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.

Keiko Fujimori in June 2026
Keiko Fujimori

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.

July 7

[edit]

Negombo prison riot

[edit]
Article: 2026 Negombo prison riot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A riot between rival inmate groups at Negombo Prison in Sri Lanka leaves at least 27 people dead and more than 100 injured, including prison officers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Clashes between rival drug gangs at Negombo Prison in Sri Lanka kill at least 27 people and injure more than 100 others
News source(s): Reuters
Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A major prison riot resulting in 27 deaths and more than 100 injuries, including deaths among prison officers. The incident received international coverage and led to official investigations into prison security and organised crime within Sri Lanka's correctional system. See U in world (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

[edit]

(Closed) Balogun red card controversy

[edit]
SNOW close. SpencerT•C 13:07, 7 July 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 Trump–FIFA red card controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ FIFA's decision to delay Folarin Balogun's red card suspension at the 2026 FIFA World Cup causes major controversy over the interference of politics in sports. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ FIFA's decision to delay Folarin Balogun's red card suspension before United States vs Belgium match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup causes major controversy over the interference of politics in sports.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: A major controversy with huge repercussions over the interference of politics in sports that receives global front-page coverage. --~2026-38459-70 (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another Trump drama. Covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article shouldn't even exist per WP:NTRUMP HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTRUMP is an essay not policy, and it should be noted that not everything Trump does is tabloid drama. FIFA being corrupt/political is noteworthy and this is being widely reported. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Platonic ideal example of "Covered by Ongoing". There's basically a whole section on it there, though it's small. Not the biggest US-based news story of the week either. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is just another one controversy of this World Cup, so there's no point of highlighting this one specifically. NotKringe (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot Now that the US have been crushed by Belgium, the fuss will tend to fade fast. It further confirms that FIFA is corrupt but that's not news so we need some further development for this to have legs. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trump isn't even the issue here - he does stupid things like this all the time and it's not news. What is news is FIFA's response, because a non-corrupt sports administration would have told Trump to go forth and multiply. The issue of the governance of FIFA (see their response to the Belgian FA...words fail me) is clearly a news story but it shouldn't be couched purely in the terms of this particular incident, which given the match result has turned out to be irrelevant. Any other controversies are (at the moment) covered by the Ongoing. And yes, this article shouldn't exist, we have 2026_FIFA_World_Cup#Controversies for that. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated this for merging to List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. It is a prime example of how much excess detail ppl are writing on breaking news over some controversy (more opinions, less facts) without waiting to see how far it lasts. Masem (t) 11:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close WP is not a forum and ITN/C isn't either. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:21, 7 July 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.

Gaza Strip under Hamas

[edit]
Article: Gaza Strip under Hamas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hamas announces the dissolution of its Gaza Strip government amid the peace plan to end the Gaza war. (Post)Credits:

Nominator's comments: A big step to end the war. ArionStar (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on notability This is a major development in a war not covered by ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My understanding is that Gaza doesn't have much of a functioning civilian government already as its infrastructure has been devastated. The more significant issue is whether Hamas is still armed, functioning as a military force and occupying the territory. Civilian government lacks power if there's a force like this on its territory. That's the big problem in Lebanon, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your post is incorrect, there is a government there run by Hamas. See here. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – For one I would wait for the actual dissolution of the government and its replacement being developed, and also I don't think the update is quite extensive enough for it right now. I hope we can feature this article when the dissolution goes through, however. Might be the end of an era, depending on how this plays out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability. This shows that Hamas intends to comply with the demands of the UN, at least to demonstrate this. Wi1-ch (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the actual dissolution takes place, as said by Maplestrip. R. M. Holda - (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Carmelo Cedrún

[edit]
Article: Carmelo Cedrún (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Diario AS, La Vanguardia
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: Spanish football manager and player. Article seems to be referenced enough, and is long and detailed enough at 1855 characters. R. M. Holda - (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Add world cup knockouts

[edit]
Article: 2026 FIFA World Cup knockout stage (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Nominator's comments: Could I suggest adding, in the Ongoing section, a link to the Knockout stage of the World Cup? So it would render as FIFA World Cup ( Knockout Stage)? And we would periodically update to the next stages as the rounds advance. This isn't an error, so I didn't post on the Front Page Errors page. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

[edit]

2026 Women's T20 World Cup final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Women's T20 World Cup final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, the Women's T20 World Cup concludes with Australia defeating England in the final (player of the match Beth Mooney pictured). (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It's the second top competition in the women's cricket; equally as notable as the men's counterpart which is ITNR. Vestrian24Bio 11:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A quick search shows international coverage of the T20 World Cup Final, and I agree with the nominator that this should be treated equally to the Men's T20. The article is well-cited and is in good condition for posting. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance and support making Women's T20 ITNR. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready: Fails WP:ITNUPDATE's expected to contain a sizable written prose summary of the event itself, and not consist solely of peripheral aspects for standalone event articles. This means that "England innings" and "Australia innings" must be filled out with referenced prose. I've accordingly tagged those sections. Left guide (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide: done now. Vestrian24Bio 10:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Teejan Bai

[edit]
Article: Teejan Bai (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: Indian Singer. I will work on adding citations in the necessary places R. M. Holda - (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hayabusa2

[edit]
Proposed image
Artist's impression of Hayabusa2
Article: Hayabusa2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese satellite Hayabusa2 conducts a flyby of the asteroid 98943 Torifune. (Post)
News source(s): NHK The Japan Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It's not every day that an artificial satellite does this. ArionStar (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not quite an ITNR as there's a different target this mission will reach as its ultimate destination, in case that question is asked. Should not discourage from considering this as we've been lacking much interesting space exploration news. Masem (t) 17:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight support I think it's a special event and pretty interesting but I think the main article would have to say a lot more about this particular flyby to be able to be posted to ITN. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now the article on the satellite has almost nothing about this, no indication of significance in either the blurb or article. No evidence of international coverage. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quesion have we blurbed any other asteroid flybys in the past. Like, in general, not just some exceptional case (like the one that landed on it for example). NotKringe (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has posted at least five flybys: Pluto, the Moon, Titan, Ganymede and Ultima Thule. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We posted Hayabusa2's flyby of an asteroid in 2018 and Earth in 2020. Presumably many more 1brianm7 (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Andre Omer Siregar

[edit]
Article: Andre Omer Siregar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kabar24
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: Indonesian diplomat; former presidential interpreter and consul general in two different countries. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article needs to be rewritten. There very few wikilinks, it reads in part like an advert and the text just sounds unnatural. Especially the early life section, needs an overhaul. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2026 Ethiopian general election

[edit]
Stale. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 5 July 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 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]
Oppose Election results in little to no change of power. Stunts1990 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this stale now? Bremps... 16:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC
Agreed, this is stale, so it should not be posted (even if it was ready). Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 5 July 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) 2026 Colombian presidential election

[edit]
Stale, not sure why it was resurrected. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 5 July 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 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]
Support Extremely notable presidential election. Stunts1990 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stunts1990 once an item rolls off this page, it is considered stale, and it should not be "rescued" from the archives, except for rare circumstances. The other condition for staleness is whether this event is older than the lowest blurb of the ITN template. Currently, this is the Venezuelan earthquakes with a listed date of June 24, so this election is also stale by that condition. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 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.

July 4

[edit]

(Closed) 250th anniversary of American independence celebration

[edit]
Consensus is against posting. No need to extend this discussion any further. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 5 July 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: United States Semiquincentennial (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Celebrations begin across the United States for the United States Semiquincentennial. (Post)Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sure, it's the fourth every year, but this particular year has a Wikipedia article and for good reason. It's qualitatively different from last year. 🦅 Bremps... 20:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Liberty Bell... Khuft (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this is Americentric to just post our anniversary. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, maybe even Neutral. Good faith, and in the nom's defense, this isn't an unreasonable blurb idea - there is an appropriate target article that's not too stubby, it's something being talked about in the news not just in the US but globally, and readers are likely to be interested in it. That's honestly all I really think any blurb should need to pass, so I have a hard time opposing this. It's not an unimportant milestone by any means, it's one of the most noteworthy ones of our lifetimes. Many of us won't live to see the next major anniversary of US independence in 2076 (and we can only hope Wikipedia will still be around then, and as free and independent as it is today). But this is arguably just a milestone, just a number more than an event; the thing being talked about around the world is that the United States turned 250, not any specific event that took place during the celebrations. I don't think this should be rapidly closed, though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to strong Support after recalling that we posted the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. We do post milestone celebrations at ITN. And when she passed, one hundred percent of sections on the main page were dedicated to her, and when I suggested it was a bit much, I received a lot of pushback saying that each section of the main page acts independently and what they do or do not post should not be affected by what anyone else is doing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    With the significant difference that, in the case of Queen Elizabeth, the supports of the nomination—though not on my part—were based on the exceptional achievement of a monarch reaching 70 years on the throne. A country celebrating 250 years is so common that there are countries that double or triple that figure...BTW, the mistakes of the past should not be taken as precedents. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporters of blurbing Elizabeth II's jubilee, even though it was just a celebration for an impressive number (no different from this), largely pointed to the fact that it would likely be the only such blurb they would ever get to post in their lifetime. This is no different, it's possible that we/ITN/Wikipedia won't be around for the 300th US anniversary, it's a once in a lifetime blurb. And if any other country has a major anniversary like this, then as long as it's "in the news" and we've got a nice article then I say we post theirs too. I don't want to permanently shut the door on them by enabling a precedent like "we didn't post America, why should we post country x?" also, less importantly, we posted the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II too  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See you next year, when the 251st anniversary is celebrated, also a once-in-a-lifetime event. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I immediately thought of the Centenary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918, attended by 72 heads of state and marking a global occasion. That wasn't even nominated. Though a negative proves nothing. I struggle to imagine how recent bicentennials of Latin American independence would ever be posted, or 50-75th anniversaries in Africa or Asia. But somebody will probably reply with a reason why this one is much better. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I would like to see us post blurbs of this variety for anniversaries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. One reason why I didn't want to strongly oppose this is, because this is probably the first last and only blurb discussion for a major US anniversary ITN will ever get to vote on, an immediate snow close of this would de facto set a lifelong precedent that no other countries' anniversaries are worth posting, when I'd much rather we post more, not less.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site for celebrating anniversaries. Why should we celebrate or post about India's or Canada's independence? They'll also be celebrating their 250th anniversary. That's not the point of all this. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DYK, TFA, and OTD can do the heavy lifting of acknowledging major country founding milestones, but unless something significant happens with any events, it would be improper to do this at ITN. Masem (t) 22:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, some have wondered if we are out of sync with the other parts of the MP, and so this would make us in sync if we posted this. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We celebrated April 1 and had discussions about International Women’s Day, so I don’t see why we can’t sync up with the MP here. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are extremely agnostic of any national ties. Masem (t) 01:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a Yank myself, this anniversary dominates three of the five sections of the main page and is present in one of the others. We don't need it in ITN. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course, and surprised there is opposition. This nationwide celebration marks a key anniversary of the formation of the nation that, among other things, created enough freedom for its citizens to become the birthplace of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom concerns the specific anniversary, not the formation of the US itself. Departure– (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are bills of rights and debates about civil liberties that predate the United States by a long time. So... _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask "So"? American independence remains an unprecedented ongoing experiment in human history, and its successes have shaped the human race into something much different than it was in 1776. The force and direction of the concept of liberty that American independence events magnified continue even to the point of every edit on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a distinctly American-centered view of history. The idea of liberty was shaped by centuries of developments across Europe (Magna Carta, medieval Christian political thought, Protestant Reformation, Valladolid debate) and beyond, not by a single revolution, and the United States' historical legacy includes both major advances (Virginia Declaration of Rights) and serious injustices (Condor Operation, slavery...). I don't think that belongs in Wikipedia's voice. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it was, and American took the past and present concepts of liberty and ran them down the field. Others had the ideas and preknowledge that someday, somewhere, those ideas would be expanded and tested. America then created the experiment, and well-earned cheers that they've held it together for 250 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This reply chain seems to be getting off-topic into WP:SOAP territory. Departure– (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose American exceptionalism rears its ugly head again. 250 years isn't significant, it's an arbitrary number and most of the world's existing nation-states predate this by a long way, even though national identity has not always been a key feature of governance in human history. In fact, statistically the average global citizen can probably easily find a building that is much older than the US in their nearest town without much trouble. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the point, look where civilization was 250 years ago and where it is now because of the freedoms brought forward in America's founding documents. This may be one of those either you know or you don't situations. Maybe look around you right now and check out how many things you can see or touch in real-time that wouldn't have existed if the American experiment in human freedom had gone another way. That might give just a small portion of the barriers removed and the amount of human progress encouraged by those documents drafted and agreed to 250 years ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is denying the influence of the American founding documents, but it is an overstatement to attribute modern “civilization” or broad social progress primarily to them. The development of rights, science, and constitutional government was already well underway across Europe and other parts of the world long before 1776, and later constitutions and human rights frameworks draw on multiple, interconnected and not-only-American traditions. The current international system for the protection of rights and freedoms was also largely shaped and institutionalised through European legal and political developments, and European jurists and courts. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to second what Departure said, this is WP:SOAP / WP:NOTFORUM and it really isn't helping our chances at seeing this posted, which I also support. Few will be persuaded by rationales along the lines of "we earned this blurb by being the best most important country ever & changing the course of world history by inventing freedom", that exceptionalist rationale is the total opposite of why I support. I want us to do this for everyone equally. I support because there's precedent for posting significant numerical anniversaries, because we consistently posted birthday blurbs for the same monarch every ten years, ITN surely won't be overwhelmed with too many blurbs if we post major national celebrations around the world at a rate of once or twice per century.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree. Irrespective of our opinions on these arguments in of themselves, this argument is not going to fly amongst a section of Wikipedia already subject to longstanding accusations from folks of anti-American bias. Similar to arguments of the US being somehow unimportant. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all above. Btw, no one has said US is "somehow unimportant" _-_Alsor (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should have added this to be in line with the main page in general, but alas, there’s less then ten minutes left in UTC time 😔. Ah, that’s British time anyway, so we could extend this to end when the day ends here in the states. Anyway, on a serious note, good anniversary receiving coverage, and Kryn is correct that it’s why we’re here on Wikipedia rn, but there are also OTD concerns. Weak Support since the rest of the main page already celebrated, but obviously it’s going to be posted out of sync. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 23:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom (and encyclopaedias) already existed long before 1776. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary freedom is an Anglo-American (and slightly French) creation, and America’s capitalist, can-do spirit and right to freedom expression is the reason why we have the largest repository of free knowledge on the planet. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I digress. My main reason for supporting has to do with the other MP parts doing it at the time. Also, for any other major national anniversary that received this level of special coverage, I would also consider supporting. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And actually switch to strong support, upon remembering the QE2 jubilees that we posted. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't you intend to bold your support? Wiki markup doesn't bold Right single quotation mark which is included on some keyboards. Departure– (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, I’m writing on my phone. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a notable and significant event, but the arguments of "America invented freedom so its anniversary deserves a blurb" are beyond ridiculous. So much for countering Wikipedia's Americentrism, huh? Loytra✨ 01:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very Americentric. I don't like comparisons, but the 150th anniversary of Canada was not posted, same with the 100th anniversary of the CCP. I do not see how this is any different. I would have not supported any of these nor the (completely unrelated) platinum jubilee. hungry (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I'm not convinced the celebrations and thereabouts themselves are notable. We can argue and bicker about whether or not the US is important for days on end, but at the end of the day, what makes 250 any more notable than 249, or for that matter, 256?
The specific America 250 celebrations and observances are the only thing I can think of being viable to blurb. As others have pointed out, it's not just some arbitrary milestone, inasmuch as it may seem to be. There are tangible things changing in the US to celebrate this specific day that they don't do every year. I'd say, to that end, the most apt comparisons are to the Diamond and Platinum Jubilees of the Queen. Looking at the archived discussion of the latter, my general understanding is that the consensus built was shaky, the posting itself controversial, and much of the sway being the specific recognition of the British monarch in places all over the world, not just within the United Kingdom, and, in particular for the Platinum, the fact that the Queen was one of history's oldest monarchs, being one of only a handful to even reign long enough to celebrate that Jubilee.
To that end, I think it's worth noting that a significant amount of coverage on this event has been on its blatant politicization in favor of the incumbent Republican government of the US. Is it, then, worth noting in the blurb that the celebrations for this milestone have been scaled down? I personally don't think there's any one altblurb that can adequately cover the level of context necessary to include it while also being short and concise enough to gain consensus over any other blurb. To that end, I'd feel uncomfortable leaving out such context in any blurb that does end up being posted. I don't necessarily believe that the concerns over America-centrism are bonafide to the level that this should be shot down based solely on that and this being a milestone. On the other hand, to say this event is not controversial within the United States, at this very moment in my nation's political climate, would be dishonest.
The way I see it, as an American, is that this Independence Day has been about average. Every effort to celebrate this year in particular over any other has been met by others withdrawing or otherwise reigning in their otherwise perennial celebrations. That is to say, the politicization of the Semiquincentennial has led to it not being of the scope or scale it would be otherwise. Thus, I can't support this as a feature. On the grounds, I've seen very little actually extraordinary about the celebrations and events today. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say a lot of them would nevertheless be occurring had the country been founded in 1775 or 1777. Dare I say, the politicization of this event has made it, in reality, more of a nationalistic advertising campaign than a genuine celebration of an otherwise arbitrary milestone.
While I disagree with their position and rationale, I think User:Vanilla Wizard summed it up best. A lot of the support !votes here really do read like we earned this blurb by being the best most important country ever & changing the course of world history by inventing freedom. Let me refine my thoughts on this blurb into as concise a way possible. This milestone, however arbitrary, is notable due to the celebrations taking place, however it's been politicized overtly and thus suffered the fate of feeling more like a marketing campaign than an wholehearted anniversary celebration. Seeing as anniversaries themselves are inconsistently handled, as per User:Unknown Temptation's rationale, including my own read of the Platinum Jubilee blurbs posted in 2022 as controversial and not necessarily sound, I think it's fair to say posting this after our platform already celebrated the semiquincentennial UTC 4 July would be tantamount to participating in publicizing an already heavily-publicized event with little actual importance in the world. It's all ceremonies at the end of the day. While ceremonies can be notable in some instances, I don't believe that these ceremonies meet that bar. Departure– (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And you say that I was the one into WP:SOAP territory. Your essay here is well thought out but misses the point of what the 'Support' editors are talking about, described, at least for me personally, above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not that deep hungry (talk) 03:06, 5 July 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.

July 3

[edit]

(Closed) Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

[edit]
Not a tabloid/WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 15:00, 4 July 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: Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce get married at Madison Square Garden. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Wedding of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Comedian Adam Sandler officiates the wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: As suggested by Launchballer at the article talk. Thank you! M. Billoo 09:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note how the "royal wedding" is put in quotation, since it's just a mere comparison the US media used to describe it. I doubt we're even gonna need a blurb a celebrity wedding, even if that said figure is on the calibre of, say, Michael Jackson. NotKringe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've blurbed Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, Albert and Charlene, and Harry and Meghan.--Launchballer 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how 3/4 of these blurbs involves British royals, and 3 of them were more than 15 years ago, back when the blurb standard were much lower. Harry and Meghan got a blurb mainly due to the sheer drama and controversies surrounding it. NotKringe (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspect that none of those would have been blurbed these days. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Calling it zero notable is baseless. International media is quoting it as "royal wedding" [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I have added another blurb. Otherwise, I may consider DYK. M. Billoo 10:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per @~2026-33354-92 Karteno (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that it is being compared to a royal wedding in the press doesn't mean that it is one, especially as it doesn't have all the implications for dynastic succession, etc. "Just" two major celebrities getting married. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not a fan or very interested in the event myself but it has clearly been getting huge coverage as I've been hearing regular bulletins here in the UK. As a popular spectacle, it's just as significant as all the sport that ITN promotes and the article looks to be top quality with lots of content and over a hundred citations so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, we don't blurb "popular spectacle" if it ends up amounted to nothing. We have a bunch of big events here and there like state funeral or wedding, yet none of these are getting blurb for simple fact that it doesn't change anything. NotKringe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close This can't be true. A singer and a sportsman are getting married... well, fine, congratulations to them. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We're not going to reach a (serious) consensus, so we should close the nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:29, 4 July 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.

(Posted) RD: Victoria Cruz

[edit]
Article: Victoria Cruz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York 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: Puerto Rican trans activist. Died June 25, death announced in reliable source today (July 3). Funcrunch (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good article, consider nominating.--Launchballer 09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: Bremps... 23:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Khamenei's funeral

[edit]
WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 22:31, 3 July 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
Ali Khamenei days before his death
Article: State funeral of Ali Khamenei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ali Khamenei's weeklong funeral ceremonies begin across Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The state funeral of Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran assassinated during the Iran war, is held, expecting millions of attendees. Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Iranians take this funeral stuff very seriously; 30 million (about a third of Iran) is expected to be in attendance. Technically also the funeral of his family members too. Bremps... 19:02, 3 July 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.

(Posted) RD: Roger Vangheluwe

[edit]
Article: Roger Vangheluwe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VRTNWS, De Standaard
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: Belgian former bishop, highest ranked Belgian clergy member accused of child sex abuse --Rolluik (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He died on 1 July, was burried in secret and it was only known today publically. Rolluik (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 Peru general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Peruvian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Keiko Fujimori (pictured) is elected as the president of Peru. (Post)
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In the 2026 Peruvian general election, Keiko Fujimori is declared the winner as president of Peru, becoming the first woman to be elected to the office.
News source(s): Reuters
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: ONPE has declared her the winner, and this is the article's new nomination. Rushtheeditor talk 01:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per before. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushtheeditor where is the reference that indicate that ONPE declared her winner? The references cited here were from last week! – robertsky (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Rushtheeditor (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted without consensus? ArionStar (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
itn/r Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushtheeditor thanks. that's the announcement of the winner of the election from last week. I thought we were waiting for an official proclamation from ONPE?
@ArionStar the consensus to post, albeit delayed, was already achieved at Special:Permalinl/1362285441#(URGENT)_2026_Peru_general_election. it seems that admins were waiting for the official proclamation to be made first anyway. – robertsky (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb 2 is better, in my opinion. ArionStar (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Dina Boluarte was the actual first female president of Peru (succeeding Castillo when he was impeached); being the first elected female president is less of an achievement. Also, the "is declared the winner" phrasing is one we usually use for dodgy elections. We shouldn't be implicitly saying the Peruvian election was not kosher. Khuft (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first woman elected is far more commendable than becoming president through a presidential succession. Boluarte was indeed the first—undoubtedly a historic achievement—but this time, the Peruvian people have, for the first time, freely chosen a woman to lead the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is commendable, but every election can lay claim to a "first" of some kind. Donald Trump was the first reality TV personality elected US president, for instance. First female head of state overall is usually considered the milestone worth highlighting. Khuft (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not fair to compare the first TV personality elected president of the U.S. with a woman elected president of a country for the first time. We’ve always highlighted the latter on this portal because, as is the case in Peru, there are many countries that still have a significant gender gap in their top leadership positions. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was posted slightly early, but it is finally official now: CNN Natg 19 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support I don't think we need to mention that she was the first woman 'elected' in the blurb. Boluarte was already President of Peru; the alt is technically true but could cause confusion for that reason. In addition, most of the RS are not mentioning her being the "first elected woman" in their article titles, so correspondingly we should not emphasize it in our blurb. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The opponent did not recognize her victory. ArionStar (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To this day, Donald Trump refuses to recognise Joe Biden's victory, so that fact alone doesn't invalidate posting Fujimori's win. Khuft (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Political opponents not acknowledging their defeat/making fraud claims/quite frankly being sore losers is becoming an increasingly common thing in general elections worldwide. If we make this a reason not to post an election because the other side is having a hard time admitting defeat/making unsustainable claims/conspiracy theories, nothing will get posted.
    We’d be feeding into their narrative of wanting to undermine their respective democratic process. Plus it goes without saying in most cases, these claims get tossed out in court or independent observers despite said claims. We should never oppose an election result getting posted to INT if the opposition refuses to concede or makes conspiracy theories about their defeat. The only instance would be if a higher court actively investigates the results or does find irregularities which then the election would be nulled (which that itself would be an ITN story). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to post, but I agree with the fact that the opponent's refusal to concede defeat makes the term "declared" more impartial. ArionStar (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we reserve "declared" language for Mr. Putin and his ilk. Bremps... 19:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

[edit]

RD: Lam Wing-kee

[edit]
Article: Lam Wing-kee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HKFP
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.

 – robertsky (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – Missing citations on the paragraph beginning with Three days later, on the day he was due to return.... Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Anna Dawson

[edit]
Article: Anna Dawson (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: English actress and singer Blondebeetle (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The references need some improvement work. Author names are missing for some sources (such as the BBC one), one of them has "Guide, British Comedy" as the author's name, and the last two references include the "by" in the author name. Also, Plex is used as a source in the article, but I'm a bit unsure about whether that's a good idea - does Plex gather the list of acting credits themselves, or is it just pulling them from something like IMDB? – numbermaniac 11:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Plex derives its credits from IMDb and TMDb, I would not consider it to be a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Roman Catholic / SSPX schism

[edit]
Article: 2026 Écône consecrations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, after all bishops from the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated for their involvement in an unauthorized consecration. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pope Leo XIV excommunicates all bishops and followers of the Society of Saint Pius X over a consecration dispute.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicates all priests in the Lefebvrist Society of Saint Pius X as the Society's leaders leave the Catholic Church by consecrating bishops without the approval of Pope Leo XIV.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Pope Leo XIV declares the Society of Saint Pius X to be schismatic and excomunicates its clergy and followers following unauthorized episcopal consecrations.
News source(s): Vatican News, NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lefebvrian schism is redlinked at Schism in Christianity and probably should be turned blue (although I'm not sure if that's the correct name for it), but either way, there's a paragraph at the consecration article on the excommunications. 156-year figure is per the Times article linked above, and per that article is a conservative estimate. Major schisms are rare, and major Catholic schisms rarer still, so I think this is ITN-worthy. But this is my first ITN nom ever (I think?), so I have no opinion on whether the article is currently ready, and/or whether someone should turn that redlink blue first.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. It is a major schism that has led to direct conflict with the Pope; it has received extensive and ongoing international coverage, and nearly 17,000 followers and clergy of the FSSPX are directly affected. The article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The passive voice in this blurb feels a bit weasel-ly and unnecessarily indirect. Perhaps something like: Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as the Vatican excommunicates members of the Society of Saint Pius X for consecrating bishops without the Pope's consent ? (I also wonder if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate"? I'm not familiar enough with Catholicism to know if e.g. "appointing bishops" would work.) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went with passive voice because, as a matter of Catholic canon law, the bishops were all excommunicated latae sententiae the moment they performed the consecration. So technically the Vatican didn't excommunicate them, but merely confirmed that the factual pattern had arisen that led to them excommunicating themselves. If there's a way to reword to something more active-voice, no objections, but I think you'd have to find an alternative to "... as the Vatican excommunicates ...". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a slightly longer/wordier blurb that clarifies who the active agent is in each part of this story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe "all clergy" is correct (nor is "and followers" in ALT1). Specifically it's the six bishops. The Times article says The decree against the Society of St. Pius X excommunicated at least 750 priests but links to [11], which says priests and followers will become excommunicated latae sententiae if they "adhere to the schism" (I assume meaning go to SSPX services), but technically doesn't say they're excommunicated yet. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my source was Vatican News [12], but it's possible I'm misinterpreting it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see where you're getting that from The excommunication newly separates the bishops and priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X from the Church of Rome. As for the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Fraternity are to be considered excommunicated, although it's carefully imprecise wording. I imagine sources aren't being too picky about this because, in practical terms, any priest who stayed with SSPX as it did something excommunicatable is unlikely to change their mind all of a sudden, so they probably are all excommunicated already, or will be shortly. Still, I think the best course is to mention the bishops' excommunication while being silent on whether anyone else is excommunicated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this NPR article explicitly says "all priests of the SSPX [...] were now in schism and excommunicated". I agree the exact state of things is confusing though. Thanks for explaining the logic behind the passive voice; I think your approach makes sense. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and the Associated Press also explicitly say the priests are excommunicated. The AP even emphasizes the number of priests affected: 750.
I think with three high quality sources, we shouldn't be afraid to say this in Wikivoice. The difference between 6 people and 756 people being affected is huge, and gives important context to why this is the largest schism in a while. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate", but one potential issue with my blurb is that "consecration" means several things in Catholicism. But the more specific "consecration of bishops" would be repetitive, and really both blurbs run into the problem of how do we succinctly say that all six people excommunicated were bishops, but two are the bishops who consecrated the other four. (And yes, the new four are still considered bishops by the Vatican despite having been immediately excommunicated for it.) Maybe... Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, after the participants in the Society of Saint Pius X's unauthorized consecration of bishops are excommunicated.? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as members of the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated for appointing bishops without Pope Leo XIV's consent? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For consecrating bishops. Canon law is clear on this, and it's what brought the excommunications forth. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support beat me to the nom. Significant, current, and news. Bremps... 21:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability The past tension between the Holy See and SSPX, which started in 1988 after the Écône consecrations, was only limited to the excommunication of six bishops that was later lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. This time around, with the 2026 Écône consecrations, it is clearly an escalation because the issued excommunication extends itself to all the clergy and the laity of SSPX. The schism has also reignited/continued tensions between Roman Catholics under the Holy See and Traditionalist Catholics under SSPX. I don't have a position on the article quality. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The last couple of paragraphs under Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans#History summarise the current situation. GAFCON insists they're the real Anglican Communion and everyone else is out of step, but they flinched from appointing a rival head of the Communion after Archbishop Mullally was appointed last year. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, its my first ITN, Thanks. This is the largest schism in centuries and is the most major event since the Second Vatican Council. Maybe add that Pope Leo XIV was the one who authorized the excommunication. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alts that include a vague "largest excommunication in 150 years" in the blurb. Even minus that, the matter-of-fact "The Society of St. Pius X is excommunicated" is more concise and demonstrates notability given the context in the article. Support on notability. Departure– (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

[edit]

Bosnia High Representative resignation

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christian Schmidt resigns as the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Principal Deputy Louis Crishock (pictured) being appointed as acting High Representative. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The OHR is de facto in charge of the Bosnian government through the Bonn Powers, while the position been held consistently by someone from an EU member state, and deputy from the US. The OHR very controversial, especially among Serbs. Schmidt's resignation was driven by US demands, with them and Europe coming to blows over his successor, which is seemingly part of the Trump admin's attempts to align with Dodik and to get infrastructure built by Trump's associates similar to what's in Albania with the Flamingo Revolution. The OHR article doesn't have any information on the resignation beyond the list update while Schmidt's artle has very little, and Crishock lacks one entirely so it really should be updated, I'll probably do it when I get up in the morning. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it’s ITNR. In any case, I think the sensible thing to do is to wait for Crishock’s article to be created or for the formal appointment of the new High Representative. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that only applies to the constitutional executive office, not the de facto one, so it's not ITNR. But it might be within the spirit of ITNR. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good point. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle because, as Feeglgeef notes, a change in the de facto head of government is in the spirit of ITNR, although not the letter. Given the circumstances, I would want the target article to be in very good condition. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Louis Crishock's article has been created by @BeanieFan11, and is of pretty good quality. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the OHR article and went more in depth on Schmidt's. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality of the bolded High Representative article is fine, along with Crishock's article. Schmidt's article has multiple unsourced paragraphs in the 'Member of Parliament' and 'Parliamentary State Secretary' sections. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Wait While I agree that this should be posted eventually, I think at this point the nomination is slightly premature. Louis Crishock is only the acting High Representative and the Peace Implementation Council aims to make a final appointment by 14 July (see here), which is relatively soon. As such, I think it would be reasonable to wait until Schmidt’s permanent successor is named and then post the change in the High Representative. John Adams 362 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the Starmer blurb, where he didn't even leave yet. Schmidt has left the building. Bremps... 19:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Julio Revuelta

[edit]
Article: Julio Revuelta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): EFE (in Spanish)
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: Mayor of Logroño, Spain. Given issues with previous nominations of contemporaries, I have expanded with local policy and achievements. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing removal: Russo-Ukrainian war timeline

[edit]
Article: Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian war (1 June 2026 – present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The last timeline link remaining in ongoing, and there seems to be decent support below for removing it. It could be prominently displayed in the infobox or hatnote of the main article if it's important to give readers access. To be clear, the main article link would stay on ITN unless a consensus is established to remove that too. For the timeline, keep or remove? Left guide (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the entry entirely – The main article receives sporadic updates – 'events' ends in May 2026 – with most editing being gnoming, so the timeline article is the only one that's really relevant for ITN. En.wiki hasn't historically maintained years-long entries in 'ongoing', the Gaza war and Russo-Ukrainian war were aberrations from that norm. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Gaza and the Russo-Ukraine war are continually covered in the news at a good volume (compared to the Sudanese civil war), so satisfies that prong for ongoing. The timeline articles are regularly updated (eg it doesn't take an ITN removal to prod editors to fix), so some part of that article grouping is being properly updated as ongoing expected. Its this really nuanced thing that some editors expect that the updated article (the timelines) be presented in the ITN box. I've said this on other recent ongoing: as long as the timeline is very clearly given in the infobox on the main target article, and working that WP:SS is the standard approach for writing about large topics, then ongoing is satisified as long as the timeline article is regularly updaed but we don't need to keep the timeline presentin in the ITN box to save space. Masem (t) 23:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The war in Ukraine is still a extremely significant and talked about conflict, and the timeline page is consistently updated with daily developments, the fact that the idea of removing the conflict from ongoing is being talked about at all is absurd. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally stated in the nomination that this does not remove the main conflict entry from ongoing, just the timeline. Stephen 00:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Trepang2 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided, sometimes I think the war has reached a point where it's not being discussed and then there will be a flare up in the news. For example it's currently on the front page of the BBC, the front page of RTÉ, the first story on France24 and on the front page of CNN. However the reason I am undecided is, the removal of (only) the timeline may still be justified. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that this is the article that is actually receiving constant updates. It would make more sense to me to delete the main subject article, and make the timeline the sole item featured in ongoing. I'd be happy to see both finally removed, though; Ongoing items shouldn't last this long. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean remove the article, not delete it, right? Feeglgeef (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, yeah, remove it from Ongoing :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the entry entirely but failing that, remove the timeline. We are not serving any of the stated purposes of ITN by featuring a stalemate war for its entire duration. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why if we were to have ongoing, why such a massive war, that remains not only in the news, but in the headlines, would be dropped. Nfitz (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing exists to deal with a quirk created by the way ITN wishes to exists conflicting with the natural occurrence of events. But it remains a subset of ITN, and should serve its aims. It is not to meant to feature all ongoing news events anymore than ITN is meant to be a news ticker. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the mpst important event that is in news. I fail to see a reason for removal here. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My limited understanding: It doesn't matter how important it is beyond a minimum significance. It's either significant enough for ITN or not. What's more relevant for Ongoing is updates (climate change doesn't get regular updates). It's a philosophical question whether or not timelines should count towards regular updates to the relevant article, related to the question of whether or not timelines should be listed under ongoing in general Placeholderer (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if people want the timeline, they can find it in the article. I'd also support changing "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Ukraine War", which is it's WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Name ideas are probably best suited for the article talk page. ITN should use whatever name the article is using.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others such as Maplestrip have noted, the timeline is the article receiving the most frequent updates. We should direct ITN readers to the page where those updates can be found. Removing the timeline accomplishes precisely the opposite. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 15:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we think that people would be drawn in particular to the latest timeline, rather than a more general article. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: If we image the people using the Wikipedia home page as their home page, which article do you think they are more likely to click on every day or every week? The one that is constantly updated, or the one that is mostly static? The goal of the front-page is to give returning readers a dynamic selection of our work to read. Every user who has been on the Wikipedia front page for the past three years has had the opportunity to read the article on the war already. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a case to remove ongoing completely, and give more room to new stories. Do we have any stats on those that use Wikipedia as a home page? Nfitz (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is still receiving updates and to be frank this thing is still ongoing. Not long ago Ukraine launched a strike to Russia where even Putin acknowledged the damage it’s caused. The war is still ongoing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Readers can easily navigate to the most recent timeline from the main article on the war, so this is completely unnecessary and not in line with WP:ONGOING (it nowhere mentions that we can post links to multiple articles about the same ongoing event). I know that removing the link to the timeline would leave an article with no regular updates on the main page, but this is something that has to do with the wording of WP:ONGOING, which seems to be inconsistent with the postings onto this section in the past couple of years. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal – let's cut some slack for the overflowing tank that is the state of the 'ongoing' section today. The navigational templates and section hatnotes will still make the timeline easy to find anyways. I feel like a good majority of people already know about the Ukraine war by this point in time, so having that timeline link still there might be overemphasis on the topic now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The war is still going, and likely coming to a crucial and defining moment. There is no reason to remove it precisely now. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BilboBeggins and TDKR Chicago 101: your oppose !votes here don't seem to quite align with what the nomination is proposing. The proposal isn't to remove the Ukraine war entirely, it is just to remove the "timeline" part. So instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (timeline) it would be changed to just Russo-Ukrainian war. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The same narrative applies, timeline is closely aligned with the war itself. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I don't think timelines really belong in the "ongoing" section, nobody is really interested in reading those, and it's the main war that is the article we wish to highlight. I think there was some concern before that for large-scale events, the main page doesn't receive frequent enough updates, but that doesn't mean we should have a fudge like this pointing people to a page they are unlikely to want to view. Better to just IAR and keep the main entry in anywya. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "nobody is really interested in reading those" well. there are 85 127 views this month, so this is definitely not the case. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (keep) per Masem's response to Mr rnddude. This never stopped being big news, I still see new reporting on it all the time as someone who reads a lot of news. The timeline article is also being sufficiently updated and BilboBeggins's response to Amakuru shows readers do in fact still care about this and want up-to-date info about it. I'd rather we relist the Gaza war and genocide - which never ended despite many erroneous comments in the discussion that led to its removal from Ongoing - than delist the war on Ukraine. Not that I expect that to happen, many feel we already have too many things listed currently so any proposal to add something is going to face an uphill battle.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanilla Wizard How about removing the timeline specifically to free up space to add the Gaza war? Seems like a good compromise to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The timeline is the main article for news about what historians are calling the largest armed conflict globally since 1945 and the most consequential war of our lifetime. It should obviously remain on the In The News section. Shanes (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as several have already put forward: the article remains updated, the war is one of the biggest military conflicts in decades, and is regularly featured in global news coverage. Yakikaki (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vladimir McTavish

[edit]
Article: Vladimir McTavish (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
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: Scottish comedian GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the article is still too short at 1150 characters. R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Bremps... 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose far too short, scant detail, and missing basic details (e.g. date of birth), as well as large gaps in his biography. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Expanded again; I think this is acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @CoconutOctopus: @Robert Motecinos Holda: @Bremps: @Abcmaxx: The article has since been expanded. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still way too short and lacks detail. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, i still oppose R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abcmaxx and Robert Motecinos Holda: What more would you want from a notable but routine stand-up comedian? We have posted bios far more scant than this in the past. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no date of birth, no list of works (or events), his biography lists several awards and nominations without expanding on what basis they were awarded or what for, television appearances are just a list without even briefly describing what roles he played or what he did on them, nor how he came to be on those shows and for how long, whether they were brief secondary appearances or key roles. The article also says he a was a director of a comedy club but does not say what he did in that function at all, such as what events he oversaw, changes he made, direction he took the club, who he worked with etc. The biography section reads more like a short brief rather than any basic description of his work and life. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know his date of birth. I could list his comedy tours but that would really add nothing because it's just a list. The awards are self-explanatory - I mean, what do you think a Lifetime Achievement Award is for? Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dates or birth are actually hard to get hold of for entertainers. Sportspeople must submit their basic details to a federation or league. Many people find it to be a matter of transparency for their politicians. But entertainers, especially those who aren't the elite, have no reason to publicise their DOB, or may obscure it to prevent ageism (imagine an actor who "passes" for 25 but is 35). I have made articles on several supporting actors and no source even indicated an age, never mind a DOB. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

[edit]

RD: Victor Willis

[edit]
Article: Victor Willis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [13]
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: Lead singer of Village People ~2026-37585-67 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality. The guy made YMCA and co-founded Village People. However, there are cn tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RD nomination and everyone is notable by default. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't guarantee the article will get posted. The article has several citation tags that need to be addressed. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's true; I was referring to "Support on notability" !vote. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Byrne

[edit]
Article: Michael Byrne (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]
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.

 Happily888 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work Two {{citation needed}} tags in the Theatre section, including for his theatrical credits. The Filmography section has one main citation (to his Metacritic page), but I haven't checked whether all his films are listed in the source. ~2026-37147-35 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Timelines of the 2026 Iran war and Lebanon war

[edit]
WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (u t g) 19:46, 4 July 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.

Articles: Timeline of the 2026 Iran war (talk · history · tag) and Timeline of the 2026 Lebanon war (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:
 ArionStar (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both mother articles in both cases are still receiving daily updates; them not receiving them is the whole reason for bracketed timeline links. — Knightoftheswords 02:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT cuz notable ~2026-37748-84 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Support cuz notable' is not an argument for inclusion here. The criterion for featuring at ITN is significance, not notability. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be notable, which is why 'it's notable' is a useless argument to make in almost any discussion about our content. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is a synonym for significant everywhere besides Wikipedia. You don't need to berate a newbie for not knowing the difference. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since they’re already on there, there’s def no need to add them especially given the overflowing ongoing section. I would probably also support getting rid of Russia Ukraine war timeline from ongoing. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – having four links to articles about the same general topic would feel like undue/mega overemphasis, and as others have said, it would be too much use of space just to link to a timeline which can be found easily in the main articles anyways. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:13, 3 July 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.

(Posted) RD: Phyllis Kinney

[edit]
Article: Phyllis Kinney (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: American-born authority on traditional Welsh music born 1923. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: I have fixed this. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Humphrey Smith

[edit]
Article: Humphrey Smith (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yorkpress
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: British businessman and brewer. Fixing a malformed nom by Mark.s.shaw. Gotitbro (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump v. Barbara

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 01:51, 7 July 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: Trump v. Barbara (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court reaffirms the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause in Trump v. Barbara, striking down Executive Order 14160 (Post)
News source(s): [15] [16] [17]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Coverage by major news outlets on a SCOTUS decision that has to deal with an article of the U.S. constitution. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this was a case where, from the oral session, it was clear the EO wasn't going to stand and the status quo remained. The decision added no new qualifiers or anything. If anything it is the fact three justices were willing to ignore the plain text of the amendment that is causing an uproar, and that itself is political and not good for ITN. (And if anything cases like Trump v. Slaughter have a much larger impact than this one). Masem (t) 12:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Political and not good for ITN" does this mean all stories that pertain to something politically controversial should never be posted? Or does this only apply if they are politically controversial in the United States? IntoThinAir (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all SCOTUS decisions are ITN-worthy. Opposing per Masem, nothing changes. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man argument, no one is arguing that all SCOTUS decisions are ITN-worthy, but this one is extremely significant, high-profile, and widely covered by news outlets around the world. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support receiving sustained, international coverage, likely to be looked for or intrigue our readers. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent opportunity to rectify the severe, longstanding anti-American bias at ITN. NTRUMP does not mean that nothing that happens in the United States, even if it is receiving extensive attention in media around the world and obviously has huge ramifications for millions of people, is never significant or newsworthy enough to post to ITN. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:04, 7 July 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.

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=1363000360"