|
July 11, 2016 (2016-07-11) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Theresa May confirmed Tory leader/Prime Minister
Articles: Theresa May (talk · history · tag) and Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Theresa May wins the Conservative Party leadership election, and will replace David Cameron as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Theresa May wins the Conservative Party leadership election, and will become the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Alternative blurb II: Theresa May wins the Conservative Party leadership election after Andrea Leadsom withdraws, and will become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Economist.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Next UK prime minister, absolute no brainer although not technically ITN/R. Technically, she does not become the PM until she kisses hands, but we always post when people win elections, rather than their inaugurations. We posted the Australian leadership spill last year, which was an analogous situation. Smurrayinchester 14:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- (As an aside, when we post this we should probably remove "UK EU membership referendum aftermath" from ongoing, since it will probably be the high point of that story for a while)
- Support altblurb2 only, we need to mention that it's because Leadsom withdrew, we don't need to mention Cameron, and we definitely don't need to define May by her gender. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait but support in general From the BBC article this is not confirmed yet, in that a committee needs to formally declare her to be the next PM; Leadsom's withdrawl only makes it the most likely outcome. Once the committee approves, then posting is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The 1922 Committee, which oversees the election, has already confirmed that it will not re-run the election and that it accepts May as the last surviving candidate. Per before, she's won - all that's left is the inauguration part. Smurrayinchester 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - suggest waiting until tomorrow (Tuesday) to allow some more work on the article, and maybe only posting when it has actually happened? Not suggesting that it won't, but waiting until she is actually PM (on Wednesday) seems like the right thing to do here. Also, the blurb won't need constant rewriting for tense if we wait until it happens before posting it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait Leadsom withdrawing isn't necessary. And May 'won' the contest by default so I'd rephrase the blurb to emphasise she is the next PM, something like: 'Following the leadership election....'. Maybe post this tomorrow at the earliest. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt 2 per Laura Jamieson. I think "... after Andrea Leadsom's withdrawal" would be better wording though. Banedon (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait until she is named PM. Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support alt 2 per Laura Jamieson but Wait until PMship is official. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt2 only but wait until she actually takes over. My support for alt2 only is per Laura Jamieson. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait until she actually becomes PM on Wednesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait until she becomes PM. We wouldn't report the outcome of other party leadership races. Once she becomes PM, then we can say she has become the new PM. Obviously that hasn't occurred yet so we should wait. I would not expect the outcome of UKIP, Green or Labour leadership elections to be featured on the front page. Theresa becoming the Prime Minister is worthy of front page featureship, winning the leadership election is in my opinion not worthy of front page-ship. Calvin (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait Until Wednesday when she formally becomes PM. Then happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Typically we post changes in an office like this at the time it becomes clear, not at the inauguration/date they actually take office. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait until Wednesday once Dave has fucked off and she's in post. Lugnuts 17:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support posting now It is in the news now. Thue (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait until Wednesday, when she meets the Queen and formally becomes PM. At present she is only a party leader. There is no need to mention Leadsom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wait it'll be In The News on Wednesday per ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support now. Of course the blurb should be updated on Wednesday (or any other time as appropriate), but the event is sufficiently definite that I don't see the value in waiting to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- The reason to wait is that it will confuse some of our "limited" readers. In just over 24 hours we'll have a new PM, let's post it then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Have you considered being less patronising and condescending? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know, have you considered being less obnoxious and time-wasting? We can always do a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
UFC sold
Consensus against, and winter weather has set in. Bencherlite (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:35, 11 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: Ultimate Fighting Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Zuffa sells the Ultimate Fighting Championship for US$4 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A William Morris Endeavor-led group buys the Ultimate Fighting Championship for US$4 billion.
News source(s): MMAFighting New York Times Sportsnet
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Four billion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- As you say, that was just three years of TV. WME gets the whole enchilada. Bigger sale, item-wise, and still far bigger than the Alaska Purchase, dollar-wise. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- The point was that the Sky deal pales this business deal into insignificance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Still the "most expensive transaction for an organization in sports history." InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- That's as maybe, but still not that big a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Did we post the TV thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- You tell me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- My trail goes cold here. I'm not a great detective. You seemed to like it, others didn't. Roughly comparable there. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Then no, it wasn't posted, and it dwarfs this deal, so little wonder there's no appetite here either. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- It dwarfs it in dollars like a two-metre chap dwarfs a six-foot dude. And it was just TV rights. Meh to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it was just TV rights, so imagine the value of the "product". The deal was for just three years, not everything for ever, so yes, it dwarfs the value of this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I thought we were comparing deals that actually happened. If your boring product ever changes hands, I'd support it, because both sides get something huge. The Premier deal just saw Sky overpay and not care since it has bottomless pockets. A few million Brits watched football on a new channel. Meh. Anyway, can you at least not close this till more North Americans wake up? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you needed to descend to that kind of commentary, where's your evidence that William Morris Endeavor haven't overpaid for something which has flash-in-the-pan popularity? And note, that Sky deal was just the UK, the worldwide rights added another £3bn or so. It's a global sport with global popularity, the most popular sport on the planet, so it's not quite "A few million Brits" or "a new channel". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- More people worldwide watch Premier League than UFC by far, and my hat's off to it. But that deal was just for the right to air the games as far as Sky reaches. I'm not comparing the organizations' values here, just the transactions. Zuffa gets a lot of money and WME gets a lot of stuff. Premier League got a bit more money and a Sky got a lot less stuff. So this one's bilaterally bigger. WME did get a tad ripped off, but at least it can resell its stuff for something if fighting ever goes out of style.
- I'm sorry for saying football is boring. It apparently isn't once you really get into it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:19, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Well if you're just talking transactions, this is peanuts in the world of business transactions. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm talking sports business. We're all relative laughingstocks here. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support (if confirmed) - UFC items generate news in mainstream media quite regularly, so a transaction for the entire franchise should be worth posting. As far as corporate deals go this isn't that big - Skype for example was bought for $8.5 billion. However Skype also almost never generates news in mainstream media, and it's not a sports organization either. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not a sports story but a business story that happens to involve a sports-related company. As a business deal it really isn't very significant in terms of, monetary value, number of people impacted or degree of change. If you look at just sports company transactions it is more significant, but if we post this based on that we will have to post bignumber transactions for every business sector (with arguments about what constitutes a sector and which one a given company is in) which is a rabbit hole I think we can really do without exploring. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability. I had never heard of the UFC before InedibleHulk started nominating it here left and right. It is never in any media in Germany, and I do not see it on English speaking news websites I visit either. From what I read, viewing figures are at around 1.6 million households, which is a joke compared to other sports events. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's just in the US, and Nielsen ratings are a joke since Americans started watching TV online. Big in other countries, too. It's not hot in Germany because it was banned from TV for five of its best years. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- And as far I remember, I only nominated UFC 196. Still the most historic thing that ever happened on TV, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: As stated 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) 10:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @331dot: I wrote about English speaking news as well, which should cover much of the globe and especially the region of the world of particular interest to the English Misplaced Pages. The fact remains: This is a business and not a sports story (see the section the NYT put it in). And for business news, this is just not notable enough. For sports, even less so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, though "not reported in Germany" is not a valid reason to oppose by itself. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not before North American Wikipedians have a chance to wake up and weigh in, and the largest single deal in sports history is even officially announced. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:25, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- That's not how it works here. Nor do you know the nationality of many of those who have already participated. Why should Americans have a special right to comment to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because more of them would get it. Brazilians, too. Not a special right, just a right. I know some of your nationalities. Can these things be removed and resumed later in the day? Cultural differences aside, this hasn't even been announed yet. I think it'd be fairer to wait and see how "in the news" it gets when it's official. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- We all "get it". It's a business deal where a sports organisation has (nearly) been purchased for $4bn. That's what everyone here has noted. Can you elcuidate what it is everyone here "has not got"? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: Now you are kind of turning the ITN rulebook upside down. On the one hand, as 331dot pointed out above, we should not oppose items because they are not covered in one country or region. But this is not a one-way street. We should also not support items because some parts of the world are more inclined towards them than others. And this isn't even cricket or baseball or American Football (you know, that kind of football you play with your hands for some reason?), where the general interest in the affected countries are a lot higher than for UFC. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I only asked if there was a rule. I'm not trying to stack the vote; those with a tendency toward F1 and stuff would be free to opine then, too. Snowclosing now would just exclude a huge chunk who are still getting ready for work or asleep. If we want a global perspective, we need the other hemisphere. I'm about ready for bed, though, so maybe just leaving this die would be the easier thing to do. It'll still actually be in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Have you seen Misplaced Pages talk:In the news#Timing, again? Looks like you want your own additional proposal here, i.e. keep proposals open for a minimum of 24 hours to allow all hemispheres to have their say, just in case they're asleep or in the shower or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Twelve hours seems fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- My point is that we don't do that, for any time period, either for snow posting or snow closing. So if you want to attempt to mandate that, you need to propose it. In the meantime, we'll snow close this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're the boss, boss. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all, I suggest if you believe in what you've been writing for the last couple of hours, you start a discussion to enforce a 12-hour moratorium on closing any nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: Though I'm opposing this particular nomination as IMO relatively insignificant, I agree we should have a 12h minimum period for closing an otherwise reasonable nomination based on relative insignificance. That would still allow obviously insignificant or otherwise ineligible nominations to be closed earlier. --PanchoS (talk) 13:50, 11 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.
South Sudan Civil War
Article: South Sudanese Civil War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Thousands flee Juba amidst renewed violence in the South Sudanese Civil War (Post)
News source(s): etc
Credits:
Article updated Banedon (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: section target to South Sudanese Civil War#July 2016 attacks? There's also 2016 Juba clashes, which is pretty short (especially if you don't count the reaction bullets). Ed 01:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Made the change to July 2016 attacks in the South Sudan Civil War article. I'm fine with redirecting it to 2016 Juba clashes instead as well. Banedon (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Either works for me. I'll support this for a blurb or at least ongoing. Ed 03:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this not just a flare-up? Is there evidence of sustained violence? Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added a source from the Voice of America regarding the UN Security Council meeting. According to the source, "The latest fighting in Africa's newest nation was the first major outbreak of violence since Machar was reappointed vice president in April". The violence is only just breaking out; don't know yet if it will be sustained. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the target should be 2016 Juba clashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support posting 2016 Juba clashes. Lots of news coverage, major event transpiring. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
July 10
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 10
|
|
July 10, 2016 (2016-07-10) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Australian election II
Article: Australian federal election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull, wins the Australian federal election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull, is set to form government after it won the most seats in the Australian federal election.
Alternative blurb II: The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull (pictured), gains the most seats in the Australian federal election.
Alternative blurb III: The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull (pictured), loses seats in the 2016 Australian federal election but retains a governing majority.
News source(s): ABC, SMH, Guardian
Credits:
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Even though it is still unclear how much they will win by, it is clear the Opposition will not win and the Coalition has won. Bill Shorten has conceded defeat and Malcolm Turnbull has claimed victory. Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Article says results "may remain unconfirmed for weeks." We should be chary of posting unofficial results. However, due to the special bureaucratic circumstances of this election, it might be acceptable to insert "apparently" before "wins" and go with it. Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The word 'apparently' or other qualifier is unnecessary, given that the opposition leader has conceded defeat. Yes, there is a greater than zero chance of the Coalition losing the election, but this is extremely unlikely. In my suggested alternative blurb below, there is more focus on winning the highest number of seats than winning the election itself.
- Suggested alternative blurb The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull, is set to form government after it won the most seats in the Australian federal election. Gfcvoice (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Comment Added altblurbs. I would be against the use of "wins" - elections are (debatably) not sporting events - or "apparently" which casts unreasonable doubt on the overall result. The main opposition has conceded and no one is officially challenging his attempt to form a government. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support first blurb, presuming the article is in good enough shape. This is a done deal now. The Coalition will be in government, either in their own right or with independent/minor party support, and that's why Labor has conceded. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt. 3 – Fills the bill. Suggest these changes to shorten:
- "The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Malcolm Turnbull (pictured), loses seats in the 2016 Australian federal election but retains a governing majority." (Bleve that would be 'governing' r.t. 'governable.') Sca (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll go for that. Changed. Fuebaey (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- If we can't go with "wins", we should go alt2. We don't know whether they will have a majority and I don't really like beginning with "loses" when we're trying to say they won, either. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
UEFA Euro 2016
Articles: UEFA Euro 2016 (talk · history · tag) and UEFA Euro 2016 Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In association football, Euro 2016 concludes with Portugal defeating France in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In association football, Euro 2016 concludes with Portugal defeating France in the final.
Credits:
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: The tournament concludes with the final between Portugal and France tonight. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Should point to UEFA Euro 2016 Final, which needs updating with a match report once it is finished. Maybe the main article could use some prose as well, but here I would accept just the tables as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alt added. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted per ITN/R. Ed 01:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pull 1180 characters of prose, no text summary of the game. @The ed17:, the quality isn't sufficient. Compare it to UEFA Euro 2012 Final. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- ... which has had four years to develop. This has the outcome of the game and all of the players/scoring/etc (scroll down) = sufficient IMHO. Ed 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pull until a prose summary of the match is included in the bolded article. One or two paragraphs at a minimum are required. The is the same reason the Wimbledon blurb was pulled. Calidum ¤ 02:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- A prose summary has been added, didn't take much longer than the time it took to write these comments combined. ;-) Ed 02:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment this is the third time the posting admin has been too hasty or made mistakes when posting. Please take a break from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
July 9
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 9
|
|
July 9, 2016 (2016-07-09) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
RD: Sydney Schanberg
Article: Sydney Schanberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Pulitzer Prize, two George Polk awards, two Overseas Press Club awards, and the coveted Sigma Delta Chi prize for distinguished journalism for his work on Cambodia – Muboshgu (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 Citations abound now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Wimbledon
Article: 2016 Wimbledon Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In tennis, the Wimbledon Championships concludes with Serena Williams (pictured) winning the women's singles and Andy Murray winning the men's singles. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, Sports Illustrated
Credits:
Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Both need match summaries. The men's final is tomorrow but the women's can be expanded, like last years article, in the mean time. Fuebaey (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the men's final hasn't even taken place, and the women's article has nothing at all to review. Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as Serena Williams and Venus Williams. Serena has also won the ladies' doubles with Venus, and also equalling Steffi Graf's record of 22 Grand Slam wins. Put a picture of her up. Ritchie333 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think the whole ITNR emphasis was on linking the sporting event(s) rather than the individuals' articles. In any case, you don't want to start linking articles of such magnitude, they are rife with BLP issues, lack of refs, POV, etc etc. Better we get a summary of the final on the original target page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Williams' notability is largely in the Internet era, so I'd imagine that could be fixed. I ran through Serena's article earlier and while I wouldn't pass it as GA, there were more sources than typical BLPs. Although IPs have gone nuts on it this afternoon. Ritchie333 20:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, the point is that the finals article is incomplete. It needs a summary and a decent one at that, then there's no problem. Better to stick with that than target the player's articles which are generally average and weakly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The record should certainly be included in the blurb, but it is not necessary to target Serena's article to do that. Doubles finals are not usually mentioned. Neljack (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, but we can't target the main article for the reasons TRM said. Should we just come back to this tomorrow? Ritchie333 20:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, unless someone prepares a good summary of the ladies match now, then we can post then and append the men's final tomorrow. But right now most of the articles nominated are just left to fester by the nominator, I guess it's an attempt to gather editing forces in order to make the updates, but it seldom works and mostly ends up with the item being swamped in procedural diktat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support in principle but without mentioning any records. This win just eqalises the record for most Grand Slam titles in the Open era and doesn't set a new one; in addition, Margaret Court's ultimate record of 24 titles is still inviolable. I'd support mentioning the record when she wins the 25th Grand Slam title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Inviolable? Serena's only two wins away, and she's favored in the next two majors this year. I'd say she's better than 50-50 to break the record. Of course this has no bearing on the actual headline used, just wondering about your word choice. :) -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support once the gentleman's final is done and the winner is known. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Posted without picture at present. I created a composite image (File:SerenaAndAndy.jpg) - are people OK with this one? Smurrayinchester 17:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Unposted because I just saw what the summary looked like in the 2015 article - there's nothing of that quality in this one, and posters above did ask for summaries. Smurrayinchester 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to have another go at retargetting to Andy Murray and Milos Raonic. Murray's article is a GA, and Raonic's is at FAC right now. That would qualify for good content with a blurb like : "In the Wimbledon Championships, Andy Murray defeats Milos Raonic to win the men's singles." We also have a free image, File:Murray-Wimbledon2016.jpg, showing them both immediately after the match. Ritchie333 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I still object to that approach I'm afraid. It would set a trend which would mean a one-line update in each player's article would be sufficient. Right now the ITNR is placing an emphasis on improving the event article and it should stay that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- But as you said (or at least implied) above, most articles are nowhere near the quality of these two, so I would imagine future cases would be shot down with simple arguments such as "unsourced BLP violations" or "major tags". Ritchie333 10:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well not if Murray continues to win. And what happened to the women's part of the blurb, what's the target there? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - we always post the results for Grand Slams. Surprised this isn't up already. And if the main article isn't yet up to snuff, this will provide extra ammunition for people to improve it. — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- See that's where I think we're mistaken. Is there any evidence that people actively improve items that aren't bold linked in ITN blurbs? I would think it would act contrary to that, i.e. the blurb is posted, why bother working on the other articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think part of the problem is that the editing activity in certain sports articles is split between sub-articles and the main article (there may also be less active editors in the tennis articles at present, but not sure about that). In this case, the editing activity is split between 2016 Wimbledon Championships and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles and 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles. To those doing updates, it is not clear what level is needed in the main article and what in the sub-articles, and how much duplication/summary is needed. Having a picture from the Men's final is a real bonus here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
July 8
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 8
|
|
July 8, 2016 (2016-07-08) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and medicine
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
- 2016 Zimbabwe protests
- Protests in Harare and elsewhere in the country continue despite police intimidation and pleas by President Robert Mugabe for them to stop. (Voice of America Zimbabwe)
- President Mugabe, in a live national television broadcast from a stadium in Bindura, blames Western sanctions for his country's inability to pay government workers on time. (AP via The Washington Post) (AFP via Yahoo! News)
- #ThisFlag protest leader Pastor Evan Mawarire says the movement, which uses WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, will hold a two-day strike next week if demands, that include sacking corrupt ministers, payment of delayed salaries, lifting of roadblocks that residents say are used by police to extract bribes, etc., are not met. A drought has aggravated the country's situation as have banks that have a daily withdrawal ceiling as low as $50. (Reuters via CNBC Africa) (Ventures Africa)
RD Abdul Sattar Edhi
Article: Abdul Sattar Edhi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: One man run ambulance operation in Pakistan. Pakistani philanthropist, social activist, ascetic and humanitarian. Founder of the Edhi Foundation in Pakistan. 70.50.134.19 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvements - Specifically the first para of Charity Work is unsourced, this needs at least a couple based on the prose. Importance given the various figures of recognition from across globe. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvements per Masem. He would be a shoe-in for RD with only a fraction of the notability he has, so it's just article quality holding it back now. I've done some updating of tense, and think that's all sorted, but more sources are needed still. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support A notable and truly great humanitarian, RIP. EternalNomad (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on Improvements – Masem is correct (above), there are too many unsourced claims made (specifically the 1st para. of Charity Work section does stand out). And IMO there are some other statements, awkwardly worded, indicating (perhaps) that a non-native English speaker edited some of the page (ie. and that could be revised, too). Christian Roess (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvements Some of the existing references need fixing too, they're showing bare urls. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fix and update ASAP. --39.46.6.156 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted, I commented out the offending paragraph. Ed 00:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- This was an RD nom! Nobody here wanted a blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 00:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I didn't see that. I'd love to get other opinions on this—being called "the greatest living humanitarian in the world" makes it seem like he'd awfully worthy of a full blurb. Ed 00:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was hoping to fix this up before commenting. Apart from ignoring consensus and posting out of process, this reeks of WP:INVOLVED. An admin doesn't take it upon themselves to post then improve, when 4-6 others say improve then post. And no, I removed that statement earlier because the source did not explicitly state that. Fuebaey (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey:, as I said, I missed the "recent deaths nomination" line. Invoking involved is a little strange there, but if you want less content-building admins, that's the way to do it. I'm not going to apologize for trying to improve the article. ;-) Ed 01:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's a difference between acknowledging a mistake and fixing it. If using administrative tools to employ your own personal preference against consensus is not the definition of involved, please enlighten me to what is. Fuebaey (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- There have been a couple of errors from the posting admin lately, just go with caution. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- RD instead of blurb I think since there was no consensus for posting a blurb, it should be removed immediately. Discussions on whether this should get a blurb and on Ed's editing of the article can take place later. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- RD only please, there was no consensus for a blurb here. I saw the blurb and immediately thought "how did this person I've never heard a thing about get a blurb?" --AmaryllisGardener 01:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, just because you, personally, haven't heard of the person doesn't make that a criteria for blurb-ness. I'm hoping that people see things in the blurbs all the time that they weren't aware of or don't recognize. That's the value of that news box. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, when I looked at his article, I didn't see much importance either. And I'd never heard of Jo Cox before her death, but her death was news-worthy because it was an assassination. This guy was in his 80s, and thus his death was not a surprise. --AmaryllisGardener
- Many people in the world have never heard of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile e.g Australia MP Bob Katter. so by this logic Dallas shooting doesn't deserve a blurb ? --39.46.6.156 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Every major News agency has mentioned his death, and wikipedians oppose a blurb (thanks God I left wikipedia at the right time) . I'm amazed. There is hardly any Pakistani who doesn't know Edhi's name.He was third Pakistani ever to given gun carriage funeral Edhi becomes third Pakistani to receive military honor at burial ceremony He was involved in reparation of geeta back to india Grateful over Geeta's return, Modi donates INR10m to Edhi Foundation. American news sources have mentioned him Pakistani Philanthropist Abdul Sattar Edhi Dies but it seems Australia MP Bob Katter is not alone. Pakistani Cricket team will wear blackarm band in their first test against England. Pakistan team to wear black arm bands to mourn Edhi’s death. Nobel peace laureate Malala Yousafzai has called for Noble Peace prize award.BBC. More sources Pakistan: Philanthropist Abdul Sattar Edhi buried after state funeral39.46.6.156 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Google also mentioned him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.6.156 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb - As Fuzheado said above, "just because you, personally, haven't heard of the person doesn't make that a criteria for blurb-ness". Sources use some grandiose text to describe him. That's an indication of strong noteworthiness, and not having heard of him before simply means one is ignorant (or biased, which isn't that different in this context). Banedon (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I'm not seeing any potential for a "Death of Abdul Sattar Edhi" article, so this is RD material. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
China floods
Article: 2016 China floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Flooding along the Yangtze river causes more than 180 deaths in central and eastern China. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CBS News, Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Is a stub and could do with some expanding. Fuebaey (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support when expanded. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support when expanded and better formatted. At present a viral photograph is given equal prominence and more words than 186 deaths. The story is undoubtedly notable but the article is too far below main page standards currently. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I've started expanding this but there's a tremendous amount of information to cover since the flooding is so widespread and affecting so many people. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support on improvements/stability - Obvious major natural disaster, no brainer that it should be ITN once the article is expanded sufficiently (granted it will take time due to the regional lack of news coverage) --MASEM (t) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted, 503 words is enough to post this important news, and it'll be expanded further in the coming hours. Ed 17:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2016 shooting of Dallas police officers
Article: 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in downtown Dallas, Texas, after a shooting during a peaceful protest. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in downtown Dallas, Texas, after a shooting during a protest against racial discrimination by law enforcement.
Alternative blurb II: Five police officers are killed, and six people wounded in a shooting in downtown Dallas, Texas, during a protest against racial discrimination by law enforcement.
Alternative blurb III: Five police officers are killed in Dallas, Texas, during a protest against the shootings of Alton Sterling and of Philando Castile.
News source(s): CNN, FOX News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: High-profile shooting in major US city. Nakon 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support major mass attack on police and civilians unheard of (police part) in the United States. Meinnaples (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, not because of the numbers but the circumstances, and part of a larger story (increasing police brutality in the United States) that we inexplicably haven't featured yet, to the best of my knowledge. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support But "peaceful protest" is not neutral language, and it makes little sense in context (was it peaceful or were there multiple homicides?). - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm good with changing that initial copy to be more neutral and I can remove the adjective "peaceful". Nakon 05:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, cannot support until wording is more neutral. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- What would you recommend for wording? Nakon 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Removing the word "peaceful" would be sufficient for me. Also, according to our article, 8 were non-fatally injured not 11. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to removing "peaceful" from the blurb candidate. The sources I'm watching still show 11 injuries and 4 fatalities. Nakon 05:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Four police officers are killed and seven are wounded at a protest in Dallas, Texas. Eliminates all cruft and potential for error, as everything in that statement is unequivocally true (adjusting numbers per updates). Additional information can all go in the article where it has full context and virtually unlimited room for adequate explanation. - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- This copy looks good to me. Thanks, Nakon 05:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not 4 dead + 11 wounded. Its 11 shot of whom 4 have died. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- 3 DPD and 1 DART officer down, 7 others, with 11 total injuries. Thanks for the clarification. Nakon 05:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mass shootings in the United States may not be rare, but shootings targeting police are. The blurb needs to be tweaked. The officers were not shot "after" the shooting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added alt blurb II. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support posting a blurb on killings of police officers AND mentioning racial tensions. Nergaal (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt Blurb 2 as best wording currently listed. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 05:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think that just pointing out the shooting of the cops is not really giving the whole story, given that the protests were in response to the two shootings by police (elsewhere in the US) in the last two days. I think both of those events Shooting of Alton Sterling and Shooting of Philando Castile need to be included too on the blurb because not explaining the nature of the protest doesn't show the reason for the resulting tension and shootings. That siad, I would weak oppose this, as it very much a narrow regional story with no clear larger impact, and given how we haven't really posted any of these other shootings from the past couple years. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Masem, "it very much a narrow regional story with no clear larger impact, and given how we haven't really posted any of these other shootings from the past couple years". I think the Medina bombing is more worthy of posting than this (for now at least, as this is a developing story - if this continues to be covered in mainstream media I'll switch to support). Banedon (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Masem, would support a blurb that incorporated Shooting of Alton Sterling and Shooting of Philando Castile, which are what make this not just another horrible localised random attack but an actual nightmare situation of national/worldwide significance. Support altblurb III Smurrayinchester 06:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I doubt this will ever become an item of worldwide significance, since it after all only involves the US police force ... adding alt blurb III anyway, to include the two articles mentioned by Masem. Banedon (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Neljack (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, "regionalism", tag-on arguments above should be discounted per ITN rules. Abductive (reasoning) 07:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Identifying an issue as having only local or regional interest is not against ITN rules - it's bias on nationality that is not supposed to be argued. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support (alt 3) – escalation of violence in an already tense situation. Local significance is quite clear which is sufficient for ITN. For the sake of context, the shootings of Sterling and Castile should also be included in the blurb as suggested above. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - very important; not merely regional Donama (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Local event and not unprecendented, look at the 2014 Queens hatchet attack '''tAD''' (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt III. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pull immediately How the hell is this newsworthy? 5 people die every 5 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.29.88 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's a new sort of shooting incident for the U.S. Sca (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, 9 people die every 5 seconds. If you're going to get all hysterical about it and offer some kind of strawman, please get your facts straight IP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Post-posting support - if this had been a "radical Muslim/Islamic terrorist group", then it would certainly be posted. I would argue that, in a way, this incites (or incited) fear and terror of people on a widespread scale, far beyond the "regional" impact of Dallas. And it is not clear whether in fact this is actually some form of domestic terrorism. 2607:FEA8:A260:4BE:A00A:3F33:77D5:507B (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
July 7
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 7
|
|
July 7, 2016 (2016-07-07) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
- Ukraine–United States relations
- Cuba–United States relations
- The United States tentatively approves eight, of 12 that applied, airlines for flights from 10 U.S. cities to Havana as early as this fall: Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and United Airlines. Last month, flights were approved from five U.S. cities to nine other international airports. (Reuters) (US DOT)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
July 6
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 6
|
|
July 6, 2016 (2016-07-06) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Iraq Inquiry
Article: Iraq Inquiry (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Iraq Inquiry, commissioned in 2009 as a public inquiry into British involvement in the Iraq War, is published. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Chilcot Report is published, examining and criticising the actions of the UK in the Iraq War, its lead-up and its aftermath.
Alternative blurb II: The Chilcot Report, commissioned in 2009 as a public inquiry into British involvement in the Iraq War, finds that there was no need to go to war at the time.
Alternative blurb III: The Chilcot Report into UK involvement in the Iraq War finds that peaceful alternatives were not exhausted, that intelligence was flawed, and that there was insufficient planning for the its aftermath.
News source(s): BBC, reams more
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Landmark decision that has been on hold for years, similar to the Hillsborough report which we posted '''tAD''' (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait There is not really any point discussing this until the findings are known (which will be around 10:20 UTC). Could totally reshape understanding of the war, could just repeat the Butler Review. Strong support. Findings are extensive and damning. Smurrayinchester 09:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- (Also, while the official name is the "Iraq Inquiry", the WP:COMMONNAME is "Chilcot Report", after its lead investigator John Chilcot.) Smurrayinchester 09:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Have added an altblurb based on its main findings. Probably a bit long, but we should say something about the findings beyond a bland "The report is published". Smurrayinchester 10:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Alt III or ALT I. Been a long time coming and major news in UK media. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, especially with Alt III. This is huge, seismic news in the history of the Iraq campaign and the British government. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support major news. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose on two factors. First, I think the update required here is going to need more than one para. It should document the findings better in a new section. Ideally it should also include critical analysis of that, but as a news story, that might not be available. Second and more importantly, is this binding? What is the implication of this report? I would suspect there are legal cases being crafted on the announcement of the findings to sue UK decision makers for monetary damages and loss of life from the bad decisions in the report, but that doesn't make the report authoritative until the courts rule on that. There does not appear to be any actions specifically set out by the report to be taken. As such this just appears to be the publication of findings without any immediate effects. Interesting, yes but not ITN appropriate at this point. --MASEM (t) 11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support as absolutely major news that will have long-term ramifications in the UK - although exactly what those will be is not immediately clear. All the blurbs look a little long for my taste, but I can't think of any better. "Chilcot Report" should be in the blurb somewhere though as that's by far the common name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Shocking, game-changing, groundbreaking... All terms which describe the report and its outcome. Strongly support Alt III. If we're going to right a great wrong, let it be this one.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posting alt1, since it is the shortest. Feel free to change that. --Tone 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for several reasons. The Iraq war involved multiple combatants, of which the UK was but one. Even among invasion forces the UK was only the third largest contributor to the war effort, significantly behind the US. I also don't see anything that might lead to long-term consequences in this report. The war's already over (for the UK). Unless Tony Blair is charged and convicted, in which case that can be posted as a blurb, I see this more as an internal UK matter that is neither very interesting nor will have great impact on its citizens. Banedon (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is much like the Hillsbrough Inquest, a massively significant case that's taken years and years to provide some kind of conclusion. Complaining about it being an "internal UK matter" is against the ITN rules, and what level of contribution the UK made to the war effort is entirely irrelevant. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it, remember? Plus proportionally, the US didn't pull its weight. P.S. who was second? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it's internal to the UK is irrelevant at ITN, but it's even more irrelevant because the story is being covered worldwide, as a quick look through foreign news sources will show. Post posting Support. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Blurb III Sceptre 14:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – "Examining and criticising the actions of the UK in the Iraq War" is vague and uninformative. The coverage I've seen contains words such as "highly critical", "mistakes," "flawed intelligence" and the like. Further, some mention of Tony Blair seems essential. (AP headline: "Scathing report slams Blair over botched Iraq war.") Sca (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to get across with blurb III. However, I don't know if mention of Blair is essential. He was the head of government at the time, so he is of course a major target, but he is by no means the only person mentioned in the report. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith are also heavily criticized for a start. I think it can be assumed that a criticism of UK Government will include criticism of its head. Smurrayinchester 15:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's alright as it stands: no-one expects Misplaced Pages to summarise the Chilcot report in one sentence. Reporting its bare release and its subject is enough. If we select what is important in it, then we risk our blurb being less NPOV; in particular, Blurb III could be read as putting an anti-war spin on the report. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's not an "anti-war" spin if the war should not have happened to begin with.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Whether the war should have happened to begin with is a matter of political dispute in the UK following the report; look at what Tony Blair's said today, and at some of the debate in the House of Commons today where one or two people said they would have voted the same way, and were quite right to remove Saddam Hussein. Therefore, although you and I may think the war should not have happened, it's POV to imply that in the blurb. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- PS: Guardian headlines it a "crushing verdict on Iraq war." As far as I have seen, the report is wholly negative in its evaluation of UK participation, so some indication of this conclusion should be included in the blurb. Upon reflection, that would be more important than mentioning Blair. Sca (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- How 'bout participation rather than involvement? – a bit more active. Sca (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
-
Oscar Pistorius
Consensus is against posting, comparisons with terrorist attacks are not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles: Trial of Oscar Pistorius (talk · history · tag) and Oscar Pistorius (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Paralympian Oscar Pistorius is sentenced to six years in prison for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC The Guardian
Credits:
Both articles updatedNominator's comments: High-profile trial covered world-wide by media. w.carter-Talk 09:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Looks like it's the final leg of his murder story. Lugnuts 09:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, change of conviction from manslaughter to murder and, consequently, the verdict in this cause célèbre. Brandmeister 09:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, we've already posted the first conviction if I remember correctly. This is just the continuation of the story, with only some corrections. --Tone 10:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Initial conviction was posted. ITN is not an appropriate forum for documenting every minor twist and turn (as was attempted in October 2014 and December 2015). The BBC article even mentions that both the defense and prosecution have the option for further appeals, so this may not even be the final word in this ongoing legal effort. --Allen3 10:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose we've done the story already and as noted above, even this may not be the end. It may only be the end of the beginning... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose the change of crime charged only changed a 5 year sentence to 6, this is not significant enough a difference to proceed with yet another post on this topic. -MASEM (t) 11:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Enough already. Sca (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - irrelevant on the larger scale. Trivial news should be avoided. --Fixuture (talk) 22:25, 6 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 5
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 5
|
|
July 5, 2016 (2016-07-05) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
RD Beatrice de Cardi
Article: Beatrice de Cardi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph The Times
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Extraordinarily long career in archaeology (oldest practising archaeologist at the end of her career), made significant discoveries, earned OBE, received medals. MurielMary (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Article is in decent shape (I fixed one tense issue, and can't spot any others) and it's clear she was very important to the field of archaeology, particularly archaeology in Arabia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Importance reasonable for RD, article seems fine (wish the infobox template didn't have that merge message but that's outside the control of the article). --MASEM (t) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment two supports is consensus these days? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posting with two supports and no objections after being listed for a couple of days or more would be unproblematic in my book. After less than 24 hours it does look rather hasty. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
July 4
| Portal:Current events/2016 July 4
|
|
July 4, 2016 (2016-07-04) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
- Flooding caused by torrential rain in China kills at least 180 people, mostly along the Yangtze river. (BBC)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
RD: Abner J. Mikva
No consensus to post. Closing discussion that has devolved into pointless bickering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 5 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: Abner J. Mikva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Mikva has been described as a "titan" of liberal politics in the US, received the US Presidential medal of Freedom (an honor not received just to anyone), has had a long and distinguished political career (apparent in the article), his help was sought by governors and even President Obama, and was known for being a mentor to then-Senator Obama. I updated the article, added more sources and added info about death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose despite the nomination, I've read the article and besides the Medal of Freedom, I'm struggling to really see how this individual was so important to politics. The article perhaps needs serious expansion to describe all the trailblazing things he did to change the world of American politics besides holding brief offices (a year at the White House, two terms in the house of representatives). I'd compare him to a middle-ranking, backbench British MP who would never be posted at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well known in Illinois in his day. Maybe not so much outside the USA. You may find the Chicago Tribune article interesting. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Which is like saying "well known in Margate in his day". Unconvincing... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Illinois is a tad larger than Margate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, he didn't represent all of Illinois in Congress, only a part of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Chicago is larger than Margate too. And it's likely his district was larger than Margate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Would be a full oppose if I believed in the RD criteria, but I've been shown a better way. If we were posting any biography of a recently deceased individual, this one would make it as it has solid quality. But, the RD criteria are stringent, and he doesn't pass them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per TRM. This person may have influential in certain circles, but in the big picture he's unknown. Sca (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Muboshgu. @Baseball Bugs: Being better known in the US than Margate is irrelevant to the RD criteria - if you disagree with these criteria then the RFC about changing them is where you should express your opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Don't chirp at me, chirp at TRM, who brought up that ridiculous comparison. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. It was to demonstrate the parochial manner of many of these silly US politician nominations. Such individuals are ten a penny, and their impact is comparable to someone from a medium sized town in England. Just because it's bigger, don't make it better, or more notable. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 5 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.
Juno probe
Article: Juno (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Juno orbiter reaches its destination, the planet Jupiter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Juno orbiter achieves orbit around Jupiter for the start of a 20-month survey of the planet.
News source(s): BBC , Guardian
Credits:
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Success of a five year unmanned space voyage. Should tell us much we didn't know about the planet. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tag seems to be lingering from before the insertion took place. It's been updated, and I can't see what else would be added. Removed. Smurrayinchester 07:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Abbas Kiarostami
Article: Abbas Kiarostami (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, BBC
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Multiple award winning director. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD no-brainer. Featured article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support RD, possibly blurb Iconic figure, article is FA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD There's a few tense issues in the article but importance is clear, and nothing else glaring as a problem. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb one of the most iconic directors in film, and it's of featured quality, which we need to see more on the main page. Meinnaples (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've clarified that I support RD only here, if we don't envisage a "Death of Abbas Kiarostami" article, then I can't see why a blurb would be appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD Never heard of him, but clearly important to his field, and it's a nice quality article too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support blurb - there are very few living directors as influential and groundbreaking as Abbas Kiarostami (possibly only Godard and Scorsese). 91.52.239.58 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support One of the 40th greatest film directors in the world by the Guardian. 31.2.230.97 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support RD only, to be honest I can't see a point at which any film director would be worth a blurb (maybe Hitchcock, Welles or Kurosawa, but we've missed those). Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted to RD Stephen 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
2016 Medina suicide bombing
Article: 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Four people have been killed in a series of suicide bombings near Masjid Al Nawabi at Medina City of Saudi Arabia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Four suicide bombers hit three Saudi cities, including the holy site of Medina.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
103.25.248.243 (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ignoring the lack of an article, I would oppose this as the only deaths appear to be the bomber and two security guards per the BBC (though this may be at the early stages of getting information, but certainly nowhere close to the deaths from the previous attacks), even though the attack may have been intended at the public. Compared to the last 2-3 big incidents, this really doesn't have the same scope. I would not oppose merging this , once an article is made, with another blurb, but I don't think that's really feasible to connect the two as well. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support Important religious site of a major world religion. Today in total 3 attacks took place in Saudi Arabia including this one. Eid al-Fitr is on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia as Ramadan is coming to an end. 70.50.134.19 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose minor in the context of things like the bombings in Baghdad and attacks in Bangladesh and Turkey. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Rambling Man and the article is nowhere near in any condition to be linked on the front page. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose based on context at present. We presently have three major bombings/shootings/attacks on the ticker, and this one pales in comparison to them and is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't help that the article quality is woefully insufficient for posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support an attack on one of the holiest cities in Islam. However, the article is quite sparse. Since ISIS have been linked to several attacks, we could merge into one blurb ("ISIS-affiliated militants attack Dhaka, Bangladesh; Baghdad, Iraq and Medina, Saudi Arabia.") Smurrayinchester 22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support - The symbolic value of the attack is greater than the number of deaths; I'm seeing more discussion of this attack in my FB newsfeed than I did of the one in Bengladesh. That being said, the article could use work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- support - high symbolic value. the blurb should be changed to reflect that though.BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Add it to ITN's new section "terrorist attack of the day". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support per Smurrayinchester. It is one of the holiest cities in Islam. Argument against this would be that there are so many terrorist events already on ITN, but that can be worked around by merging some of the blurbs. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support - Holiest site of Islam is attacked. Article looks to be in good shape as well - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support based on the symbolic value of the site attacked, and on improvement of the article. ---- Patar knight - /contributions 07:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support new development as holiest site of Islam attacked, probably even greater implications than recent Ankara and Baghdad bombings. --Bruzaholm (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I thought it was Mecca that's the holiest site of Islam. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina is the second-holiest site in Islam, after Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. 70.50.134.19 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thing is, while it as at this holy site, the bomber set themselves off in the parking lot, as opposed to within the mass of people within the site. It definitely could have been a lot worse, no question, but because of the limited number of causalities compared with the 200+ in the Baghdad bombing, this really is not as significant at the current time. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- There are 809 news reports talking about this particular event according to Google News both from the Western and Muslim World media. https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=dG5IAKU3RpUbzrMgsqBWkcYt4DziM&authuser=0&ned=ca&topic=w&siidp=8cd52bc09ffa698fec1d006c4fb599f73552. 70.50.134.19 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- And there are >1,500 on the Baghdad bombing. This is not trying trivialize the Medina situation, just that in terms of front page content, its impact is far far less than the previous attacks of the last few days. And unfortunately, the Medina attacks appear unrelated to the other ones, so it's difficult to talk about combining blurbs to include it. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are not taking in account that targeting of Medina is particularly significant in the Muslim World during the last part of Ramadan and a day before Eid al-Fitr which alone should make it to the blurb. 70.50.134.19 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- They are comparable spiritual periods , yes, but they are also very different and the Medina bombing articles from BBC and other sources make sure to distinguish between the two and that these bombings were not likely tied to the Baghdad and other bombings because of the different nature of these spiritual periods. (As I read it, trying to equate these would be like trying to equate Christmas and Hanukkah - they just happen to be at the same time of the year but serve far different purposes for their respective faiths). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Saudis fostered these extremists for decades, and every now and then it bites them on the ass. The kind of people who commit suicide bombings are not moved by the holiness of a site, and so this attack is uninteresting. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: In principle, I'd support the (updated) altblurb. Three simultaneous bombings, including the holy site of Al-Masjid an-Nabawi are notable, not quantitatively by the number of victims, but qualitatively in regard to the choice of bombing sites. While the article 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings seems adequately sourced, it is currently way too frugal for main page. If expanded with more details, evaluations and consequences, the nomination might receive wider support. --PanchoS (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted, better late than never. Ed 17:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Brexit/Farage
Article: Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Aftermath of the UK EU membership referendum (Post)
News source(s): DNA
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: not sure where to nominate as itnr/regular//ongoing/RD (?), but the fallout from Brexit is growing and great shakes in UK with Cons/Labour and now UKIP Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support for ongoing - If this goes anywhere, ongoing would be the most natural place, as it is an item that continuously generates news. Nominating it as a blurb would need a blurb, and there hasn't been any blurb-worthy developments. RD would be poetic (listing the UK as a recently-deceased should Scotland / London / Gibraltar / Northern Ireland secede), but definitely not encyclopedic. Ongoing is the most natural place. A "Aftermath of " article would be best, but the linked one works as well. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Below they wanted to post the market reactions too (theyre already down today).Lihaas (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Amending to support Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 as ongoing, as graciously linked by Ghmyrtle. Banedon (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- added it but anywho] and Smurrayinchester updated.Lihaas (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dunno about Corbyn after Manchester/Liveropool/Leeds rallies this weekend. But Con party conference will be earth shattering. After Auxit this weekend, Boris winning (despite chicanery) will shake stuff up.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support for ongoing based on the information Smurrayinchester has linked, the Brexit article has four brief bullet points and nothing more, so that's no good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support for ongoing. Possibly link to Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe I'm missing it, but while there was certainly the economic bump that seems to have settled, what outside of UK politics is ongoing here that needs regular attention? Yes, it is a lot of political party aspects, but this doesn't seem any different as what happens during/after a US election and outside that blurb I would never consider that aspect ongoing for ITN. The stuff about the individual states/cities are all proposals and should any individual one happen, that'll be an ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just look at the Guardian or Telegraph live blogs to see what a tremendous volume of news this is still pumping out (not just limited to the UK: the German Tagesschau has devoted the entire above-the-fold section of its front page to Brexit fallout). I'd argue that the UK politics stuff itself is of importance (almost unheard of for both potential parties of government to undergo simultaneous leadership crises), but there's also the fact that the most likely next prime minister is threatening to deport EU citizens, the British stock market remains about 10% lower than it was a week and a half ago, there's been a 500% increase in hate crimes, the Good Friday Agreement peace treaty is under threat, multiple sources are saying the UK faces a constitutional crisis... This is a huge and still unfolding story. Smurrayinchester 13:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- "... doesn't seem any different as what happens during/after a US election ..." sums it up I'm afraid. This is absolutely nothing like a US election. And what a curiously ironic day to choose to make such a suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- All these types of stories are also currently circulating around the US election and will continue to do so for months after (especially with the candidates running), but I recognize we'd never publish anything beyond the election results. This type of broad aftermath article is not what Ongoing was designed for, and most of the specific points are topics that would get ITN on their own if they actually happened. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all, the ongoing fallout from Brexit is like nothing the English-speaking world has seen in recent times. And it is ongoing. The only reason anyone would care about the US election would be if that crazy orange bloke gets voted in, then we're in for a serious aftermath article as the world descends into chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- He wont. Hes on the ticket to get Shillary elected. Mark my words...he spent his entire life an a yankee liberal.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Check your local bookie. They're giving the crazy orange bloke 2/1 to 11/4 odds. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. Weak support for ongoing. The fallout is ongoing, and the new Prime Minister should get a blurb in September, but the Farage departure is a non-story (already displaced at the top of the BBC News page by the Top Gear news). Only weak support, because the real fallout will not be apparent for years or decades. It will appear in future history books, but while it will dominate the news cycles at times, that will be a permanent feature of UK politics. It is a permanent shift, so 'ongoing' isn't really suitable either (unless you want it to be ongoing for years?). Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: per Masem, this post-referendum mess is going to be just ordinary British politics for the next few years while everybody works out what to do. Anyway, we've probably already had the most intense week of post-referendum stuff now, in this last week. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Weak oppose for ongoing – This referendum (assuming there's no Brexit-exit vote in the near future) poses so many ramifications and unknowns for the UK and Europe that it seems unlikely to be manageable as a single article down the road. It's two weeks since the fateful tally, and already the target article tops 6,000 words. Since the effects, or aftermath if we must, will continue for years, we'd be better off handling topics individually. Sca (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Now it's up to 7,300 words – more than the Miley Cyrus article! Sca (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support for ongoing but oppose blurb – Definitely still a major news story with aftershocks rattling Europe; however, most of what I'm seeing in the news is rhetoric rather than actions (outside of the referendum itself and the immediate economic consequences). The nature of this story does not lend itself to a full blurb, however, as Farage stepping down is not an ITN-worthy event in and of itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is going to go on in drips and drabs for a good long while. A new PM will be blurb-worthy. Execution of Article 50 might be. Not sure that I see the day to day leading up to that as sufficient for ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Muboshgu's reasoning. This whole process could take years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support If and would really be beshocken, butcha nevah know. Opposen sind gefuehafht, nicht? μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wie, bitte? Sca (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ongoing/oppose blurb. Several UK news organisations, including the BBC , and The Guardian are still doing live blogs. What's the point of "ongoing" if major non-sports events with constant updates like this don't get put on? ---- Patar knight - /contributions 07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is bigger news than the other entries currently up at ITN. There are so many developments that ongoing is the obvious place for this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support ongoing. Major event that will chronically produce headlines for months to come. Review after Article 50 has been triggered. --PanchoS (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Posted to ongoing for which I see consensus. There is no one single event commenters are supporting for a blurb (there is consensus against a blurb for Farage's resignation) but both this and the entry in ongoing can be reviewed at any point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
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 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox_4K-AZ65_Antalya_Airport_June_18,_2016_(cropped).jpg)
Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft
Articles: Theresa May (talk · history · tag) and Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Done, but I changed UK to British. .jpg)
.jpg)
