Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here – discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Alan Greenspan
Alan Greenspan

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles featured in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting items marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, post the item and change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, close the discussion section and change the header to (Closed). If the article's quality remains poor, leave a brief note explaining why to encourage and assist others in fixing it.
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Structure

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.

To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

June 29

[edit]

RD: Penelope Keith

[edit]
Article: Penelope Keith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: English actress and presenter, active in film, radio, stage and television and primarily known for her roles in the British sitcoms The Good Life and To the Manor Born. ItsShandog (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article needs ref work done. Filmography section for instance. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

[edit]

RD: Mignon Dunn

[edit]
Article: Mignon Dunn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is alright length and sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Wan Shaofen

[edit]
Article: Wan Shaofen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: First female provincial party secretary in China (Jiangxi Province). Toadboy123 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

[edit]

Aleksandar Vučić's resignation

[edit]
Consensus is that this might be significant, but is all talk until proven otherwise (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Aleksandar Vučić
Article: Aleksandar Vučić (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) announces his intention to resign as President of Serbia amidst anti-corruption protests. (Post)
News source(s): AP Reuters Euronews
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Per Starmer's blurb. ArionStar (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intrigued I saw a comment back on the Starmer nomination that ITN had posted the announcement of Miloš Vučević intending to resign as the prime minister of Serbia back in February 2025. Now we are discussing Vucic declaring his intention to resign from the presidency of Serbia within the next few weeks. Would the past cases by the resignations of UK prime ministers also apply to other countries as well? CastleFort1 (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about like a election to elect the new leader of the party in the UK, then I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I believe that they will be calling in early elections according to Vucic. Sotjrma (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to oppose Per comments from Gotitbro and Vacant0. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance Serbia is practically irrelevant compared to the UK. A parliamentary system is also different from a presidential one. No prejudice towards blurbing the new guy as that's ITNR I think. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, looks like it's actually not ITNR as the Prime Minister has executive power. Double down on my oppose, then. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Prime Minister has power only on paper, in reality he is highly irrelevant and Vučić's puppet, barely ever making public appearances or issuing statements. Most Serbs don't even know the PM's name, while everyone knows Vučić. Djodjor (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believing that the UK is more important another sovereign state is an outrageous comment and the very worst of British exceptionalism. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vučić has de facto to power and rules Serbia in am increasingly authoritarian manner. The protests have been continous since the Novi Sad disaster, which is a very long time to cling onto power. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Change to oppose per Vacant0's comment. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Oppose. It's better to wait until he actually resigns. Setarip (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, acknowledging that this is not ITNR, but agreeing that Vucic's status as de facto leader, and the connection of his resignation to the protests and the Novi Sad disaster, make this a highly significant story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my support and now oppose this, because if the same guy has said it before and then not done it, it's a very different situation. We should wait until he actually does it, or at least begins a process that he can't just arbitrarily stop again. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reading the AP and Reuters article, they note that this is probably just a ploy to weaken protesters as Vucic runs and returns to power as prime minister. À la the game of musical chairs Putin and Medvedev played. Sources are doubting that the student protests were the primary cause. I think we need to wait a few days to see if this is anything more than an electoral strategy. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, from what I saw all he said was he would resign within "weeks", once we have a clear timetable and a better understanding why he's resigning now we should post. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These "intention" noms are getting out of hand. With the UK there was an attempt to justify it by saying that the word there simply meant he's resigned (I still reasoned against and opposed that flimsy argument). With Serbia you don't even have that justification, Vucic's in power [illegally as he's the president and shouldn't] and will remain so. Ping me if/when he actually resigns. Gotitbro (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose As the major contributor to Serbian politics, I can assure you that Vučić has said many similar things many times since the last elections and that we cannot trust his word. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. It's best to wait until it actually happens. I doubt that he will resign in the coming weeks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, as someone who has been observing Serbian politics, I had a similar feeling; oppose. — Knightoftheswords 11:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/Oppose once it takes place, then we can do it (reasons per Vacant) Braganza (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/Oppose - Not considering anything until he actually submits his formal resignation for once. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it happens. The nomination for Keir Starmer announcing his resignation was closed, but was later posted when it happened. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he's said this multiple times. He also still retains power in Serbia and probably will even after his resignation.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 07:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Blurb ready) Ongoing or blurb: European heatwaves

[edit]
Article: 2026 European heatwaves (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Europe is hit with a set of heat waves, leading to over 500 deaths.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Severe heatwaves strike Europe, leading to over 500 deaths.
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN, DW, WaPo, The Economist
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Setting continental records and garnering extensive coverage. Would be a nice ongoing feature. — Knightoftheswords 🎂🥳 17:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

World-historical events need blurbs? kencf0618 (talk)
Many ITN blurbs tend to be historic events 👍 Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 20:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should be a blurb first, and then we can see if an ongoing is needed when it is about to roll off. However, while I'm not against a blurb, I do think ongoing for heat waves while climate change continues to get worse is not really appropriate - we might as well add in the North American hurricane season and the SE Asis typhoon seasons as ongoing for that same reason. Masem (t) 19:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the heatwave started on the 17th, so I’m pretty sure it would be considered stale — Knightoftheswords 🎂🥳 19:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Converted to blurb. May need wordsmithing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support blurb, considering this heatwave is exceptional in many ways. Yakikaki (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are living in a time of climate change, and it is summer in the northern hemisphere. There are heatwaves in Europe every year, particularly in the Mediterranean. It is what it is, and we have to get used to record temperatures. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's summer. Hot but not particularly deadly without high humidity. Not sure why it would be an ongoing when not even blurbed when it peaked. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb2 - Record breaking heatwave for Europe, with a significant death count AntarcticFoxes 04:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb It is a record heatwave with a high death count and it is making news globally. The article is good in quality (aside from the Highest temperature by country section). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Setarip (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Although common, European heatwaves do kill thousands, which is a death toll significant enough to get a blurb. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Globalise The article has a lead image (pictured). What I notice in this is that North Africa and the Levant seem far redder and hotter than Europe. My impression is that this is First World problems which may be much worse elsewhere. We should perhaps try to cover this globally as I gather that there's a super El Niño this year which will cause widespread problems. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope we'll get a good article on the super El Niño, if it occurs, so that we can feature that too. We can only feature articles we actually write after all. I think climate articles should have a lot of potential to give our readership insight in the impact of climate change worldwide. It's a shame that it's frequently only the European and such articles that are of appropriate quality for a front-page feature. I don't think that's a reason to oppose the one good article we do have, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change is happening. Weather is f'ed up everywhere. That doesn't make it a good topic for ITN because of how sporadic and disparate the effects are. Masem (t) 12:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Information It is not a excepcional event; see Category:Heat waves in Europe. ArionStar (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Hencke

[edit]
Article: David Hencke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Article not too bad and referenced but could do with expansion and infobox. Books also need IBSN added. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – Article is 80% proseline. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sergei Ivanov

[edit]
Article: Sergei Ivanov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: A former defense minister and one of the key siloviks in Russian politics over the past two-three decades. One of the closest people in Putin's entourage. Medvedev's main competitor for the position of Putin's successor in 2007–2008.  PLATEL  (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready – Article goes in depth, is well sourced, and sufficiently written — there's just a few unsourced sentences that should be fixed up first before posting to the Main Page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has good sources and is of good length, however key parts are united, including some bold claims, and in parts is all proseline. Furthermore there some huge gaps in periods of his biography that are unaccounted for. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

[edit]

(Ready) RD: Isabel Jara

[edit]
Article: Isabel Jara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Mundo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Spanish and Venezuelan civil servant. She was killed during the double earthquakes and her body was found on 26 June. Fixer88 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Article looks great. Well sourced, well written, updated, and of a sufficient length. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: _-_Alsor (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is good length and sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing removal: Ebola epidemic

[edit]
Article: 2026 Ebola epidemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The timeline is updated once every 4 days and clearly is not qualified for ongoing anymore. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal – Article is regularly updated and the epidemic is still receiving widespread/consistent coverage. Just two days ago, the first case outside of Africa was confirmed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 23:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal mostly due to the massive size of the "Ongoing" panel right now, and very little substantial updates recently besides the new case in France, although I've been trying to update the map every few days. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal per Nice4What. 2600 etc (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal Appears to still be an ongoing event with regular edits still happening and per Nice4What. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Removal, still an ongoing event as per Nice4What. I also think that there are better ways to trim the size of the ongoing subheading than to remove content, such as getting rid of links to timelines. AntarcticFoxes 09:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the timeline articles are the ones that are being updated more frequently than the main ones. We also run into nitpickers that claim that if the timeline article wasn't featured, then the main articles on these conflicts, which do not get updated as frequently for good reason per WP:SS, aren't getting updated frequently to be included on ongoing. Common sense: as long as the timeline article is predominately featured in the infobox of these conflict articles, and we all understand for the long-running conflicts that the updates are not likely going to be at the main page but the timeline, then this is a step we can take. Masem (t) 11:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to timeline articles is not in line with WP:ONGOING, so this is a valid concern that cannot be easily dismissed (frequently invoking WP:IAR for the same thing doesn’t make it a rule). Furthermore, every article documenting an ongoing story goes through a development phase with frequent changes and updates until it reaches a stable version (this phase typically lasts somewhere between a couple of weeks and few months), so it’s also valid to argue that the event is no longer ongoing according to our policies once the article reached its stable version. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Take for example the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). Its clearly an ongoing event in terms of news coverage. The timeline article is clearly updated regularly (compared to, say, the Sudanese civil war from the nom below), but the main target has been basically getting gnoming type edits because at the summary style approach, not much of the current events warrant summary at that level, given how long the war has been going for.
It has to understandable that an event listed in ongoing that has spawned more appropriate subarticles (like these timelines) under WP:SS means that the main article is likely not going to be updated as frequently as one or more of the subarticle, but as long as the timeline or other appropriate subarticle is frequently updated and major events are appropriately being added to the main space, I do not see the issue here, save for trying to take the exact reading of the language for ongoing (that only the featured article should be considered in terms of quality and updates). The question is then if we really need to include the timeline article link in the ongoing line or get rid of it to save space. Masem (t) 17:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The timelines were suggested by me in large part since we kept getting into discussions where the Russo-Ukrainian war was being nominated for removal, and people (including you) were arguing for it to be kept on the pretense of it still being important, despite the main articles objectively not receiving sustained updates (which is a violation of WP:ONGOING, unlike timelines since ONGOING explicitly says that any article can be put in there, so your first point is false). The timeline articles are the only reason why these topics are still featured on ITN, otherwise they would have been removed. — Knightoftheswords 08:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Yes, but WP:ONGOING should clearly explain this so that people who do not regularly contribute to ITN know it. @Knightoftheswords281: I don't object adding links to timelines. I'm just saying this format with additional links in brackets is not in line with WP:ONGOING, and this is what logically confuses editors who are not regular contributors to ITN. The timelines were suggested by me in large part since we kept getting into discussions where the Russo-Ukrainian war was being nominated for removal, and people (including you) were arguing for it to be kept on the pretense of it still being important Could you please link to a discussion where I voted for the Russo-Ukrainian War to be kept? I've nominated that specific ongoing item for removal multiple times, so I'm probably one of the last persons to argue for it to be kept. unlike timelines since ONGOING explicitly says that any article can be put in there, so your first point is false) I think your reasoning is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that we practically add two articles for a single ongoing event, not that we cannot add an article other than the main one documenting the event. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal per Nice4What, still an ongoing epidemic with active cases now spread in 3 countries and its article getting updates regularly (including recent coverage by BBC News reporting the Ebola case in France on June 24). ACMehta (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose allowed France just got the first Ebola case, which has widespread torn through news websites. FlamingMingo 🦩 07:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal given still ongoing. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Yorgelis Delgado

[edit]
Withdrawn by nominator as death not confirmed. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Yorgelis Delgado (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Espectador
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Venezuelan actress, died during the recent earthquakes. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready – Article needs to be substantially lengthened. Main text is currently less than 100 words, should be 250–300 words minimum. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Bolivian protests

[edit]
Article: 2026 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The blockade of cities was lifted by the Bolivian military and the riots have stopped. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal The protests have all but ended and the blockades have all been cleared. It was deserving of the Ongoing while it was happening but its time has passed. (Chorchapu, logged out) - ~2026-37022-15 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Situation seems to be resolved or nearly so. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per nom. Setarip (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention Needed) (Ready) RD: Mary-Dell Chilton

[edit]
Article: Mary-Dell Chilton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News Observer
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced on this date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The quality's good enough for a post on RD. Sourcing appears to be fine. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree that article quality is sufficient. Jusdafax (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention Needed) (Ready) RD: Joe Doering

[edit]
Article: Joe Doering (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: American professional wrestler. Article looks fine. Greenflipper (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've tagged one sentence missing a source, but article should be good to go. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Thanks for credit; article is in good shape.LM2000 (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Significant coverage. Fixer88 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: significant coverage, and the article looks great. happy to see so many non-English sources, I think we could do with more of that. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 04:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose There's some uncited sentences/small paragraphs in the wrestling career section. But article is overall well sourced. Support Article in good shape now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have added the missing citations. The article is in better shape now. Thank you for the credit. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

[edit]

RD: Nicholas Alahverdian

[edit]
Article: Nicholas Alahverdian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Yes, that guy who faked his own death but couldn't stop editing his Wikipedia page. For real this time. Article seems pretty solid. Blythwood (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2026 Anduril 250

[edit]
WP:SNOW Close. (non-admin closure) --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2026 Anduril 250 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2026 Anduril 250, held on Naval Base Coronado, is won by 23-year-old Corey Heim driving the #67 Toyota for 23XI Racing. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Corey Heim of 23XI Racing win the 2026 Anduril 250 from Naval Base Coronado.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ The NASCAR Cup Series raced on Naval Base Coronado in Coronado, California. (pictured) Credits:
Nominator's comments: Updated with results. Very good event with NASCAR racing on an active naval base. Brycenrichter (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see significance, coverage seems to be limited to sports sources. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on notability seems routine. Non-ITNR NASCAR events (such as the Coca-Cola 600 nom a month or so ago) with nothing unusual about them don't warrant features. Per UFC at the White House nom, the location of the race (which is the only unusual thing about this race I could think of and the only thing highlighted in the nom) doesn't automatically merit a blurb. In addition, other events at the Naval Base Coronado, including the 2014 Stadium Super Trucks, are marked as low-importance in their respective wikiprojects. I really can't buy the argument the location of an otherwise routine sporting event (whether or not it's marketed as such) matters all too much, no matter how much of these America 250 events get nominated (from the article: This race will be held in commemoration of the United States Navy's 250th birthday alongside the country's 250th).
Strong oppose on quality as well. Significant portions of the article's statistics are uncited. In addition, there's hardly any prose, far below the bar of ITN featured content. Departure– (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2026 Peru general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Peruvian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the second round of the 2026 Peruvian presidential election, Keiko Fujimori (pictured) of Popular Force defeats Roberto Sánchez of the Together for Peru coalition, with her party winning the largest number of seats in Peru's bicameral legislature. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Keiko Fujimori (pictured) is elected as the president of Peru. 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: Fujimori's victory has been projected in all major news sites. Rushtheeditor talk 11:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support posting now If the sources are saying she won, the time to post is now, when it is in the news. That said, there are a few tense issues still in the article, so Not Ready. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now and prefer the shorter altblurb. Her lead is now around 40.000 votes, so much more substantial than during the previous times this was nominated. Khuft (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There needs to be some consistency here at Wikipedia. If it's too soon to call Fujimori the president-elect here on ITN but how come she's already labeled as the president-elect on her wiki article and she's projected the winner on the general election article. Which is it? If we say it's too soon here then she shouldn't be called the president-elect on her article or be the projected winner on the general election article either. However, if the consensus was on Fujimori's article/2026 general election article that it's safe to call it, then yes, we should go ahead and post it here if it's good enough for her article and the general election article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    She is mathematically elected according to the Peruvian electoral authority, pending only confirmation from it. ArionStar (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not arguing about her being declared the president-elect or the certainty or it, I’m brining up the point that if here on ITN we’re saying it’s too soon to make the call then how come her article and the 2026 article already list her as the winner. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Just to make it clear since her article and the 2026 article appear to have some sort of agreement to call her the president-elect for the last few days might as well make it official here too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @TDKR Chicago 101: There hasn’t been an agreement or any discussion, just random editors changing the infobox to name her president-elect. While I agree that some reliable sources have projected her to be winner, there has been no official declaration. Once there is a declaration, there should be no problem to post away. Until then, it’s best for us to wait. WMrapids (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as original nominator Support, Fujimori seems to already have this in the goddamn bag, there is no way that this vote count can go on for another 5 days and certify Roberto Sanchez as President. shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/wait. It appears fait accompli that Fujimori won given the reporting I've seen, HOWEVER, it does absolutely make more sense to wait until we get a more official declaration of the result. We work off of facts, not predications - at this time, Fujimori's victory is no more official than before. And as is always - yes this is in the news now. It will also still be in the news when the official result comes down. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support with 99.88% of the vote counted Fujimori has 50.121% while Sanchez has 49.879%. It is now a statistical impossibility for her to lose. Scuba 02:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle per @Scu_ba. Sanchez has lost even if every remaining ballot is for him. Major news sites have called it.
There's not much prose on what's happened post-Fujimori victory so that's the holdup. Bremps... 03:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am neither supporting or opposing at this point, but I think it should be taken into account that while Sánchez can’t mathematically win the election with the current count, he is petitioning for overseas votes to be nullified, which would make him the winner. It seems unlikely that his efforts would succeed and ITN still often posts elections even with such lack of acceptance from the losing candidate, but I am not sure how much weight Sánchez’s irregularity claims should be actually given in this case. Also to note that Fujimori has now actually declared victory, which she didn’t do last time this was nominated. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post now as sources say she has won. 2600 etc (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Information Opponent Roberto Sánchez said he would not recognize the results. ArionStar (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Best to leave it out the blurb unless it goes full Jan. 6. Bremps... 13:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Reliable sources say Fujimori has won. Article is updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and wait: Official results have not be released by any governmental authorities. While reliable sources can publish projections of Fujimori being the winner, the results are not official and we should wait until then. WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be clear on this. We post projections for the US, Canada, and Australia, but not Peru? Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One does not equal the other. I believe Peruvian outlets actually cannot declare a winner unless official results are released. While "rush" is in your name, it’s ok to wait sometimes. :) WMrapids (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Reuters source cited in the election page prefaces with "appears", as opposed to declaring a definitive win: ... ​after razor-thin election results gave her enough votes to secure what appears to be an ‌insurmountable lead in the presidential runoff[6]—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. The sources avoid making a definitive statement in many cases on if Fujimori really won or not.
Here are some more examples:
The NHK article is pretty clear, saying "Local media have not projected a winner, but Reuters said on Tuesday that Fujimori holds an insurmountable lead. The electoral authority is expected to announce the final results early next month", which is a concise and neutral way of explaining the current status following the election. WMrapids (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Venezuela earthquakes

[edit]
Article: 2026 Venezuela earthquakes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two powerful earthquakes hit Venezuela. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Two earthquakes of magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 strike western Venezuela, leaving at least 32 people dead.
News source(s): NBC News,Xinhua
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Very large death toll expected, with major structural damage. Seeing Richter Scale values of 7.2 to 7.5 from USGS. Jusdafax (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support but Wait until more information becomes apparent AntarcticFoxes 00:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait 7.x quakes but only 5 deaths known so far. It likely will go up. However, compared to previous earthquake articles this is very thin, and we usually can have a much better article in place for these types of events. Masem (t) 01:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Massive support but wait until more information. I've already seen reports of many deaths, however, none have been confirmed by news/government sources. It will take a while for information about casualties to come out. 10,000-100,000 estimated casualties is huge though. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support certain to have massive casualties and extensive impact. — Knightoftheswords 01:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality of the article is fine, but per AntarcticFoxes more information may be revealed in the days ahead. The doublet earthquakes, which happened on 24 June in Venezuela's time, are also clearly significant and are in the news. International reactions and assistance are likely expected in the coming days. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, more info will become apparent quickly. thunkii (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support and wait for info such as casualty count and damage Vetrenarisisum (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though I fear it will be some time before we get a true picture of the situation, as communication seems to be down. Still, it is apparent that the damage and loss of life is substantial. It is a sad fact that the worst disasters usually come with the least clear information early on. I strongly support not speculating about casualties in the blurb. Renerpho (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Likely to be the deadliest earthquake since Turkey/Syria. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. I am in agreement with the assumptions that this may be one of the deadlier earthquakes of the decade. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above international news. HurricaneEdgar 02:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the strongest earthquake in Venezuela since the 1967 Caracas earthquake, and this time the effects were nationwide. Just because of the structural damage is enough to warrant posting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy post Worldwide coverage. ArionStar (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose putting deaths in blurb, it makes it seem less serious than it is (160 casualties versus the estimates being in the range tens of thousands), maybe the missing count would be better right now. Also is there any precedent for not putting a death count in cases where we wont know an accurate death count for a while? AntarcticFoxes 14:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
we always say "at least" in such blurbs to reflect the number can go up, and the blurb can be updated via errors for significant jumps. Masem (t) 15:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could include that 40,000 have been reported missing since that that appears widely reported by sources such as the BBC? TaqPCR (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on including reported missing statistics, gives more of a sense of the scale of the disaster AntarcticFoxes 09:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add "with tens of thousands reported missing" as this has been widely reported and indicates how bad the situation is. --Tone 09:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question do we have any good image for the earthquake damage to be featured on the first page? Having Greenspan's portait at the front is a bit weird given that the earthquake got far more coverage everywhere. NotKringe (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Image proposals: ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option A since it better visualize the severity of the damage. NotKringe (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Option A, I think it's better than the map. Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

[edit]

RD: Ann Blyth

[edit]
Article: Ann Blyth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: American Golden Age actress. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – Unsourced filmography. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Om Malik

[edit]
Article: Om Malik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Verge
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

 jlwoodwa (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) The Fifth Strasbourg Justice Meeting takes place in Strasbourg

[edit]
WP:SNOW. Consensus that this is significant is not going to develop. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Strasbourg Justice Meetings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Fifth Strasbourg Justice Meeting takes place on June 24, 2026. Thousands of demonstrators, along with journalists and members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, take part in the event, which focuses on human rights concerns in Türkiye and the non-implementation of ECHR judgments. (Post)
News source(s): [7], [8], [9], [10]
Credits:

Article updated
 Zenomemo (talk) 2026-06-29 17:04 UTC
  • Oppose Blurb sounds more like an ad, no bolded articles, and the updated section of the article has 3 (yes, three) sources. There's just not enough here to justify being on ITN, especially since it's a non ITNR annual event. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve trimmed the blurb to make it more neutral and less promotional, and I’ll add the article in bold. I’m also looking for additional independent coverage, especially from non-affiliated outlets, to better support the event’s significance for ITN. If the current sourcing still looks thin, I’m happy to keep improving the nomination.Zenomemo (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I have made the necessary revisions in light of your feedback. The article title is now bolded, the blurb has been made more neutral, and the number of sources in the article has increased from 3 to 7. Best regards.Zenomemo (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect intended to this particular cause, it's relatively easy for protesters, on any topic, to claim that they represent large numbers of other people who are not present. If we took all such claims at face value, and then chose the ones with the largest claimed representation, we'd have a very peculiarly skewed news list. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Very minimal and non-notable. Setarip (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this matters not only for the approximately 5,000 people who attended, but also for the 1.5 million people they represent, as noted here: Euronews. The fact that nearly 10 PACE members spoke today also shows that the issue received real attention. So overall, it was a positive and meaningful event, and hopefully an encouraging one for everyone involved.Zenomemo (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    New coverage keeps appearing, and I’m continuing to update the article accordingly. I’ve also added these sources: Stockholm Center for Freedom and Deutsche Bold. The article now has about 10 sources, so I’d be grateful if you could review the latest version. I also looked through the ITN archives and found that similar demonstrations have sometimes been accepted, so I think this one could have a fair chance too. I wish you all the best in your work. Zenomemo (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is fine, but the event isn’t particularly notable. These are annual gatherings, of a fairly local nature, with debatable impact and insufficient international coverage by notable news portals. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing Removal: Sudanese civil war

[edit]
Article: Sudanese civil war (2023–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: No significant updates on the main article, and the timline ends on June 10. There may be some current coverage based on a google news search but 1) it is far far less in volume compared to some of the other ongoings and 2) articles are not being kept up to date. That's two failures against the purpose of ongoing. Masem (t) 04:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For all this complaining about the number of blurbs (which is NOT affected by the ongoing line), we are back to 5 now. Natg 19 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Our purpose at ITNC is to judge whether the article is quality/updated, thereby indirectly encouraging someone to do the updates. The PREFERRED course of action is to add the updates, but that does not make a motion to remove incorrect. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ongoing line is not just because the event is ongoing. It needs to recieve near daily significant coverage from news sources, and it needs to be updated on WP. Both of these aren't happening. There is some but no where close to daily coverage. Masem (t) 12:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possbile: The 2026 Blue Nile campaign is ongoing and there is 2 items about the Civil war in current events today. Perhaps the person that updates the timeline is on a break. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal I've added some updates to the timeline; others free to as well. If more updates are desired I can add some later. There are current warnings of new atrocities on the scale of El Fasher Placeholderer (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    but the other problem is the level of coverage of this by news. There have been a few recent bios, yes but compared to other ongoing we have, this is barely making waves. We have too many ongoing entries and we need to start pruning, and this is the clearly most obvious one due to how little it is being covered. Masem (t) 16:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like most days have been filled in now—it's receiving plenty of coverage to do so. WP:ONGOING says things for Ongoing are are stories which lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article...To be posted in the ongoing section, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information, which to me looks like this fits Placeholderer (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    except again most of those events are not getting widespread news coverage. The only thing that I saw was the UN declaration on June 23, and even then that got lost in the noise of other larger issues. If we constantly need to poke editors to update because of nominating for removal, thats also a problem Masem (t) 22:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the standard of "widespread"? Should we do a source count for whose news is publishing about Sudan vs. Albania right now? Placeholderer (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support removing Albania, Bolivia, and quite possibly Ebola as well. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support while the event may still be ongoing, the entry should be as up to date as possible to provide the latest information. If it is dependent on one editor (bus factor of 1) and no updates are being provided, to readers, the event is stuck at the last reported date. Aside to this nomination, nomination to remove this entry came up a couple of times, only to be rescued by editors catching up on the updates. Kinda ridiculous that editors have to be prodded in this manner to update the page. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per above, doesn't meet WP:ONGOING criteria and we have a ton already. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why it doesn't meet WP:ONGOING? I think it does Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal I get your point, the article isn't updated as much as it should be. I don't think that's for lack of available information (compare Militant.Insurgency's oppose vote above), so the solution is to update it with that information, not to take it off the list. Renerpho (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose removal it's still an ongoing major conflict. russia vs ukraine certainly has way less news coverage than it did a few years ago, but everyone's still at war and have timeline updates (sudan war's timeline has been updated to the present). Vetrenarisisum (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal I am noticing a bit of a WP:HEY effect where this is nominated for removal, but then promptly updated with further evidence of ongoing updates and coverage. To that effect, I have updated the article accordingly to include two recent, independent updates: 1) In Darfur, there was just a pretty groundbreaking UN Report dated June 23, 2026 on escalating sexual violence throughout 2025 to 2026, which is receiving widespread coverage - e.g. BBC; and 2) In Kordofan, there was just a breaking story on 23 June 2026, published in the New York Times, that the RSF is preparing to attack the city of El Obeid + that there is a high risk of war crimes and atrocities being committed against the civilian population there - e.g. NYT. So, we have contemporaneous, in-depth reporting within the past 48 hours about two completely separate topics within two separate sub-regions of the country. Clearly, there is a depth of ongoing significant coverage about the war. The article just needed to be updated, which has now been done and will continue to be under way. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    More recent coverage: Washington Post on June 24, Deutsche Welle article on June 21. To prove it isn't just an uptick of coverage in the last few days, there are also articles from earlier this month too: e.g. BBC coverage on El Obeid atrocities from June 11, Washington Post article on unmarked graves from May 22. These are just some examples; the coverage is there if you look. It's just unfortunate nobody is diligently updating the article. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal - the whole point of the addition of timeline articles were to highlight routine coverage for topics whose mother articles weren't getting updated due to WP:CONTENTFORKs. If editors are no longer routinely updating a TL, that's a good litmus test to show that the topic isn't making the waves as much, which is what ongoing is for and what it should be (otherwise it would be overrun with entries). The fact that the Sudanese civil war is only saved from being booted since editors on ITN make a rush to make fresh and large updates on it's TL whenever its nominated is evocative of that. Additionally, partially due to that, I suspect that much of the opposition to removal comes from the fact that the SCW has been considered the default "horrifying event that the media isn't covering/people aren't caring about" story for at least two years, so I should remind folks here that Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. — Knightoftheswords 18:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I should have much more time on my hands in the coming month to join the routine updating, so that's +1.
And generally the timeline is getting routinely updated—it's whenever there's a lull that this is brought here Placeholderer (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That means its not being regularly updated. Masem (t) 10:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2026 timeline was edited continuously for over 5 months before this ~10 day pause Placeholderer (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that misrepresents updates—when this was nominated for removal in April there'd been another ~10 day pause in updates. But before the other nomination this year in March, there had still clearly been regular updates. The pattern of "edits keep stopping and getting restarted when this is nominated for removal" is not as extensive as implied Placeholderer (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The updates for March had been pretty intermittent and that nom had been preceded in the past month by an actual 10-ish day lull in edits, just not immediately before the nom. This intermittency briefly ended with the nom for a week before more gaps. — Knightoftheswords 19:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – The fact that updates need to be prompted here is an indicator that it is well past time for the item to be removed. That the conflict is ongoing isn't particularly relevant, as there are multiple other ongoing conflicts (such as the civil war in Myanmar) that aren't featured because they aren't receiving consistent, regular updates. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of ongoing armed conflicts#Major wars (10,000 or more combat-related deaths in current or previous year) this conflict has been ongoing for over 60 years, among 7 others. With another dozen "minor" wars like Haiti, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria and another dozen other ongoing "conflicts" such as India/Pakistan, Iraq, etc. We can't put them them all in ongoing! Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the war in Sudan is the most actively deadly conflict in the world. I.e, it's the least "minor" war to currently exist. And the article is about recent years, which are distinct from the last 60 Placeholderer (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support removal – If nominating to remove it from "Ongoing" is what it takes to get an article updated, then that's a good sign that the article is no longer being regularly updated. I specify "weak" because there is of course consistent/widespread coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 23:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

[edit]

(Closed) Sanger ban

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
No. Just no. BangJan1999 00:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Larry Sanger (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Larry Sanger (pictured), who co-founded and named Wikipedia, is banned from its English language edition. (Post)Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I was just browsing the New York Times where I found this story which has some currency in other mainstream media. It's interesting to read the reader comments in the NYT to see what the general public makes of the project and its internal politics. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close We try to avoid backstage drama and naval gazing, and this type of story if featured at ITN is just going to cause more meatpuppety drama over the ban. Zero need to give it weight. Masem (t) 22:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanger doesn't just have an article; it's classed as vital. If a vital topic is in the news then we ought to consider it. My impression is that ITN is mainly read by Wikipedians and they are likely to be especially interested in this. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    vital articles can inform but are not part if any reason to post. Also very bad assumption that majority increases are wikipedia ediotrs that have even have a moderate amount of knowledge of wlhow things actual work beyond the scenes. We are writing for the law person, the signpost is for wikipedians. Masem (t) 22:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the cofounder of another website were banned from it, and this event got some news coverage but wasn't notable enough for a standalone article, would we run that at ITN? I don't think so. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in my view, a similar event would be one of YouTube's co-founders being banned from the site (they all no longer are connected to it after a sale to Google). I don't believe we'd post something like this. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – perhaps if Jimmy Wales was banned and that was getting coverage, then sure. However, Sanger has not been involved with Wikipedia for 20+ years; at this point, it's just like any other user getting banned. There also appears to be limited coverage Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 23:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor Wikipedia editors are indef/banned all the time. This one has made a grand total of 29 mainspace edits since my birth. Jon698 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hard oppose The discussion of a Wikipedia controversy or drama does not meet the notability qualifications for ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) FIFA World Cup all-time top goalscorer

[edit]
There will be no consensus to post at this point. --Tone 17:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Lionel Messi (talk · history · tag) and List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers (talk · history · tag) and FIFA World Cup records and statistics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Lionel Messi becomes all-time top scorer in FIFA World Cup history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, Lionel Messi tops Miroslav Klose for his 18th World Cup goal.
News source(s): BBC NYT The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Messi's 18th history-making goal adds to his standing as the most prolific scorer in the history of the FIFA World Cup.  QalasQalas (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all true. We posted the breaking of the world record for the 110m hurdles several weeks ago. Natg 19 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That won a championship as a consequence didn't it. What does this stat do for the world cup covered by ongoing. Nothing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It is simply trivia Setarip (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Record-setting is okay for ITN, but they should be exceptional. This is not a record that is has any notoriety in the sport. It also reads more as a longevity record that was accomplished by playing in many more games that the players he has overcome. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on this not being an apples-to-apples comparison. Messi has simply been around for more matches than, say, Mbappe, as he's older. We know Messi's great but this isn't a blurb I can support. Bremps... 17:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 22

[edit]

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Paul Biya

[edit]
Closed as death not confirmed. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Paul Biya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  President of Cameroon Paul Biya dies at the age of 93. (Post)Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: User:SpectralIon told me to nominate this since he is currently located in an area that blocked Wikipedia and Wikipedia blocks VPNs. This is my first time on ITN, so sorry if I did anything wrong. ~2026-36842-25 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2026 Côte-des-Neiges shooting

[edit]
Consensus to post is unlikely to form. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2026 Côte-des-Neiges shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three people are killed and two others are wounded in a shooting at a hotel in Montreal, Quebec (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Three people are killed, including the shooter, in an incel-motivated shooting in Montreal, Quebec
Alternative blurb 2: ​ A municipal police officer was killed, the first in 24 years, in an incel-motivated shooting in Montreal, Quebec.
News source(s): CNN CityNews, New york Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Rare shooting with casualties. The article is at good length and will continue to be expanded. I'm also sure the attack will also continue to receive coverage. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2026 (EDT)
I think you mean Aylo, not Aylon. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was getting at - but the issue being, if one uses that logic, all attacks on vice industries will be viewed as potentially anti-semitic. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the civilian may not have been killed by the perp: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/jewish-canadian-michael-mizrahi-named-as-civilian-killed-in-montreal-shooting-unclear-who-shot-him/
With the total death toll of one LEO, a case for a blurb cannot be sustained. Gotitbro (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Attention Needed) (Ready) RD: Eddie Knox

[edit]
Article: Eddie Knox (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Charlotte Observer
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Charlotte, North Carolina mayor and state senator Engineerchange (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD/blurb: Clive Davis

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Clive Davis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American record producer Clive Davis (pictured) dies at the age of 94. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Rolling Stone, AP
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Influential record executive for Columbia Records and Arista Records, who signed or guided dozens of artists over the decades. Article needs significant sourcing work. I am not asking for a blurb for Davis. Doc Strange (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready due to sourcing issues. Also, honestly borderline blurbable, he'd probably have someone calling for one by now if Greenspan didn't go the same day. If anyone does start a blurb discussion, count me as neutral on it for now.In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further review and the addition of a Legacy section, I now support blurb on both quality and significance. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we try for a double death blurb? ―Howard • 🌽33 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If we decide they both warrant a blurb, they'll be blurbed separately. There is precedent (Ozzy Osbourne and Hulk Hogan) for two death blurbs to be posted at the same time. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: & @Howardcorn33: Article issues resolved along with addition of a legacy that depicts the impact he had on the music industry. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Article needs a lot of ref work done. Would support blurb since Davis was responsible for launching the careers of many influential musicians/singers and Davis himself was an influential record producer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Oliver Tree's tragic death was not posted, but does Clive Davis deserve a blurb? ArionStar (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other stuff exists, but I would think that an influential record producer is more deserving than a one hit wonder. I have not personally heard of either but sources are calling Davis a "hit making titan of the record industry". Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one was five-time Grammy winner while the other are relatively niche figure. Granted, I'm not familiar with both men, but Clive has far better profile to get blurbed. NotKringe (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArionStar:, @Natg 19: & @NotKringe: For what it's worth, I've added a legacy section that depicts his impact on the music industry and why he's considered to be an influential figure and "titan" of not only his field but in the entire industry. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Might as well do away with the RD section. He may have been influential in the US music industry but for an ITN death blurb significance beyond merely that needs to be shown, I doubt it can be here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to the hyperbole here, there are a lot of RDs posted who are never considered for a blurb, let alone posted as one. We didn't even post Oliver Tree. Davis is even Level 5 listed. I'm not going to debate his significance right now, but with all due respect, asserting that blurb nominations you dislike invalidate the RD line is absurd. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Davis is even Level 5 listed." Irrelevant. "asserting that blurb nominations you dislike invalidate the RD line is absurd." Great then because no such thing was done, there is no personal dislike for anything to do with the nom. There is certainly a dislike where blurb noms are thrown around without anything to justify them.
    That Oliver Tree was even nominated at all for a blurb is an argument for the case against these frivolous noms not for them. There isn't any hyperbole in stating the plain fact that RD's for people editors are personally interested in or "like" are being nominated for blurbs without anything to show for how they meet WP:ITNRDBLURB. I suspect this is the case since the last effort to reform ITN and RD failed and has emboldened these. I've been ignoring some of these as they were infrequent, but certainly no more. Gotitbro (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that I specifically wrote that I did not ask for a blurb in the nomination. This was not a "blurb nomination", and I specifically wanted to avoid arguments like this and to purely focus on this as an RD nomination. So much for that, I guess. Although I am not against a blurb, I am more indifferent about one than anything. I can never tell what RD warrants a blurb or not, because every conversation about one seems to devolve into a series of arguments, and I wonder whether recent deaths should be detached from ITN entirely and be its own box on the main page. Doc Strange (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether recent deaths should be detached from ITN entirely and be its own box on the main page
    Don't hold your breath any proposal to reform the Main Page particularly ITN will meet the usual shootdowns. Gotitbro (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb He happened to be executive of two major record labels that signed many popular artists at the time, and that's literally it. I don't think that his impact on the music industry comes even close to that of Quincy Jones or George Martin. His stature is comparable to that of Saul Zaentz from the film industry, who produced a record of three films that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD – Article is of a sufficient quality. Let's not derail this conversation with a discussion on whether to blurb or not. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb I don't believe he warrants a blurb. Setarip (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Blurb posted) RD/blurb: Alan Greenspan

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Alan Greenspan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, dies at the age of 100. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan (pictured) dies at the age of 100.
News source(s): The Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Level 5-vital article, B-class, former federal reserve chairman. EaglesFan37 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb Quite a major figure. So influential that the article calls him a "rock star" of economics and The Times obituary leads with "one of the giants of financial history". I've looked through the article; there's a lot of it and it seems quite good. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Internal wiki assessments of coverage quality hold no water for WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb though I would suggest editing the blurb to "Former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve" (adding United States) and hotlinking "Federal Reserve". QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Comment RD exists for a reason. We are not going to be blurbing cabinet officials just because they were from the US and were influential in that role. Signficance beyond that will have to be shown in clear terms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He wasn't a cabinet official; he was the pre-eminent central banker during the terms of four presidents of both parties. That's more than Kissinger, for example, whose death was blurbed at ITN. Interestingly, Kissinger also died at age 100. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Kissinger was not solely notable for his governmental service. And comparing Kissinger's role as secretary of state to Greenspan's as FRS chairman is hardly tenable. Gotitbro (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro As more obituaries are coming out, here are how the sources are describing him:
    New York Times: The pre-eminent economic policymaker of his time and arguably the most recognizable economist of any era, [13]
    NPR: Greenspan was the rare celebrity among central bankers, lionized for his economic stewardship in the 1990s. At a time when it seemed every barbershop had a television tuned to the stock market channel, ordinary Americans hung on the Fed chairman's every word. [14]
    Wall Street Journal: The ‘maestro’ rivaled the U.S. president for global influence. [15]
    BBC: architect of the modern American economy [16]
    Washington Post: most powerful central banker of modern times [17]
    He's also the husband of Andrea Mitchell. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EaglesFan37: I've struck an outright oppose. But all of that which is written above needs to be in the main article, specifically the article should expand on why he was "architect of the modern American economy", "arguably the most recognizable economist of any era", "most powerful central banker of modern times" etc. Otherwise I'd have to treat them as merely positive obituaries. Gotitbro (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats the gist of my comment below. The impact needs to be ckearly explained in the body with sources. Justbthrowing them here at ITN doesnt help, the reader needs to ve able to easily see them in the article. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: & @Gotitbro: Expanded his death section. Might actually split it into a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still unconvinced. There is a lot in the article for how he may have been responsible for the housing crisis. But almost nothing on how he "shaped" the modern American economy beyond passing mentions. Gotitbro (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is reasonable justification for a blurb but hus impact needs to be made much more clear in the body of the article as a quality metric for posting. The section "reception" probably should be called "legacy" and more explicit discussion of why he was considered a major influence on the current us economy today (good or bad) needs to be there as part of that. Masem (t) 12:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Hugely influential central banker, clear evidence of being transformative in his field. Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on quality. Support after article quality was met. Setarip (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Setarip: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sufficient now. I would say Support now. Setarip (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - All tags are now dealt with fairly, after considerable and laudable effort by editors, and seeing as Greenspan is/was a historic financial icon, this seems a valid blurb. Argumentation regarding “bias” is unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Massively transformational on the economy both in America and globally, and has a solid Legacy section to boot. He easily warrants a blurb. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyTheTiger: Please do not ... add simple 'support!' or 'oppose!' votes without including your reasons (WP:ITNCDONT). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD just an old American man dying of natural causes. Skyshiftertalk 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb: Highly influential economist who played a major role during the 2008 financial crisis. Article has been substantially improved in the last few days. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb to get it posted quickly. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurb to get it posted quickly Sorry but this is no rationale at all. Gotitbro (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Admins willing to post ITN: appears that the RD is ready, at least, and there may be consensus for a blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb posted – Schwede66 19:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blurb. The whole point of the recent deaths bar was to stop the news feed from become the deaths feed. Now the recent deaths bar features literally anyone, and there's a blurb death every week. At the very least restrict it to maybe 3 people per year and only those who are still active.
    Sheila1988 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but I disagree. We only post extremely influential figures as death blurbs whose deaths also covered globally. If we limit death blurbs to a certain amount, that means let's say we've reached the three cap and suddenly a former U.S. president dies or UK PM or a political figure is assassinated, you're telling me they should be denied a blurb because we've reached a cap? Also, when we post death blurbs, most of the time there is a strong consensus for posting i.e. Ted Turner and Jane Goodall are the most recent to come to mind that had an overwhelming support for blurb. If there's a consensus for a death to be posted as a blurb, I don't see why that's an issue. Deaths are stories especially when about influential figures (which is heavily considered and voted on in blurb discussions). Also 1-2 death blurbs (exaggerating) a month does not undermine nor ruins the point of the RD bar. Also arguing we should only blurb those who 'are active' entirely negates the impact an individual has when they die if they're a former world leader or a retired/old singer, musician, biologist, writer or Nobel laurate. That's why for a death nom to be seriously considered for a blurb (IMO at least) several users look for how the article highlights how impactful/influential they are in their fields or if the article has a legacy section that rightfully demonstrates this. Not every economist, nobel winner, computer scientist, businessman, biologist, activist, etc. has a legacy section and the ones that do either does or should at the very least demonstrate why they're at the top of their field and stand out than others in their field. Once again look at Ted Turner. In some cases where the "death" is the story look at Fernando Villavicencio or Bajrakitiyabha or Miguel Uribe Turbay where their deaths are a major news story that has major impacts to their country and quite possibly their region, these people's deaths were rightfully blurbed because as such happened and their articles demonstrated as such. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs better blurb If we're going to be posting figures like Greenspan, a blurb that points to notability is needed. Otherwise, to the majority of the planet who've not heard of him, it really looks like any USA former cabinet member gets a blurb. For that impression alone I would oppose blurb until it's improved. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Resignation of Keir Starmer

[edit]
Proposed image
Keir Starmer
Articles: 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis (talk · history · tag) and 2026 Makerfield by-election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer resigns as Prime Minister following the return of Andy Burnham to Parliament admist a leadership crisis within the Labour Party. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer announces his resignation as Prime Minister following the return of Andy Burnham to Parliament admist a leadership crisis within the Labour Party.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Keir Starmer announces his intention to resign as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Hasn't occurred yet, but given the gravity of this, we should prolly look at the articles' quality and workshop in time for posting on Monday. — Knightoftheswords 22:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Reopening now that it's happened — Knightoftheswords 08:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't happened, it's just expected to.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it would be reopened rather than renominated. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No point in having two discussions for the same event simply because OP jumped the gun. It was almost certain this was coming, but it shouldn't have been posted until it actually did (WP:CRYSTAL and all). PolarManne (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes however every reply in the closed nom is just complaining about it being early. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed them so the discussion should now be clearer. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Major news story along with following leadership election, follows president from previous ITN articles for UK PM resignations. HowlongForever (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support with revised wording. The wording would need to change. He has not resigned, he has announced his resignation. His actual resignation will come later in the year. — Czello (music) 08:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2. I think the first blurb is overburdened with information and introduces too much of a narrative. Let's stick to the top-level news. — Czello (music) 09:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2 - Significant event in UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the format we used when the same situation exited for Johnson was a simple "announces his intention to resign" - [18] Proposing altblurb2 along those lines, which is what we should likely go for to avoid excessive detail and editorialising. I don't think we should mention Burnham or picture him at this point, he's only one possible candidate for the job and to avoid accusations of bias or meddling, we should not be showing any favouritism or special treatment for one candidate in the run up to an election.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Burnham election should be mentioned since it was the catalyst for the resignation and leadership contest and received pretty widespread, international coverage. Also, even with WP:CRYSTAL concerns, when factored in with what was already stated, the fact that Burnham is likely to have an effective coronation is also a factor here, unlike the post-BoJo leader contest. — Knightoftheswords 08:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If and when the "coronation" of Burnham becomes official, we can amend any blurb that we've already posted at that point. And of course when the new PM eventually takes over, we're going to blurb that event too. But until then, with the possibility that Streeting or others might run, we absolutely should not IMHO suggest that any one candidate is favoured over overs, irrespective of any catalysts.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - This should probably count as ITNR considering it's an impending change in head of government. Either way this is important enough to post and no quality issues either. PolarManne (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is posted, it should be clear that Starmer has only resigned as leader of his political party. His expected resignation as Prime Minister will likely happen at a later unspecified date. CMD (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unhelpful distinction. The Guardian's top headline says 'Starmer announces resignation as prime minister and leader of the Labour party'; his statement specifically said that he will remain in office as prime minister until the new leader is chosen. So he's announced his resignation as prime minister and the way in which that will take effect. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very important distinction. Starmer will remain the prime minister for the near future, and the announcement does not change the way any change will take effect (presumably he will at some point submit his resignation to the King, and the King will appoint a successor very shortly afterwards). We should ensure our main page wording is accurate. Inaccurate media around these sorts of things impacts us directly, for example with editors changing position holders in infoboxes before the position holder actually changes. CMD (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On that, I agree with you - and you will see that I have endorsed alt2, which maintains this distinction. (The appointment of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury led to a lot of people prematurely changing office-holder entries across the wiki, so I have seen the effect this can have.) But I don't think it helps us to pretend that the news isn't that Starmer has announced that he's quitting as PM. He's spoken to the King about it, which other party leaders - even those who are Privy Counselors - would not have to do. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was that we should be clear with our wording for an ITN/C submission where the original blub says "Keir Starmer resigns as Prime Minister". There are probably a number of altblurb wordings that will be able to achieve that, my opposition would not be to those and I trust the consensus-reading admin on their reading of the finally chosen blurb. CMD (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - It remains my position that changes such as this, where a definite intention is formally announced but does not take effect immediately, should be posted in response to the announcement and not wait for it to take its final effect. This is without prejudice to the later posting of the actual leadership change, once the new leader is identified and the transition occurs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Close Now it's clear that he's not resigned as PM, can we end this now? He remains as the Prime Minister at least for another month, and more likely into September. And there's no indication of who or what will replace him (another cabbage perhaps?). Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an altburb I think will work great though, he's announced his intent to resign and that's exactly what altblurb2 says. How do you feel about the altblurb? Aaron.Reber13 (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - In the news, obviously, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 per previous PM resignations Note that both Johnson and Truss remained PM until their successor was appointed, and we posted both Johnson's and Truss's resignations on the day they resigned. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 2: for 2 reasons
  1. he has only announced his resignation it has not yet come into effect
  2. it's short and quite punchy a good thing since the in the news section is very cluttered as of recently so it its best if we save space and keep that section tidy
thanks,
Daisytheduck quack quack 10:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 2: Keep it simple. Shakya2007 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2, for simplicity. Renerpho (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've once proposed to introduce a minimum period of discussion before posting in order to make sure that everyone on the planet has the chance to comment in a reasonable period of the day and it was rejected. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat sympathetic to this because we have had stories posted (and sometimes pulled) which would have benefited from wider discussion, but it's one of those things that's difficult to put in a coherent policy, though. If we put a time limit on it, we'd just have to IAR it every time there was an obvious major story which would always be getting posted (the death of Queen Elizabth, for example, was posted in seven minutes), or else we'd just be inundated with "why haven't you..." regardless of the fact that ITN isn't a news ticker. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    inundated with "why haven't you..." Isn't it great that those trying that as a "vote" and treating enwiki as Wikinews can be very well ignored. I'd think so. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and oppose I'm seeing 2.5 hours: 8:31-11:05. We need to be more cautious with Anglo-centric noms. We already post new leaders; it shows considerable bias to post departure of the old one, especially in a country with such high turnover in the post. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and oppose "Intention" to resign and this is rushed to the main page without any substantial community input. Couldn't be a better example of a supervote (Sandstein) than this. Sorry, intending to do something can simply not meet WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: in this context, 'intention to resign' doesn't just mean that he vaguely feels like doing it. It means he's setting in process formal measures which will lead directly to his replacement as party leader and prime minister. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "intention to resign" means. It is UK legalese which means "I resign", used because the person resigning is still technically Prime Minister until their successor is appointed. We have posted these each of the four times this has previously happened, going back to 2007. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Resign" not necessarily mean "resign immediately"? I thought it was safe to say "Keir Starmer has resigned" or "has resigned effective <date>" or "has resigned pending <condition>". QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence the legalese "intention to resign". Can't use "effective <date>" because it could take a few weeks or a few months, depending on whether there's a succession election (the former is looking more likely). Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to phrase it in plain English then rather than legalese, "Keir Starmer announces his resignation" is perfectly clear enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because he only announced his resignation as leader of the party, @Filelakeshoe. If we said that it could imply they also renounced their resignation as Prime Minister. Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: He's still the PM and past blurbs shouldn't affect procedural flaws here. If this is "legalese" and he's actually resigned, the blurb should reflect that. But I'd still oppose, "resigning" while actually staying in power for an elongated period renders that term meaningless ergo the UK legalese actually appears to be quite valid.
I've also undone the your collapse of the initial comments, either a separate nom should've been opened or those editors pinged but a collapse with this rationale does not hold: This nomination was previously opened before the event, this collapsed section contains opposes for that reason. Certain comments there even deferred to an actual change for the head of govt. (ITNR). Also the "event" being, that same as yesterday, no resignation has actually taken place.
@Sandstein: Were any of those collapsed comments taken into account. I think not. Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed those comments (and I'm going to collapse them again in a minute) because the nominator re-opened the old nomination (which was closed because the event hadn't happened yet) instead of starting a new one, which they should have done. Therefore, those comments don't belong to this nomination. Don't do that again, please. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather than muddying up the closed discussion by collapsing and tacking onto it. Why shouldn't it have been closed again?
A fair assessment can hardly be for this posting made when such flaws and confusion right from the nom, to the comments, to the blurb glaringly exist. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would have done that, but the reopened one already had a lot of comments when I first saw it, so it was the lesser of two evils. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Gotitbro, I do not think I cast a "supervote". There was near unanimous consensus to post. It is immaterial who was asleep or awake at which time, since Wikipedia is a global project and there is no minimum time requirement for ITN discussions. I did not take into account the collapsed comments, which applied to a premature nomination and became irrelevant as soon as the resignation actually happened. Sandstein 13:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not an insignificant ammount of comments above note the mere hours that passed between the nomination being re-opened and then being blurbed. An ITN assessment based only on a flurry of initial comment is hard to construe as "unanimous consensus" when clearly only those with an ongoing interest would be the initial editors here.
Even an ITNR post that quick would raise questions but this of course is not that either. Nor did the rushed posting allow any discussion on the misleading blurb that is currently up (intention et. al.) to develop. Gotitbro (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He has 100% resigned @Gotitbro. He announced his resignation as party leader. He did not announce his resignation as Prime Minister. They are two different things - though invariably the same thing. Lots can (but probably won't) happen between now and then. It's not unprecedented for the resignation of a party leader to be withdrawn (though I don't think that this will happen). Less unprecedented is a former leader deciding to run in the leadership campaign; though that sounds unlikely from his speech. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: This is what the Keir Starmer article states directly in the lead [emphasis mine]:

Sir Keir Rodney Starmer (born 2 September 1962) is a British politician and lawyer who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2024, and as Leader of the Labour Party since 2020. Starmer announced his resignation from both positions on 22 June 2026, and will remain in office until the conclusion of the Labour Party leadership election.

This is what the 2026 Labour Party leadership election (UK) says in its lead:

The 2026 Labour Party leadership election is an upcoming election triggered by Keir Starmer's resignation as Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister on 22 June 2026.

If what you state is true, these articles should be nowhere near the main page. The blurb itself is wholly incorrect then both for the PM/Labour issue and the "intention" one. Keir Starmer (pictured) announces his intention to resign as prime minister of the United Kingdom. He has announced his resignation period (there is no intention there in the normal sense of the word) whether he's actually resigned is a different ballgame altogether as well. Gotitbro (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I listed to his 1 AM PT speech, @Gotitbro just before I opposed and suggested, but I wasn't trying to remember it. Let's find a transcript. Washington post has it, unusually not firewalled. It says "That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party" and then later " I will remain in post as prime minister until the contest is complete, and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power ...". In terms of his replacement he said "I will ask the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to set out a timetable with nominations opening on the 9th of July. And completed by the summer recess. In the case of a contest, this will ensure a new leader is in place before Parliament returns in September." All seems very premature to me. I suppose it's possible there'll only be a single candidate (be it animal, vegetable, or mineral :) ), but that isn't normal. Parliament is scheduled to return after the summer recess on September 1, 2026. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"mineral" I see WP:CRYSTALs here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues with the blurb, as he has announced his "intention" to resign, but has not yet resigned (and will not resign) until July at the earliest. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Intention is misleading. He hasn't announced that he "may" resign, he simply said he would resign. Our articles don't make any mention of intention either. If we're already qualifying it as an announcement, no need to add additional misdirection in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support Very well written and well sourced. Definitely a major event. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support I agree this may have been posted too soon given that U.S. editors are just logging on. However, I support posting this item; it is clearly in the news, and there is ample precedent for posting both the announcement of the resignation and the resignation itself: David Cameron (announcement, resignation), Theresa May (announcement, resignation), Boris Johnson (announcement, resignation), Liz Truss (announcement, resignation). Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-posting support After seeing the multiple examples of ITN posting both the resignation announcement and the replacement, I now echo the reasons of Davey2116 above. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It can very well be argued that those "announcements" shouldn't have been posted either. The actual resignations and subsequent successors all are covered by ITNR. So that is a moot point as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The German Wikipedia posted the Makerfield result at the weekend and has already posted the resignation today. The English Wikipedia should likewise keep up with such English news per WP:ITNPURPOSE, To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    but we are not a newspaper and while we can be up to date, we should not rush things to the front page without making sure quality is there and the topic presented appropriately for the world readership. Waiting a few more hours to make sure there was clear consensus to !vote would have hurt no one. Masem (t) 15:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The two articles in question were both started over a month ago, have had plenty of attention since and so are quite mature now. The news was expected and is not a surprise. So, there was nothing to wait for. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    sure, having foresight yo build out the articles can help with a quick turnaround at ITN, but still shpuld verify what the actual details are, making sure we are posting at the right point rir the event, and to make sure the update if sufficiently of quality and covers the actual event (just like asking for game recaps). Not that these weren't there in this case, but waiting a few hours to get more confidence on the !votes from a wider segment of the world editors harms nothing. Masem (t) 15:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic was nominated two days ago and so Masem and the other nay-sayers have had plenty of opportunity to consider the matter. Instead of discussing it, they chose to speedily close that nomination in just 72 minutes. See the Golden Rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the older comments are under no consideration, complaints about them should have no bearing either. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be pointy. Should we start a thread about posting the death of King Charles III just in case? (no, the answer is no). Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of WP:POINT is that we should use discussion rather than direct action to resolve disputes. Speedily closing discussions is therefore disruptive because it obstructs such discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the re-opening of a closed nom that needs to be questioned. Not why a crystal nom was astutely closed. Editors opening/re-opening them should be the ones this POINT needs to be raised to. Gotitbro (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been told @Andrew Davidson multiple times that this isn't a newspaper. Why do you persist only hours after an event, to pretend this is a news ticker? Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The people to whom I pay most attention are our readers. In this case, their top 5 ranking of people yesterday was:
    1. Andy Burnham
    2. Keir Starmer
    3. Lionel Messi
    4. Clive Davis
    5. Alan Greenspan
    This proves that we are discussing the right topics and that we should get on with posting them as there seems to be comparatively little interest in Le Mans, ice-hockey, basketball – stale sport which should scroll off now.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARPAGE (this will be my standard cite from now on for any of this). Readers and those interested in page view features can download Wikipedia Mobile which features the top 10 in a 24 hour cycle at its home page. I did, you can too.
    The main page otherwise isn't a place for these and about time you put these to rest. Not a single editor has ever agreed with these arguments. Gotitbro (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARPAGE is WP:MISUSE as it's an essay about a different process. For several editors who agree with my position see Page views and significance: Viewership is a core component of WP:ITNPURPOSE #1 ... it is still a reason to support ...
    Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a perfectly valid cite of a guideline (rationale expanded above in another thread).
    No point in citing discussions that lead to nowhere. The only purpose your reference to page views does is derail discussions without any substantial rationales to show for blurb justifications, beyond an article being a trending topic on the internet. Time you stop this. Gotitbro (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already opposed, though I remain perplexed why this would be posted. Effectively the election has been called, and we are posting the news now, rather than when there is a result. I'd suggest pulling this, which got decided without thorough discussion. We would not have blurbed this for Tonga. Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that was my point really. We tend to post the resignations of major leaders quite quickly. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well known leaders. I'm not sure Starmer is that. Even when I talk to expat Brits, the response frequently surprises me as "Who?" Compared to when I mention Trudeau to foreigners, who sound a bit indignant that I might think they wouldn't know who he is. Though perhaps more famous now than when he was PM by a younger generation than I. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Cannot be a known name when the country's cycled through premiers almost every year in the last decade. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support per above. Setarip (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Article in good shape. If we wait to post Starmer's resignation when Burnham is elected as his replacement in July (if uncontested) it would be old news. Starmer's resignation is making global headlines plus it kinda resolves the Labour leadership crisis which had been ongoing since May. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting then, @TDKR Chicago 101, that we don't post the invitation by the King, which is when the PM-elect becomes PM (well a few seconds later when they say yes). Likely before the September 1 resumption of Parliament. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm saying is that Starmer's resignation should be treated separately than his successor's election. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though both his resignation as PM would be after his successor's election? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes these routine resignations anymore special than the Bulgarian political crisis (2021–2026) of which we haven't ever featured an "announcement" or even a resignation. Hmm... there might be something other than notability rushing these to the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose one could argue that such an event for a major nation that's a permanent security council member, or has a huge population like India is simply more notable than a minnow. Bulgaria is no bigger than Scotland, and I don't think we blurbed the recent ins-and-outs there (correct me if I'm wrong). Which suggests it might not be language-based bias. Maybe this is something we just accept - though perhaps not codify. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We didn't blurb Scotland and good for that. But it is bias when posts about events especially in the UK/US are rushed to the main page stemming from a pre-determined notability which isn't accorded to others. As I've often said elections and sports are by far the best represented topics at ITN, and there is nothing to be gained there by adding announcements just for certain countries. Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What we gain is that ITN is posting something rather than nothing. Just look at the current blurbs. Starmer is the only fresh blurb as the other two are sports results from 10 days ago. ITN is failing to keep up with what's actually in the news and it looks bad. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What does look bad is misleading blurbs or blurbs the reader would on the face of it be confused as to what they're doing on the main page at all ('Starmer "intends" to resign? Big deal, tell me when he actually does' would be my impression).
    And I can assure you that the Main Page is not driving traffic of any significance to any article (a mere look at the Top 25 will tell one that), that is not the criteria it has nor does ITN. Breaking news was the domain of Wikinews and ITN shouldn't be picking up its tabs. The focus should be on encyclopedic articles that are in the news, not news articles that are inserted into the encyclopedia. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the UK. For example, ITN posted "Miloš Vučević announces that he will resign as prime minister of Serbia following anti-corruption protests..." in Feb 2025. Per his article, "Vučević's resignation was acknowledged by the National Assembly on 19 March. He remained in acting capacity until the election of Đuro Macut on 16 April." Andrew🐉(talk) 06:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would've opposed that as well. There is a difference still between a known process of resignation and change vs. one where a premier "intends" to resign with no clear process for when that happens or how. Gotitbro (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'd better make up our minds, possibly by RfC on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull We'll post this again when we he leaves office. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting oppose We don't post resignations, we post transitions. Unless there is no plan to post Burnham's appointment as PM in 3 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support. I didn't !vote before because this was posted before I saw the nomination, and the outcome seemed obvious. But given others are opposing... This is clearly a big deal and in the news now. In the Westminster system, it's not unusual for a prime minster to resign before their successor is known, then remaining in office in a purely caretaker capacity while that's sorted out. In this case it's highly likely to be Burnham, but that's not certain yet and would be WP:CRYSTAL. We don't even know when that might be, because it depends whether there's a full contest within the Labour party. I don't see any problem with posting the blurb now, and either updating it or posting a new one when the successor is determined. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ethiopian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Ethiopian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The incumbent Prime Minister's Abiy Ahmed's (pictured) Prosperity Party wins a supermajority of the House of Peoples' Representatives' seats in the Ethiopian general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ According to official results, prime minister Abiy Ahmed's (pictured) Prosperity Party retains its majority in the Ethiopian general election.
News source(s): BBC News
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: Article needs the official results and seats added, also expansion as to the legitimacy of the elections given the result and that vast areas of the country were unable to vote at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

QalasQalas (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@QalasQalas: Is there a source calling it so? There are different levels of sham elections. If this was outright staged then the current article and sources do not claim this at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to a talk page discussion showing that there's a consensus in favor of "sham elections" 👍 And for convenience, I'll reproduce this comment again:

Admin note The event is WP:ITN/R and anyone who argues that this shouldn't be posted because it's a sham election will have their input discarded. If you want to argue that point, Wikipedia talk:In the news is the place to do so.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait article is very bare bones. Scuba 13:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is ITNR, the article in its current state is lackluster and in my view not detailed enough to warrant posting yet. In addition, no detailed election results have been published (only number of seats won by the ruling party), and as such the article cannot depict that. I would at the very least await more detailed results. Gust Justice (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until counting is completed and final results are announced. Currently, the article is deficient of that. ACMehta (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a wise idea because preliminary results usually contain a lot of weight and political parties or independent candidates would declare victory based off of those results. On 3 May 2025, an entry was added to the in the news section about the 2025 Australian federal election but counting took place in that election for about a month afterwards. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Article is not very large currently so there is probably a lot of material from the election that is not included. I disagree with @QalasQalas that this is a sham election as there is not concrete evidence supporting that claim in the article or that you have provided, additionally we would probably cover the election even if it were a sham but change the blurb, this section covered the 2024 Russian presidential election which was widely criticised as a sham (not the nomination, the election itself). Qwerty123M (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Tigray region was not included in the election. I'll add a an altblurb focusing on the announcing of results to follow precedent for questionable elections. Bremps... 15:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Tacloban school shooting

[edit]
Article: 2026 Tacloban school shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Philippines, a school shooting leaves 3 people dead and 20 others injured. (Post)
News source(s): BusinessMirror NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A rare event for the Philippines, large amount of casualties, and good quality. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Colombian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Colombian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured), a far right lawyer and politician wins with 49.66% over Iván Cepeda's 48.70% in the second round of the Colombian presidential election, becoming the most voted presidential candidate in Colombian history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Far-right lawyer and politician Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) wins the second round of the Colombian presidential election with 49.66% of the vote over Iván Cepeda's 48.70%.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) wins the run-off Colombian presidential election.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) is elected as the president of Colombia. 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: First domino in the end of the Pink tide. This super el-nino really changing the world, huh!? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What does "most voted" mean? Do you mean "most supported"? Also, there is no reason to say "described far right". De la Espriella is about as far right as you can get. Just say he's a far right politician. No one would argue with that. Nosferattus (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the wording in the election article, it says that he is the most voted for presidential candidate in the entirety of the history of the Colombian republic. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this means "got the most votes", but that is odd wording. Natg 19 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue with that. Looking at his policy, it would be a stretch to call him far right. If media called him that it's safer to say "described as". Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We typically post election results, instead of the actual inauguration day, except for special circumstances. Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality but Support Alternative blurb 2 A presidential election is usually notable and alt blurb 2 is the most concise. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never seen an election blurb with a political stance mentioned on it (not even either Trump election). Nor does this seem to be the coup de grace of the pink tide if the map on that article shows a lot more blue in 2018, when Mexico and Brazil were on that side. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - the results are clearly unfinished and the numbers in the lead and infobox don't even add up. But when ready, support alt2, keep it simple. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Neither Cepeda nor outgoing president Petro have conceded to the results and are both waiting for the escrutinio (thorough vote counting) which might throw different results to the preliminary counting. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 12:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt3 after the abroad vote section of results is completed, currently its empty and without any source. Rest article seems sufficient and complete ACMehta (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now The BBC acknowledged El Tigre as the winner last night, so barring pretty much every other news agency refusing to acknoledge a winner, we should follow the sources. Oppose on Quality There is an orange tagged section and the article feels very table heavy. Also, the first round foreign vote section has no numbers. Finally, the second paragraph of the lead has no sources and disagrees with the rest of the article (specifically, it says there were 13 candidates in the first round of voting but the candidates section shows 16). ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this article, the more problems I find. The article needs to be flipped chronologically (so that later polls and voting rounds follow earlier ones). There are about 8 citations that are never defined. There are a couple of dubious claims in the lead (including the claim that Petro is the first leftwing president of Columbia, which someone on the talk page claims is false), and it seems that a sockpuppet may have dumped a bunch of halucinated text into the article. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-36471-65 are you going to work on the article? Feel free to do it with reliable sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update Cepeda has just conceded defeat. Time to post, once the quality issues have been resolved. @Sr. Knowthing @Moscow Mule _-_Alsor (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-2, with the focus on the winner (article is just about ok, so good to go now) rather than the election (work still needed). And "the Colombian presidential election run-off" reads better, I think, than "the run-off Colombian presidential election". Moscow Mule (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support should I renominate Peru? It has been called by all major news sites now. Rushtheeditor (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support he's been the declared winner by election authorities now. Scuba 14:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality still The article simply isn't good enough regarding tables and citations (or both). Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1361709280"