with high-impact items right now. If one compares this item vs. the Nice attack (with 25 times the death toll), the Turkish coup (80 times the death toll, plus it impacts the entire country's government) and Theresa May becoming UK Prime Minister (effects the entire country, with spillover to EU), this item pales in comparison. These other blurbs aren't that stale either. If this item continues to generate news - all three of the items mentioned above do - then I will change my mind. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Silly reasoning. This wouldn't bump the Nice attack or Turkish coup or Theresa May. It would bump UEFA Euro 2016 Final. So what if it does? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - I feel that with the recent state of police - civilian affairs, we could come up with something that cover all of it and list as ongoing, however. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Call us again when some decent gun control is implemented. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose posting this(but would be open to Ongoing if there was an article to post) but can we please stop the political comments about gun control or lack thereof which aren't relevant to this discussion? Every state and the federal government have gun rights in their constitutions and it's just the way it is, no one here is going to be able to change that. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted to RD] RD or blurb: Qandeel Baloch
Article: Qandeel Baloch
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (BBC), (CNN)
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • )
Updater: Nauriya (talk • )
Other updaters: Masterknighted (talk • ) and Gharouni (talk • )
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Historical context between the rise of social media celebrities and traditional practice of honor killings; the new and the old. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I nominated Baloch's article for an RD listing, but this has been removed and replaced with a blurb nomination. Can editors comment on whether they support an RD or a blurb - it's not clear which would be more appropriate here. She was a notable person (hence her article in WP), but also her death is newsworthy. MurielMary (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support for RD. A notable, sudden death of a controversial celebrity -- but I don't think she meets the requirements for a blurb. The article is in a decent shape. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD only tragic but not Bowie, Mandela etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comparing Bowie to Mandela? Holy Hyberbole, Batman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- These are standard yardsticks for blurbs on the dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- If they have to be as important as Mandela, that would pretty well rub out the RD section. Or is that what you had in mind anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't nitpick what people say, just for the hell of it, it's not very becoming. David Bowie, Prince, Michael Jackson did not bring down apartheid, but their deaths were covered wall-to-wall on all corners of the globe and certainly I can remember where I was when I heard each news story, despite only having a passing interest in any of the three '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what I wrote Bugs, because what you said makes no sense at all. I'd leave it if I were you because it's only you that looks really foolish right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- If they have to be as important as Mandela, that would pretty well rub out the RD section. Or is that what you had in mind anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- These are standard yardsticks for blurbs on the dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comparing Bowie to Mandela? Holy Hyberbole, Batman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD: Wouldn't be opposed to blurb, but I think RD is more appropriate based on more limited notability than the sort of celebrities whose deaths we tend to feature. That's counterweighed somewhat by the circumstances of her death, but I still lean toward RD on balance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb The death criteria note that where the cause of death is a major story a blurb may be appropriate. Here the shocking nature of the death is undoubtedly a major part of the story (and can only be explained in a blurb), so I think a blurb is justified. However, I don't object to RD if there isn't the support for a blurb. Neljack (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb but not opposed to RD. Aside from world-transforming figures at the very top of their field, a blurb is for deaths where the death itself is the story, as Neljack states. I support his reasoning. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb but not opposed to RD. - Although she is not very well known, I support the above two reasoning. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD – The only thing making her death blurb-worthy is the nature of it, her accomplishments and general notability do not warrant such in my opinion though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment clearly support sufficient for RD posting, so marking as such. Discussion should now focus on whether or not a blurb is deemed appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- RD only Nowhere near enough notable to qualify for a blurb, regardless of the tragic circumstances of her death. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb If it was only an ordinary death of a notable personality than I'd say RD only, since the nature of the death is so sensational however, I support blurb. Vegemighty2 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support either way I thought about nominating this yesterday but didn't. Not sure if it's better as a blurb or RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD, I think her death is noteworthy enough for RD, but not a blurb. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- RD only Christina Grimmie was an Internet celebrity killed in a senseless way too common in America. This woman was an Internet celebrity killed in a senseless way too common in Pakistan. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
July 16
Portal:Current events/2016 July 16 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Posted to Ongoing] Kashmir unrest
Article: 2016 Kashmir unrest
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Economic Times
Nominator: Mhhossein (talk • )
Nominator's comments: It's a notable event which will be interesting for the readers. Mhhossein (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This has been going on for the last 10 days, looking at the article. Posting with an arbitrary death toll would not make much sense to me. Perhaps Ongoing is a better idea here. --Tone 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb but Support ongoing per Tone. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ongoing It seem to be a developing story which deserves attention for a longer period of time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ongoing Per rational of Kiril Simeonovski Nannadeem (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment (Support ongoing): As the nominator, now I think we'd better have it as an ongoing item. Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted to Ongoing Stephen 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] RD: Nate Thurmond
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Nate Thurmond
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SF Gate
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • )
- Support when improved Importance in his field, but article needs citations and image layout improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I read in the intro that he was one of "the greatest rebounders and shot blockers ever" but the article quality is appalling, and really doesn't help this claim. It needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose One of "the greatest rebounders and shot blockers ever" does not necessarily imply one of "the greatest NBA players of all time", and the career highlights and awards section is very poor to justify that claim. For example, he has never been on the championship team and has also never won any individual award such as the league's most valuable player.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Artice doesn't really explain how he meets RD criteria, and whole sections are unsourced. Would need a massive amount of work to appear on the main page. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as there is nothing really notable about the death and while the person is notable he looks like a far cry from ITN level. Just look at what we have in the section these days for an easy comparison. LjL (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - College and professional basketball halls of fame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This editor has been blocked countless times for various violations of wikipedia policies. 91.52.232.167 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — 91.52.232.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Not for a couple of years, which is likely a lot longer than for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @91.52.232.167: as long as Baseball Bugs is not currently evading a block (they are not), topic banned from ITN and/or the subject of the nomination (I'm not aware they are) or interaction banned with the nominator or other significant contributor to the discussion (again, I'm not aware they are) then their having been blocked previously is not at all relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This editor has been blocked countless times for various violations of wikipedia policies. 91.52.232.167 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC) — 91.52.232.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support pending improvement, and I don't see this as a hopeless cause. His statistical accomplishments are impressive, and easy to verify. He ranks fifth all-time in rebounds per game, he was the first guy to get a quadruple-double [4], and the NBA named him one of their 50 Greatest Players of all time: [5]. He played before the internet era, so his article has never received a massive amount of attention, but he had a very respectable career. I can't promise I can do much work on the article myself, but I figured I should chime in so that this discussion doesn't get closed prematurely. Zagalejo^^^ 00:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose doesn't seem to meet RD criteria of significant in his field. MurielMary (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvement per Bagumba. Neljack (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on the merits; clearly important to his field, but article needs work. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not at the level required for ITN. 84.161.255.85 (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- — 84.161.255.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Isn't that the case for many millions of our IP editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- How many of those turn up to cast "votes" and never edit again? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's how the dynamic allocation of IP addresses actually works. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- How many of those turn up to cast "votes" and never edit again? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that the case for many millions of our IP editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- — 84.161.255.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oppose. I like (and play) basketball and watch a fair bit of NBA, but I can't agree with posting Thurmond. I think if we do we're effectively willing post anyone in the HOF, which I don't agree with. Jenks24 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
July 15
Portal:Current events/2016 July 15 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
[Posted] Attempted Turkish coup
Article: 2016 Turkish coup d'etat
Blurb: An attempted coup is underway in Turkey; the military claims to have taken over.
Alternative blurb: In an ongoing military coup against Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the military claims administrative control.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • )
Nominator's comments: No article yet (and its prudish here to make one) but this is earth-shaking even if it fails. (on live tv so no sources yet) the region is run amuck! Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)!
- Wait until we have a clearer view of the situation, but this is HUGE. Absolutely feature, regardless of outcome.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - The coup will most likely fail, but this was expected for quite some time. Gunfire was heard in Ankara, bridges across Bosphorus in Istanbul were shut down, and low flying jets were witnessed in both major cities. Very notable regardless of whether it succeeds or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted, with the knowledge that we will have to update the blurb as news unfolds (thankfully this is Wikipedia, so we can do that ;-) ). Will be news whether or not the coup fails. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dude. One "wait" and one "support" and once again you're too quick to post. The "discussion" lasted for seven minutes before you posted. Pull. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is in the news, which doesn't exactly wait for us. People will be coming wanting this news, and it's abundantly clear that this will be posted whether or not the coup fails (see Lihaas and Fitzacarmalan). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) But the article isn't ready. There are bare url's and a statement by the military that they've taken over, but no confirmation of that. I'm not arguing that this is newsworthy and should be posted, but that it should be posted only in due course, which this was not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is in the news, which doesn't exactly wait for us. People will be coming wanting this news, and it's abundantly clear that this will be posted whether or not the coup fails (see Lihaas and Fitzacarmalan). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. What has happened to Wikipedia? Why do we need to outrun the news media? For god's sake, this is an encyclopedia, folks! We could've easily waited a day or two to post this event, rather than posting the dubious "news fog" that this article is right now. ITN needs some soul searching. --bender235 (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dude. One "wait" and one "support" and once again you're too quick to post. The "discussion" lasted for seven minutes before you posted. Pull. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- No, I'm not. This is Wikipedia. We are not CNN or The New York Times. We do not have to carry "Breaking News" as it happens. This is nonsense. The coup article, as of right now, basically says we don't know anything. Why does this have to be on the Main Page? --bender235 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We are not CNN, but we have an ITN section. So to claim that Wikipedia is not news is incorrect. And this is not some random story, it is a coup of major proportions. Get some perspective.BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Like it or not the WP is a bit more than an encyclopedia nowadays. In crisis situations it has also become a source people turn to for info. w.carter-Talk 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, they do not. Wikipedia does not have news, by definition we only reflect what actual news outlets report. Turning to Wikipedia to get the "latest news" would be stupid. --bender235 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you take a look at the page views statistics you'll see a tremendous spike in views for any article that appears in the ITN section. These spikes usually surpasses views of any other section on the main page. This would not be the case if people weren't interested in the ITN articles. w.carter-Talk 01:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, they do not. Wikipedia does not have news, by definition we only reflect what actual news outlets report. Turning to Wikipedia to get the "latest news" would be stupid. --bender235 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Pulled we don't post stubs, we don't post without consensus, we don't post without bold target articles, we don't do this kind of thing, time and time and time and time again. STOP it. If you don't understand how ITN works, don't pretend to admin it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) Agree it was way too early. But this is also earth shattering and a long time coming. love to see Russia reactions nowLihaas (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pull stop using ITN as your personal playground. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It was pulled, correctly (not by me), and Ed posted it again. Not good. Even setting aside that T:ITN is not "things in the news" but "Wikipedia articles of reasonable quality about things in the news", you don't edit war on the main page. The ed17, please revert yourself and show a modicum of patience. —Cryptic 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Fair point, even if it isn't technically edit warring at that point. I've reverted myself. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- ITN criterion: There is a sufficiently updated non-stub article The ed17 please stop pissing around here, this isn't nearly funny. You don't know what you're doing. This isn't a ticker. Perhaps you aren't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Quit the condescension will you? "Maybe you don't know how Wikipedia works; it's not your playground". You're not a teacher or a parent. Be civil.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- In all fairness, the Nice attack was initially posted prematurely.Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article was in a better shape and there was a blurb. LjL (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I count eight 'supports' before The ed17 posted the Nice attack. The article was also more fleshed out than this one, when posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @TRM, please calm down. I know exactly what I'm doing. We're certainly not a ticker, but there's no reason to wait for waiting's sake—although I appear to have read the tea leaves incorrectly here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sunshineisles2 I'd bother to listen to you if this "admin" hadn't done this very thing at least five times now. He needs to learn. The ed17 stop this, you have been told many times now, your judgement is flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to carry on here on ITN. The 97th time you say his judgement is flawed on the discussion page isn't going to change anything the first 96 times didn't.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: the article is no longer a stub. Surprisingly, as we talk here, people are adding to the article. @TRM: I can take any attacks you'd like to throw at me, especially the ageist-sounding condescension, but it's a bit overwrought. We disagree on how to interpret the ITN criteria, but I'm certainly not going to insult you over it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just read the other comments, this is a mistake, and not the first one. Ageist? WTF? I couldn't care less how old or young you are, just stop believing you can ignore the ITN procedures. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sunshineisles2 I'd bother to listen to you if this "admin" hadn't done this very thing at least five times now. He needs to learn. The ed17 stop this, you have been told many times now, your judgement is flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- A scientific paper could be writen on psicology about the correlation between subjective relevance of the piece of News and the level of strictness with which criteria for ITN are aplied before consensus anyway. Cato censor (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Pull and keep pulled. The admin repeatedly posting it should relent in the face of consensus against posting. I would like this posted ASAP but ASAP means as soon as possible, not sooner than possible, when there isn't even a blurb ready. Wikipedia is not a news agency. LjL (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Amazing there isnt a Turkish civil war article. Lihaas (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait an hour or so, too early to post. I am pretty sure even the parts of the Turkish military won't know that there is a coup in there own country. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, Wikipedia is not a news site, we don't need to be the first to report on it. We need to make sure the details clear up a bit about the situation before we post it, like for example, who comes out as the leader of Turkey. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Stop edit conflicting me!) Ed's Pokémon Go posting reflected good judgment in IAR. His posting of this without a consensus is unfortunately a blunder. Reposting it again is extraordinarily ill-advised and risks desysopping. WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had the same edit-conflict problem. :-) I've already reverted myself on T:ITN and have obviously realized that this was a slight step too far. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Wait until it's clear what is happening. Something is, and that something should be posted, but not before we know enough about it to say what something it is. @The ed17: If you do not want to agree, now, to a voluntary topic ban from editing the ITN template I will be formally proposing one at WP:AN. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is such an incredible step so far beyond what just happened here that I don't know how to reply. I'd love to see your rationale other than reverting TRM once (... but then reverting myself minutes later, when I realized my mistake). Also please note that I will be offline for most of tonight (US time), so I'm not going to be able to reply to much. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you failed to notice the dismay at all but a couple of your recent posting decisions, perhaps you should re-visit some of the things you do here to get some realistic feedback. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Give me concrete examples. I'm just reading your comments on the RD I posted; Pokemon Go was fine (unless you're seriously going to count "[Closed] Remove "Pokémon Go" from ongoing?" [no link, it doesn't work with the brackets, sorry]), attack in Nice was fine, Euro 2016 was fine once I added a prose summary, Sydney Schanberg was fine, I admittedly missed the "RD" part of Abdul Sattar Edhi (but that was an easy fix), China floods was fine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- This one, Hadžić, Wimbledon, Euro 2016, Abdul Sattar Edhi, all errors in posting. Just stop it. It appears that you have attracted enough attention to ask you to step back for a bit to avoid being made to remove yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, Wimbledon, my apologies for missing that—it wasn't intentional. I'd argue that that had enough support at the time I posted it, but of course that could be debated. I improved Euro 2016 myself, so I'm not going to count that as an error. Note that I'm going to be forced to step back for the evening for a long-planned dinner with several family members, but let's discuss more this weekend (perhaps not in this thread to avoid derailing further?). And thank you for toning down the rhetoric—this is a much easier discussion to handle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No further discussion required. Please let others handle the promotions for the time being until you get to grips with consensus, quality, and the other ITN guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let's talk more. I'm headed offline or I won't make dinner in time (it's a lengthy drive), but if you want to preemptively start a discussion on my talk page, please do. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not needed, there's more of a consensus for you to stop posting than there was to post this item to the main page when you did it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Let's talk more. I'm headed offline or I won't make dinner in time (it's a lengthy drive), but if you want to preemptively start a discussion on my talk page, please do. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No further discussion required. Please let others handle the promotions for the time being until you get to grips with consensus, quality, and the other ITN guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, Wimbledon, my apologies for missing that—it wasn't intentional. I'd argue that that had enough support at the time I posted it, but of course that could be debated. I improved Euro 2016 myself, so I'm not going to count that as an error. Note that I'm going to be forced to step back for the evening for a long-planned dinner with several family members, but let's discuss more this weekend (perhaps not in this thread to avoid derailing further?). And thank you for toning down the rhetoric—this is a much easier discussion to handle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- This one, Hadžić, Wimbledon, Euro 2016, Abdul Sattar Edhi, all errors in posting. Just stop it. It appears that you have attracted enough attention to ask you to step back for a bit to avoid being made to remove yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Give me concrete examples. I'm just reading your comments on the RD I posted; Pokemon Go was fine (unless you're seriously going to count "[Closed] Remove "Pokémon Go" from ongoing?" [no link, it doesn't work with the brackets, sorry]), attack in Nice was fine, Euro 2016 was fine once I added a prose summary, Sydney Schanberg was fine, I admittedly missed the "RD" part of Abdul Sattar Edhi (but that was an easy fix), China floods was fine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It's not an "incredible step" at all. Editing a protected page, let alone one that's part of the main page, is an administrative action; what you did was wheel warring. I don't follow ITN/C closely enough to have an opinion whether a topic ban is necessary, but you definitely should be taking this more seriously than you seem to be. —Cryptic 21:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly it was a rash action done without enough forethought, and I've already admitted it was a mistake, but it wasn't done in malice and I reverted myself (and you have my thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that). I'm taking this very seriously, in case that wasn't clear, but I don't think my actions here—which are not part of recurring pattern, mind you (that is, wheel warring anywhere, much less on that main page)—rise to the level of requiring a topic ban, sanctions, an AN discussion, or an arb case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- To quote Wikipedia:Competence is required: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover your limitations." This applies to all Wikipedians, including administrators. There are certain Wikipedia tasks that I usually avoid performing – not due to lack of interest, but because I struggle to complete them efficiently and without screwing up.
I'm sure that you harbor no malicious intent, but you seem to commit serious errors (sometimes several simultaneously and/or in rapid succession) almost every time you edit ITN – even when the posting itself is reasonable. Perhaps this is correctable, but the main page isn't a sandbox in which to practice.
The above "disagree[ment] on how to interpret the ITN criteria" illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Seriously, Ed, this wasn't even borderline. The posting was wildly premature. Your belief to the contrary leads me to question your judgement only marginally less than if you'd purposely ignored ITN's rules because you felt like it.
I want to stress that this isn't intended as belittlement. As noted above, there are areas in which I probably would perform similarly poorly if I were to dive in like you've done at ITN. The key difference is that I don't dive in. I leave such tasks to those who know what they're doing. I implore you to act in kind. You owe it to the community that entrusted you with the admin bit. —David Levy 03:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- To quote Wikipedia:Competence is required: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover your limitations." This applies to all Wikipedians, including administrators. There are certain Wikipedia tasks that I usually avoid performing – not due to lack of interest, but because I struggle to complete them efficiently and without screwing up.
- Clearly it was a rash action done without enough forethought, and I've already admitted it was a mistake, but it wasn't done in malice and I reverted myself (and you have my thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that). I'm taking this very seriously, in case that wasn't clear, but I don't think my actions here—which are not part of recurring pattern, mind you (that is, wheel warring anywhere, much less on that main page)—rise to the level of requiring a topic ban, sanctions, an AN discussion, or an arb case. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you failed to notice the dismay at all but a couple of your recent posting decisions, perhaps you should re-visit some of the things you do here to get some realistic feedback. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- That is such an incredible step so far beyond what just happened here that I don't know how to reply. I'd love to see your rationale other than reverting TRM once (... but then reverting myself minutes later, when I realized my mistake). Also please note that I will be offline for most of tonight (US time), so I'm not going to be able to reply to much. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree on pull - I agree that it was best to pull this and agree that The ed17 should always wait for consensus except when an item is ITN/R, and should not revert another admin without clear reason. Please just take some time and learn the general rules of ITN. Andise1 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait For further info. I think regardless of what is actually going on, it's likely to warrant posting at ITN, but we need to know what it is first. Once the article is above a stub then I agree with a Support.Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Coup in Turkey and here at ITN at the same time? Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now support Article is up to 2500 characters, seems to be a stable yet developing verrsion, IPs are prohibited from editing, I think it's ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait 30-45 minutes purely so that we have a good idea of how to blurb this appropriately and to eliminate any doubt about whether the article is developed enough. Obvious support on importance regardless of outcome. I suspect within the hour we will have a clear enough idea of what is going on to provide an appropriate blurb - that would be the appropriate time to post. No concerns at all on quality, articles on events of this magnitude always seem to evolve well, and it's growing by the minute. Probably long enough already.
My pet topic I admit, but yet another demonstration that waiting a little while to nominate saves all sorts of drama and delay down the line. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There is no harm in waiting for a while. As I type this, it is currently ~21:20 UTC. There is no loss in waiting an hour or two until say 23:00 utc or even an hour later. Doing so allows time for the situation to develop, and the article to develop too. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now support. We have a clearer view of the situation, article is sufficiently protected.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - it appears there is coup going on. That is pretty big.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - apparent coup going on. if it succeeds or fails is irrelevant to its notability. should be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Question have we ever posted an "is underway" blurb at ITN or is this precisely what "Ongoing" is about? We need an appropriate blurb or else I suggest Ongoing is exactly where it belongs... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support posting this historic event now. Though a coup may always fail, it seems clear now that it is a coup and not a mere attempt – though it would be newsworthy either way. The article has substantially improved and expanded, gives some background, is largely sourced, and is further developing. --PanchoS (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support A clearly major event of international significance. The article is in decent shape given this is a breaking news event and is far beyond stub status. On a side note, if we don't get a break we are going to have to annex the "On this Day" space to keep pace with all the breaking news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, we just drop the last one off the ITN section, or move stuff to Ongoing, if indeed it's ongoing. E.g. the Nice attack is over now, it can drop off today if four more news items are posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Apparently I need to add sarcasm tags to some of my posts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support, as unlike when I requested pulling, now it is time. LjL (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now support – blurb works and will undoubtedly improve overnight, article's there. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support What PanchoS said. w.carter-Talk 22:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely essential now. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Significant news right now. Dustin (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This is already on the front page. I have no idea why my closing was reverted but fine, let's see if consensus changes and we somehow remove this from the front page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's worth keeping open due to the likely level of fluidity of the blurb. I don't think WP:ERRORS is the best place for those inevitable discussions to take place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's be easier to collapse this lengthy one and start a new one with a subheader if there's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ironically, the reason this section is anywhere near as long as it is was due to admin error, which would lend support to keeping the blurb discussion here where people are most likely to find it. Point taken though - perhaps if those parts relating to the early post were collapsed, the length would be more acceptable. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- It was pretty obvious why the closure was reverted as the posted blurb was completely unsuitable and needed further discussion on how best to fix it. Thankfully it was wholesale adjusted. However even now it appears out of date. Another good reason that rushing to post this kind of thing is the wrong thing to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly major news but, as the event is still fresh and unclear, there needs to be a place to discuss the blurb, which may require further adjustment. This should be that place and so this discussion should be left open while the dust settles. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Topic ban proposal for user:The ed17 regarding Ed's recent actions with this and other ITN nominations. Discussion of that should now take place there, leaving this thread for discussion of the Turkish coup blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- According to PBS News Hour & others Monday, Turkish gov't has arrested 7,000 or so alleged coup participants. Sca (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- More than 30,000 teachers, university professors and "education staff" fired, suspended or disbarred. Or was it 50,000? (Does the term Gleichschaltung ring a bell?) – Sca (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- According to PBS News Hour & others Monday, Turkish gov't has arrested 7,000 or so alleged coup participants. Sca (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
[Closed] Remove "Pokémon Go" from ongoing?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Pokémon Go
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: George Ho (talk • )
- Oppose the nomination rationale is deeply flawed. This has already been demonstrated as being in the news globally, with stories and features being added in an ongoing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – rationale reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a clear case of not reading any of the comments in the original nomination. This is the most viewed article on the English Wikipedia at present, averaging more than 700,000 views per day for four consecutive days. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Quite, the proposer claims I am not confident that this would interest a lot of readers..., um, nope. P.S. The link is here, clearly showing more than 4 million hits in the last 8 days.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I take it the comparison of views for "cat" and "dog" isn't terribly relevant? Whoops. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose What Cyclonebiskit says. IMO the ongoing thing is not so much about the game itself, which is fairly basic, but the social impact it has and the groundbreking new tech behind it. w.carter-Talk 07:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - if there's any reason to take this off Ongoing, it's because it's not something that typically shows up as "ongoing" (how can a Pokemon Go be ongoing? "Pokemon Go craze" or "Aftermath of Pokemon Go launch" maybe, but "Pokemon Go"?). However, there's nowhere else to put it. It's hard to come up with a suitable blurb after all (see nomination). If it doesn't come under ongoing, where can it go? Banedon (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nomination shows a clear lack of understanding about what Ongoing is for, and no understanding at all about why this particular story was added in particular. I very nearly snow closed this, and if I am edit conflicted saving this comment I will, as it's clear that it's not going to happen. However as it's only been open 2 hours, I'm giving it one last chance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: