Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Structure

[edit]

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

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


June 23

[edit]

(Closed) FIFA World Cup all-time top goalscorer

[edit]

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


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

June 22

[edit]

2026 Côte-des-Neiges shooting

[edit]
Article: 2026 Côte-des-Neiges shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three people are killed and two others are wounded in a shooting at a hotel in Montreal, Quebec (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Three people are killed, including the shooter, in an incel-motivated shooting in Montreal, Quebec
Alternative blurb 2: ​ A municipal police officer was killed, the first in 24 years, in an incel-motivated shooting in Montreal, Quebec.
News source(s): CNN CityNews, New york Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Rare shooting with casualties. The article is at good length and will continue to be expanded. I'm also sure the attack will also continue to receive coverage. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2026 (EDT)

  • Oppose Of the three one is the perp. Too minor an incident to be featured on the Main Page. Gotitbro (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Though there was a low death toll, this shooting is receiving coverage and has multiple unusual aspects to it: the rarity of such attacks in Canada (including against police), the incel / anti-pornography motivation, the (debated) targeting of a Jewish community. Also comment: the blurb could just say Montreal, Canada; I see no need for Quebec to be specified. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's just not a heavy-hitter tragedy in Canada like Tumbler Ridge or the 2018 Toronto attack. It's terrible for the victims' families, of course, but it's three people. Triple shootings are not too rare in Canada. Bremps... 17:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - this isn't that unusual. It's not even the first cop killed this month - I'd think the issues with the organized crime stuff with the guns-for-hire and the Bishnoi gang is far more significant. It shames us that someone is bringing up anti-semitism at this point - given I don't think Mohamed Lamine Benredouane is Jewish. Perhaps the other victim is - but it's not clear if that's a factor. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A shooting at a company headquarters that killed/injured multiple people is not common. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't particularly notable either, with one civilian killed there is hardly a case to be made. Gotitbro (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not seeing how this is more postable than the many other shootings of this size we get each year. The incel stuff and cop victim don't elevate this to being extraordinary enough to warrant posting. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eddie Knox

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

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

(RD ready) RD/blurb: Clive Davis

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Clive Davis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American record producer Clive Davis (pictured) dies at the age of 94. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Rolling Stone, AP
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

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

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

(Blurb Ready) RD/blurb: Alan Greenspan

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Alan Greenspan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, dies at the age of 100. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan (pictured) dies at the age of 100.
News source(s): The Times
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

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

  • Support blurb Quite a major figure. So influential that the article calls him a "rock star" of economics and The Times obituary leads with "one of the giants of financial history". I've looked through the article; there's a lot of it and it seems quite good. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Internal wiki assessments of coverage quality hold no water for WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb though I would suggest editing the blurb to "Former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve" (adding United States) and hotlinking "Federal Reserve". QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Comment RD exists for a reason. We are not going to be blurbing cabinet officials just because they were from the US and were influential in that role. Signficance beyond that will have to be shown in clear terms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He wasn't a cabinet official; he was the pre-eminent central banker during the terms of four presidents of both parties. That's more than Kissinger, for example, whose death was blurbed at ITN. Interestingly, Kissinger also died at age 100. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Kissinger was not solely notable for his governmental service. And comparing Kissinger's role as secretary of state to Greenspan's as FRS chairman is hardly tenable. Gotitbro (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro As more obituaries are coming out, here are how the sources are describing him:
    New York Times: The pre-eminent economic policymaker of his time and arguably the most recognizable economist of any era, [1]
    NPR: Greenspan was the rare celebrity among central bankers, lionized for his economic stewardship in the 1990s. At a time when it seemed every barbershop had a television tuned to the stock market channel, ordinary Americans hung on the Fed chairman's every word. [2]
    Wall Street Journal: The ‘maestro’ rivaled the U.S. president for global influence. [3]
    BBC: architect of the modern American economy [4]
    Washington Post: most powerful central banker of modern times [5]
    He's also the husband of Andrea Mitchell. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @EaglesFan37: I've struck an outright oppose. But all of that which is written above needs to be in the main article, specifically the article should expand on why he was "architect of the modern American economy", "arguably the most recognizable economist of any era", "most powerful central banker of modern times" etc. Otherwise I'd have to treat them as merely positive obituaries. Gotitbro (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats the gist of my comment below. The impact needs to be ckearly explained in the body with sources. Justbthrowing them here at ITN doesnt help, the reader needs to ve able to easily see them in the article. Masem (t) 13:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: & @Gotitbro: Expanded his death section. Might actually split it into a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still unconvinced. There is a lot in the article for how he may have been responsible for the housing crisis. But almost nothing on how he "shaped" the modern American economy beyond passing mentions. Gotitbro (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is reasonable justification for a blurb but hus impact needs to be made much more clear in the body of the article as a quality metric for posting. The section "reception" probably should be called "legacy" and more explicit discussion of why he was considered a major influence on the current us economy today (good or bad) needs to be there as part of that. Masem (t) 12:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Hugely influential central banker, clear evidence of being transformative in his field. Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on quality. Support after article quality was met. Setarip (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Setarip: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sufficient now. I would say Support now. Setarip (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Resignation of Keir Starmer

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

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

Reopening now that it's happened — Knightoftheswords 08:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't happened, it's just expected to.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it would be reopened rather than renominated. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No point in having two discussions for the same event simply because OP jumped the gun. It was almost certain this was coming, but it shouldn't have been posted until it actually did (WP:CRYSTAL and all). PolarManne (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes however every reply in the closed nom is just complaining about it being early. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed them so the discussion should now be clearer. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Major news story along with following leadership election, follows president from previous ITN articles for UK PM resignations. HowlongForever (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support with revised wording. The wording would need to change. He has not resigned, he has announced his resignation. His actual resignation will come later in the year. — Czello (music) 08:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2. I think the first blurb is overburdened with information and introduces too much of a narrative. Let's stick to the top-level news. — Czello (music) 09:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2 - Significant event in UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the format we used when the same situation exited for Johnson was a simple "announces his intention to resign" - [6] Proposing altblurb2 along those lines, which is what we should likely go for to avoid excessive detail and editorialising. I don't think we should mention Burnham or picture him at this point, he's only one possible candidate for the job and to avoid accusations of bias or meddling, we should not be showing any favouritism or special treatment for one candidate in the run up to an election.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Burnham election should be mentioned since it was the catalyst for the resignation and leadership contest and received pretty widespread, international coverage. Also, even with WP:CRYSTAL concerns, when factored in with what was already stated, the fact that Burnham is likely to have an effective coronation is also a factor here, unlike the post-BoJo leader contest. — Knightoftheswords 08:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If and when the "coronation" of Burnham becomes official, we can amend any blurb that we've already posted at that point. And of course when the new PM eventually takes over, we're going to blurb that event too. But until then, with the possibility that Streeting or others might run, we absolutely should not IMHO suggest that any one candidate is favoured over overs, irrespective of any catalysts.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - This should probably count as ITNR considering it's an impending change in head of government. Either way this is important enough to post and no quality issues either. PolarManne (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is posted, it should be clear that Starmer has only resigned as leader of his political party. His expected resignation as Prime Minister will likely happen at a later unspecified date. CMD (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unhelpful distinction. The Guardian's top headline says 'Starmer announces resignation as prime minister and leader of the Labour party'; his statement specifically said that he will remain in office as prime minister until the new leader is chosen. So he's announced his resignation as prime minister and the way in which that will take effect. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very important distinction. Starmer will remain the prime minister for the near future, and the announcement does not change the way any change will take effect (presumably he will at some point submit his resignation to the King, and the King will appoint a successor very shortly afterwards). We should ensure our main page wording is accurate. Inaccurate media around these sorts of things impacts us directly, for example with editors changing position holders in infoboxes before the position holder actually changes. CMD (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On that, I agree with you - and you will see that I have endorsed alt2, which maintains this distinction. (The appointment of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury led to a lot of people prematurely changing office-holder entries across the wiki, so I have seen the effect this can have.) But I don't think it helps us to pretend that the news isn't that Starmer has announced that he's quitting as PM. He's spoken to the King about it, which other party leaders - even those who are Privy Counselors - would not have to do. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was that we should be clear with our wording for an ITN/C submission where the original blub says "Keir Starmer resigns as Prime Minister". There are probably a number of altblurb wordings that will be able to achieve that, my opposition would not be to those and I trust the consensus-reading admin on their reading of the finally chosen blurb. CMD (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - It remains my position that changes such as this, where a definite intention is formally announced but does not take effect immediately, should be posted in response to the announcement and not wait for it to take its final effect. This is without prejudice to the later posting of the actual leadership change, once the new leader is identified and the transition occurs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Close Now it's clear that he's not resigned as PM, can we end this now? He remains as the Prime Minister at least for another month, and more likely into September. And there's no indication of who or what will replace him (another cabbage perhaps?). Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an altburb I think will work great though, he's announced his intent to resign and that's exactly what altblurb2 says. How do you feel about the altblurb? Aaron.Reber13 (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 - In the news, obviously, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2 per previous PM resignations Note that both Johnson and Truss remained PM until their successor was appointed, and we posted both Johnson's and Truss's resignations on the day they resigned. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 2: for 2 reasons
  1. he has only announced his resignation it has not yet come into effect
  2. it's short and quite punchy a good thing since the in the news section is very cluttered as of recently so it its best if we save space and keep that section tidy
thanks,
Daisytheduck quack quack 10:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 2: Keep it simple. Shakya2007 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2, for simplicity. Renerpho (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've once proposed to introduce a minimum period of discussion before posting in order to make sure that everyone on the planet has the chance to comment in a reasonable period of the day and it was rejected. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat sympathetic to this because we have had stories posted (and sometimes pulled) which would have benefited from wider discussion, but it's one of those things that's difficult to put in a coherent policy, though. If we put a time limit on it, we'd just have to IAR it every time there was an obvious major story which would always be getting posted (the death of Queen Elizabth, for example, was posted in seven minutes), or else we'd just be inundated with "why haven't you..." regardless of the fact that ITN isn't a news ticker. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    inundated with "why haven't you..." Isn't it great that those trying that as a "vote" and treating enwiki as Wikinews can be very well ignored. I'd think so. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and oppose I'm seeing 2.5 hours: 8:31-11:05. We need to be more cautious with Anglo-centric noms. We already post new leaders; it shows considerable bias to post departure of the old one, especially in a country with such high turnover in the post. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and oppose "Intention" to resign and this is rushed to the main page without any substantial community input. Couldn't be a better example of a supervote (Sandstein) than this. Sorry, intending to do something can simply not meet WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: in this context, 'intention to resign' doesn't just mean that he vaguely feels like doing it. It means he's setting in process formal measures which will lead directly to his replacement as party leader and prime minister. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "intention to resign" means. It is UK legalese which means "I resign", used because the person resigning is still technically Prime Minister until their successor is appointed. We have posted these each of the four times this has previously happened, going back to 2007. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Resign" not necessarily mean "resign immediately"? I thought it was safe to say "Keir Starmer has resigned" or "has resigned effective <date>" or "has resigned pending <condition>". QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence the legalese "intention to resign". Can't use "effective <date>" because it could take a few weeks or a few months, depending on whether there's a succession election (the former is looking more likely). Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to phrase it in plain English then rather than legalese, "Keir Starmer announces his resignation" is perfectly clear enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because he only announced his resignation as leader of the party, @Filelakeshoe. If we said that it could imply they also renounced their resignation as Prime Minister. Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: He's still the PM and past blurbs shouldn't affect procedural flaws here. If this is "legalese" and he's actually resigned, the blurb should reflect that. But I'd still oppose, "resigning" while actually staying in power for an elongated period renders that term meaningless ergo the UK legalese actually appears to be quite valid.
I've also undone the your collapse of the initial comments, either a separate nom should've been opened or those editors pinged but a collapse with this rationale does not hold: This nomination was previously opened before the event, this collapsed section contains opposes for that reason. Certain comments there even deferred to an actual change for the head of govt. (ITNR). Also the "event" being, that same as yesterday, no resignation has actually taken place.
@Sandstein: Were any of those collapsed comments taken into account. I think not. Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed those comments (and I'm going to collapse them again in a minute) because the nominator re-opened the old nomination (which was closed because the event hadn't happened yet) instead of starting a new one, which they should have done. Therefore, those comments don't belong to this nomination. Don't do that again, please. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather than muddying up the closed discussion by collapsing and tacking onto it. Why shouldn't it have been closed again?
A fair assessment can hardly be for this posting made when such flaws and confusion right from the nom, to the comments, to the blurb glaringly exist. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would have done that, but the reopened one already had a lot of comments when I first saw it, so it was the lesser of two evils. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Gotitbro, I do not think I cast a "supervote". There was near unanimous consensus to post. It is immaterial who was asleep or awake at which time, since Wikipedia is a global project and there is no minimum time requirement for ITN discussions. I did not take into account the collapsed comments, which applied to a premature nomination and became irrelevant as soon as the resignation actually happened. Sandstein 13:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not an insignificant ammount of comments above note the mere hours that passed between the nomination being re-opened and then being blurbed. An ITN assessment based only on a flurry of initial comment is hard to construe as "unanimous consensus" when clearly only those with an ongoing interest would be the initial editors here.
Even an ITNR post that quick would raise questions but this of course is not that either. Nor did the rushed posting allow any discussion on the misleading blurb that is currently up (intention et. al.) to develop. Gotitbro (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He has 100% resigned @Gotitbro. He announced his resignation as party leader. He did not announce his resignation as Prime Minister. They are two different things - though invariably the same thing. Lots can (but probably won't) happen between now and then. It's not unprecedented for the resignation of a party leader to be withdrawn (though I don't think that this will happen). Less unprecedented is a former leader deciding to run in the leadership campaign; though that sounds unlikely from his speech. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: This is what the Keir Starmer article states directly in the lead [emphasis mine]:

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

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

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

If what you state is true, these articles should be nowhere near the main page. The blurb itself is wholly incorrect then both for the PM/Labour issue and the "intention" one. Keir Starmer (pictured) announces his intention to resign as prime minister of the United Kingdom. He has announced his resignation period (there is no intention there in the normal sense of the word) whether he's actually resigned is a different ballgame altogether as well. Gotitbro (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I listed to his 1 AM PT speech, @Gotitbro just before I opposed and suggested, but I wasn't trying to remember it. Let's find a transcript. Washington post has it, unusually not firewalled. It says "That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party" and then later " I will remain in post as prime minister until the contest is complete, and I will do everything I can to ensure an orderly handover of power ...". In terms of his replacement he said "I will ask the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to set out a timetable with nominations opening on the 9th of July. And completed by the summer recess. In the case of a contest, this will ensure a new leader is in place before Parliament returns in September." All seems very premature to me. I suppose it's possible there'll only be a single candidate (be it animal, vegetable, or mineral :) ), but that isn't normal. Parliament is scheduled to return after the summer recess on September 1, 2026. Nfitz (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"mineral" I see WP:CRYSTALs here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues with the blurb, as he has announced his "intention" to resign, but has not yet resigned (and will not resign) until July at the earliest. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Intention is misleading. He hasn't announced that he "may" resign, he simply said he would resign. Our articles don't make any mention of intention either. If we're already qualifying it as an announcement, no need to add additional misdirection in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support Very well written and well sourced. Definitely a major event. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support I agree this may have been posted too soon given that U.S. editors are just logging on. However, I support posting this item; it is clearly in the news, and there is ample precedent for posting both the announcement of the resignation and the resignation itself: David Cameron (announcement, resignation), Theresa May (announcement, resignation), Boris Johnson (announcement, resignation), Liz Truss (announcement, resignation). Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-posting support After seeing the multiple examples of ITN posting both the resignation announcement and the replacement, I now echo the reasons of Davey2116 above. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It can very well be argued that those "announcements" shouldn't have been posted either. The actual resignations and subsequent successors all are covered by ITNR. So that is a moot point as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The German Wikipedia posted the Makerfield result at the weekend and has already posted the resignation today. The English Wikipedia should likewise keep up with such English news per WP:ITNPURPOSE, To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    but we are not a newspaper and while we can be up to date, we should not rush things to the front page without making sure quality is there and the topic presented appropriately for the world readership. Waiting a few more hours to make sure there was clear consensus to !vote would have hurt no one. Masem (t) 15:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The two articles in question were both started over a month ago, have had plenty of attention since and so are quite mature now. The news was expected and is not a surprise. So, there was nothing to wait for. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    sure, having foresight yo build out the articles can help with a quick turnaround at ITN, but still shpuld verify what the actual details are, making sure we are posting at the right point rir the event, and to make sure the update if sufficiently of quality and covers the actual event (just like asking for game recaps). Not that these weren't there in this case, but waiting a few hours to get more confidence on the !votes from a wider segment of the world editors harms nothing. Masem (t) 15:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic was nominated two days ago and so Masem and the other nay-sayers have had plenty of opportunity to consider the matter. Instead of discussing it, they chose to speedily close that nomination in just 72 minutes. See the Golden Rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the older comments are under no consideration, complaints about them should have no bearing either. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be pointy. Should we start a thread about posting the death of King Charles III just in case? (no, the answer is no). Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of WP:POINT is that we should use discussion rather than direct action to resolve disputes. Speedily closing discussions is therefore disruptive because it obstructs such discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the re-opening of a closed nom that needs to be questioned. Not why a crystal nom was astutely closed. Editors opening/re-opening them should be the ones this POINT needs to be raised to. Gotitbro (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been told @Andrew Davidson multiple times that this isn't a newspaper. Why do you persist only hours after an event, to pretend this is a news ticker? Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The people to whom I pay most attention are our readers. In this case, their top 5 ranking of people yesterday was:
    1. Andy Burnham
    2. Keir Starmer
    3. Lionel Messi
    4. Clive Davis
    5. Alan Greenspan
    This proves that we are discussing the right topics and that we should get on with posting them as there seems to be comparatively little interest in Le Mans, ice-hockey, basketball – stale sport which should scroll off now.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARPAGE (this will be my standard cite from now on for any of this). Readers and those interested in page view features can download Wikipedia Mobile which features the top 10 in a 24 hour cycle at its home page. I did, you can too.
    The main page otherwise isn't a place for these and about time you put these to rest. Not a single editor has ever agreed with these arguments. Gotitbro (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POPULARPAGE is WP:MISUSE as it's an essay about a different process. For several editors who agree with my position see Page views and significance: Viewership is a core component of WP:ITNPURPOSE #1 ... it is still a reason to support ...
    Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a perfectly valid cite of a guideline (rationale expanded above in another thread).
    No point in citing discussions that lead to nowhere. The only purpose your reference to page views does is derail discussions without any substantial rationales to show for blurb justifications, beyond an article being a trending topic on the internet. Time you stop this. Gotitbro (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already opposed, though I remain perplexed why this would be posted. Effectively the election has been called, and we are posting the news now, rather than when there is a result. I'd suggest pulling this, which got decided without thorough discussion. We would not have blurbed this for Tonga. Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that was my point really. We tend to post the resignations of major leaders quite quickly. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well known leaders. I'm not sure Starmer is that. Even when I talk to expat Brits, the response frequently surprises me as "Who?" Compared to when I mention Trudeau to foreigners, who sound a bit indignant that I might think they wouldn't know who he is. Though perhaps more famous now than when he was PM by a younger generation than I. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Cannot be a known name when the country's cycled through premiers almost every year in the last decade. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support per above. Setarip (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ethiopian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Ethiopian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The incumbent Prime Minister's Abiy Ahmed's (pictured) Prosperity Party wins a supermajority of the House of Peoples' Representatives' seats in the Ethiopian general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ According to official results, prime minister Abiy Ahmed's (pictured) Prosperity Party retains its majority in the Ethiopian general election.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article needs the official results and seats added, also expansion as to the legitimacy of the elections given the result and that vast areas of the country were unable to vote at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2026 Tacloban school shooting

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

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

Comment Possibly the largest school shooting in the history of the nation (as 2022 Ateneo has less injuries). Sad to see something like this happen. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 10:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is good length and the attack is still receiving coverage. There is also a high number of casualties. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tragic, but it isn’t the deadliest shooting of the last 15 years, there are only three fatalities. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Colombian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Colombian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured), a far right lawyer and politician wins with 49.66% over Iván Cepeda's 48.70% in the second round of the Colombian presidential election, becoming the most voted presidential candidate in Colombian history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Far-right lawyer and politician Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) wins the second round of the Colombian presidential election with 49.66% of the vote over Iván Cepeda's 48.70%.
Alternative blurb 2: Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) wins the run-off Colombian presidential election.
Alternative blurb 3: Abelardo de la Espriella (pictured) is elected as the president of Colombia. Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: First domino in the end of the Pink tide. This super el-nino really changing the world, huh!? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What does "most voted" mean? Do you mean "most supported"? Also, there is no reason to say "described far right". De la Espriella is about as far right as you can get. Just say he's a far right politician. No one would argue with that. Nosferattus (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the wording in the election article, it says that he is the most voted for presidential candidate in the entirety of the history of the Colombian republic. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this means "got the most votes", but that is odd wording. Natg 19 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue with that. Looking at his policy, it would be a stretch to call him far right. If media called him that it's safer to say "described as". Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We typically post election results, instead of the actual inauguration day, except for special circumstances. Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality but Support Alternative blurb 2 A presidential election is usually notable and alt blurb 2 is the most concise. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never seen an election blurb with a political stance mentioned on it (not even either Trump election). Nor does this seem to be the coup de grace of the pink tide if the map on that article shows a lot more blue in 2018, when Mexico and Brazil were on that side. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - the results are clearly unfinished and the numbers in the lead and infobox don't even add up. But when ready, support alt2, keep it simple. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Neither Cepeda nor outgoing president Petro have conceded to the results and are both waiting for the escrutinio (thorough vote counting) which might throw different results to the preliminary counting. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 12:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt3 after the abroad vote section of results is completed, currently its empty and without any source. Rest article seems sufficient and complete ACMehta (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now The BBC acknowledged El Tigre as the winner last night, so barring pretty much every other news agency refusing to acknoledge a winner, we should follow the sources. Oppose on Quality There is an orange tagged section and the article feels very table heavy. Also, the first round foreign vote section has no numbers. Finally, the second paragraph of the lead has no sources and disagrees with the rest of the article (specifically, it says there were 13 candidates in the first round of voting but the candidates section shows 16). ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

[edit]

2026 U.S. Open

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 U.S. Open (golf) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Wyndham Clark (pictured) wins the U.S. Open. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The prose summary for the final round still needs to be added, otherwise nothing really remarkable (such as a course record) happened during the win. rawmustard (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Flamingo Revolution

[edit]
Article: Flamingo Revolution (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:

Nominator's comments: Suggest adding (as a piped link, of course, as we usually do) to the ongoing section, as it seems to be continuing at least as much, if not more, than the Bolivian protests currently listed there, and the article is in at least as good shape. UnitedStatesian (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support The protests appear to be escalating rather than fading. Yesterday’s demonstration was reportedly the largest so far, with estimates of more than 250,000 participants, and the movement seems to be continuing with significant public participation. Given the scale, persistence, and ongoing nature of the protests, I think this clearly merits inclusion in the ongoing section. Matete Plays (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is escalating and there is daily updates. Setarip (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll support if we label the item as Flamingo Revolution. 2600 etc (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as growing protests, the article title (per RM) is indeed Flamingo Revolution, only worry is that it might provide less context to unfamiliar readers. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article and relevant ongoing event. ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know this is unrelated to article itself, but it's worth noting that Ongoing currently has 6 items and 9 links including timelines; adding an additional article will then nearly double the section's length compared to RD. I think we should consider if this is posted, another item in Ongoing should be removed in order to prevent imbalance from a disproportionately large Ongoing section. SpencerT•C 03:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spencer: Looking through the archives, there were two unsuccessful attempts to remove Sudanese civil war from ongoing in March and April this year. If it's any consolation, the World Cup is scheduled to conclude about a month from now on July 19, so will be removed around that time. Left guide (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - zero sources. Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
? --L'Éclipse (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An iq too low? LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks against other editors. This is not an appropriate comment. Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as it has consintency (day 23 of protests today) , but preferably two titles : Flamingo Revolution and/or : 2026 Albanian anti-establishment protests, becouse protests now are spreaded more in anti goverment/establishment rather than flamingos. [7], [8]. Lanceloth345 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the nomination as the article has been renamed to Flamingo Revolution. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - as Matete said earlier, the protests are escalating, sourcing is good, and we have other notable protests in ongoing already and this fits quite well with the other ones. LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Left guide (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Francisco Guterres

[edit]
Article: Francisco Guterres (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: Former president of Timor-Leste, served as the 6th president from 2017 to 2022. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 19:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

[edit]

Bolivian protests update

[edit]
Article: 2026 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bolivian president Rodrigo Paz declares a state of emergency amid nationwide protests. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters

Nominator's comments: The article "2026 Bolivian protests" is currently in the ongoing section. UCinternational (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose good faith nom, but covered by ongoing. And it is a significant update, but one that is to be expected in this sort of situation, which means it is not particularly exceptional. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already covered by ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no hard rule against having a blurb in conjunction with the ongoing item. In fact, we have posted blurbs about Israel, Iran, COVID-19, Ukraine, etc, all while there was simultaneously an active ongoing entry. We even post blurbs about things like the Opening or Closing Ceremony of a sports event while there is simultaneously an ongoing item. In this case, a nationwide state of emergency and introduction of martial law is precisely the type of "seminal" escalation that calls for a blurb to be posted in conjunction with ongoing. FlipandFlopped 17:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major development in the protests. In addition to Flipandflopped's argument above this is being massively reported on internationally. Paz has been pressured to declare a state of emergency by many in the nation for a while now. Prior to this he had taken a more conciliatory tone, trying to negotiate with the protesters. But this marks a change in tone, with him cracking down more on the protests with the military. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – If the state of emergency leads to a significant escalation, then it could be worth posting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 15:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom. 2600 etc (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per _-_Alsor above. ACMehta (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy (Ongoing)

[edit]

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: Bricks & Minifigs–Reckless Ben controversy (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Fairly old news, though the event has only blown up in the last few days. Blurb is preferable to ongoing, though it may also be added if a blurb is not to run 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a squabble between YT-ers and a business. The impact of this is limited. – robertsky (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The gag order that was issued is one of the first high profile Prior restraint cases in a WHILE. This mess will be talked about in law school for a very long time to come. Guylaen (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability The impact of the controversy is largely limited to the US states of Oregon and Utah. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Impact is felt in the USA and Canada. BAM has locations in almost half of the US states and several Canadian locations. Miami has also gotten directly involved in this, as has San Diego. Guylaen (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly over now. — Knightoftheswords 01:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first trial is scheduled for the 22nd, it's nowhere near over. Guylaen (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the same judge from the Charlie Kirk murder case is presiding here. Guylaen (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope still ongoing. There is an active lawsuit (actually six of them) and the BBC wrote their article yesterday. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close Not an influential legal, no major ramifications and per CastleFort limited news story from the U.S. Maybe a good DYK nom instead. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a SNOW close is appropriate here; there seems to be some support 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 19

[edit]

(Closed) 2026 Bedford train collision

[edit]

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 Bedford train collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A train crash kills 1 and injures 100 in the United Kingdom. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Fox, Independent
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Notable train crash with 1 killed, 100 injured. - Indefensible (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to see others peoples votes before I vote, as I genuinely can't choose. The crash has been getting coverage and did result in over 100 casualties, but the article is extremly short for the amount of information we know. There has to be more information in articles that have not been added yet. For now, I guess I will vote medium support on notability but oppose on quality, however, that is subject to change. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Basing your "vote" on how others "vote" is actively disruptive towards determining consensus, actually. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Isn't waiting for more arguments to help form an opinion a basic part of building consensus? Departure– (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's definitely sad, but I don't think this clears the bar for ITN posting in terms of significance. British papers of record do not have this on the front page; they have the Iran war. Bremps... 04:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close per all above. When you nominate something, you can already tell where they’re going to end up. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) RD: Claude Guillemot

[edit]

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: Claude Guillemot (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters ABC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: French businessman and co-founder of video game publisher Ubisoft, the company that made Just Dance and Assassin's Creed. Article has no issues and at a good length. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 5:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: James Burrows

[edit]
Article: James Burrows (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: American television director. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Trond Johansen

[edit]
Article: Trond Johansen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): addresa.no
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: Norwegian intelligence official. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Some more information (cited and sourced, of course) would be very helpful to pushing this article onto ITNRD. There's just too little depth to the biographical parts of the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 03:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added reactions from political and military leaders. ~2026-36005-77 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD/blurb: Mona Khalil

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Mona Khalil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Turtle conservationist, Mona Khalil, dies from her injuries in an airstrike on Lebanon. (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: Turtle ecologist, killed during the Lebanon war. Article is in decent shape but not quite ready. Blythwood (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb There's widespread international coverage and her death is the story. There's a good picture and we really don't need to see the ice-hockey guy for yet another day. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready – Several failed verfication tags. Also, oppose blurb as Mona Khalil was (a) not a major figure, and (b) the manner of death is not getting exceptional coverage + Lebanon war is in ongoing. Perhaps we shall see the ice-hockey guy for yet another day. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

[edit]

June 2026 Diori Hamani International Airport attack

[edit]
Article: June 2026 Diori Hamani International Airport attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 35 people are killed in an attack at the Diori Hamani International Airport in Niamey, Niger. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ 35 people are killed, including 22 gunmen, in an attack by Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin at the Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger.
News source(s): BBC AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major attack at the biggest airport in Niger with a large amount of casualties. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 3:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The January 2026 Diori Hamani International Airport attack had the support to be posted but it never was posted. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tay Keith

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

Article needs updating
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 hip-hop producer best known for helping produce Sicko Mode, will be heavily updated as time goes on -- SirPhilippines (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A major force in hip-hop for the last ten years. I believe the article is not ready yet as the main body is <250–300 words, though I hope this can get fixed up soon enough so that this can be posted to RD. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huge RIP. His production is very outdated-- major songs like First Person Shooter (song) aren't mentioned at all. His production discography might be worth splitting to its own article, as he contributed to several high charting songs. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is expanded: Tay Keith! Fuck them n* up! RIP to a very talented producer. I think the article still needs work, but after that, should be good to post. TansoShoshen (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still some citation needed tags, but once those are fixed, heavy support as he produced many popular songs and had one of the most recognizable producer tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Al Worthington

[edit]
Article: Al Worthington (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Article a GA article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Carlo Ginzburg

[edit]
Article: Carlo Ginzburg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Italian historian Yakikaki (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Memorandum

[edit]
Article: Islamabad Memorandum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A memorandum of understanding is signed by the United States and Iran, ending the Iran war. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A memorandum of understanding is signed by the United States and Iran, opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ The Strait of Hormuz is re-opened to shipping, after Iran and the United States sign a memorandum of understanding that facilitates negotiations over the Iran war Credits:

Nominator's comments: Details are somewhat fuzzy but it sounds like this was signed today (and there will not be a signing ceremony on Friday). As an additional note, I don't see that many sources calling it the "Islamabad Memorandum" so the article title may need to be changed. Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the hill is citing axios, which should not be taken as necessarily reliable. And fox news is not reliable at all. If anything, no one is clearly sure if Iran signed, and we still have Israel involved in Lebonon. We need a lot firmer confirmation. Masem (t) 23:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added more sources from BBC and Al-Jazeera. Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Al-Jazeera source is confirming a signature from Iran, but I'd like to see more sources confirm all in place. We are definitely not going to use the word of the current admin as absolute assurance here. Masem (t) 00:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Axios is reliable? WP:AXIOS. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per the RSP entries, community consensus is that WP:THEHILL and WP:AXIOS are both reliable with some additional considerations for opinion or contributor pieces. Left guide (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're mainly saying this given the controversies surrounding Barak Ravid's reporting of the war. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's not been a formal discussion on Axios recently, but I know there's a lot of discussion beyond WP about how they are getting inside information that we might need to reconsider in some areas. Masem (t) 11:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A formal "peace agreement" may be up to 60 days away, as that is the timeframe Iran and the US have agreed to in this Memorandum of Understanding. But if enforced by both parties, this does end the war, and is a significant development. Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wait official signing is today in geneva. Also too many orange tags.Psephguru (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this does get posted, then Iran war should be removed from ongoing. Stephen 04:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Start a new thread? BTW- I agree.Psephguru (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if "expand" tags are a barrier to posting typically, though if there is nothing to expand, they can also just be removed. It does not appear that there will be an official signing ceremony, as Trump is already on his way back to the US, and some sources say the deal is already in effect. Natg 19 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This topic seems very notable due to recent news coverage and the broader coverage of the whole Iran war, including its peace negotiations. It would be greatly beneficial to see this article advertised on the main page so readers know what this memorandum is all about. I do not have a problem with the state of the article though I would like to see bare URLs converted to full citation templates. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it's been signed. Setarip (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically orange tagged, but it's an expansion tag which isn't as concerning as citations needed, copyvio, etc. Definitely in the news as a major event. Bremps... 23:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 Although the war is covered by ongoing, this is an exceptionally notable development in the war. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Wait until termination of war in Lebanon is confirmed, as per Vanilla Wizard below. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The war has concluded. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The war in Lebanon has not concluded. Sources: The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and CNN --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an MOU not a peace deal, the latter which we deffered to when rejecting posting the temporary ceasefire. Much like the ceasefire which was to buildup to a peace deal, but didn't, this seeks to do the same in 60 days. The significance is severely diluted by the text which is very WP:CRYSTAL. Some select quotes from the MOU (emphasis mine):

  • ... The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
  • The Islamic Republic of Iran and The United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.
  • United States ... will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. ... The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
  • Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.
  • The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days.
  • The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
  • The Islamic Republic of Iran and The United States of America have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The Islamic Republic of Iran and The United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
  • Pending the final deal, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
  • ... the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs. The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

So almost nothing has been agreed upon beyond resolving to end the Hormuz crisis and the blurb "memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran ends the Iran war" is entirely incorrect because it does no such thing. Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially signed tomorrow. 60 days is an addendm (if you must). an post that seperately if anything happens.Psephguru (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was originally a plan for an official signing ceremony on June 19 but that may not occur anymore, as both Trump and the President of Iran already signed on June 17. Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though you are correct that there is still another 60 day negotiations period, this is a major ceasefire/ending of the war, as the first point of the document says the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other. Additionally, most sources consider this the first step in ending the war (barring violations by either side). Natg 19 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the blurb is technically incorrect, it could be changed to: A memorandum of understanding is signed by the United States and Iran, opening the Strait of Hormuz. (added as altblurb) Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is just the ceasefire agreement rehashed for another 60 days. Ongoing exist and handles this well, there is a reason we didn't post the ceasefire last time. Gotitbro (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
comment got a readout of both versions on the EL. Technically ready, but just the orange tags. Still should wait till tomorrow geneva tima.Psephguru (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until there is a formal peace agreement. This is a nothing-burger. It's as likely that one of the parties will resume hostilities as not at this stage. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting something now in principle, but weak oppose on quality and I'm not happy with either proposed blurb. This is an agreement to re-open the strait while negotiations on a proper peace deal continue, in exchange for some sanctions relief. The closure of the strait has been the largest global impact of the war, so assuming it does open as agreed this is a major step in the war - more so than the oft-violated 'ceasefire' was. However it's not a full conclusion and leaves a lot unresolved. I'll add an alt2. Additionally, there are two orange-tagged sections in the article, which need to be resolved before we could post. That doesn't look too difficult to fix, the article isn't far off. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Walter Parazaider

[edit]
Article: Walter Parazaider (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
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: As the key founding member of a band that pioneered a unique sound and style, he could be considered transformative in his field, but I'm not considering a blurb right this minute. The portions that were cn-tag-bombed can be quite easily sourced, considering all that's been written about the band over the decades.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2026 Bolivian protests removal

[edit]

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 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: The timeline for the protests is not updated very often, the last update being June 13. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal I have brought the article back up to date. I now see no reason for its removal. There are 3 new paragraphs covering 14-17 June. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad... I shouldve looked into it more before this nomination. Withdrawn. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's all fine, I added these after your nomination. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Robert Thurman

[edit]
Article: Robert Thurman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced on this date. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per above.
Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: Bremps... 05:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as RD, discussion may continue) RD/blurb: Major Oak

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Major Oak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The Major Oak in Sherwood Forest, which was about a thousand years old, has died. (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: 1200 year old tree that sheltered Robin Hood has been pronounced dead EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb as above. qcne (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Weak support – ITNSIGNIF seems to be met. The article has received a lot of quality improvements/rewrite today, which is good work we should feature! I am not too impressed by the result, in particular because we only have a few sentences about the event of its death. But I think it just barely goes over the line. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD I don't think a very old tree is ITN-worthy. It's not the oldest, nor has it died as a result of vandalism, and thousand-year-old trees are common, especially olive trees in the Mediterranean, nor there’s a relevant global coverage. And as for Robin Hood, well, it's a nice story. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's the (very uncertain) age of the tree that's most important, but rather the cultural significance it has for the United Kingdom (and beyond e.g. CNN, ABC, etc) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb Article is fine for RD, but as a blurb? Seriously? It was known not to be in great shape 4 years ago, this was expected, and "old tree dies". Our RB blurbs are already a mess, lets not throw in clearly inconsequential deaths of biological entities into the mix here. Masem (t) 11:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Oppose Blurb Not receiving sustained coverage. Not even on the front page of the BBC. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it was on there this morning. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but you would be hoping for at least consistent front page coverage in the country it happened. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb--not seeing the kind of coverage in the article to warrant a blurb. Major Oak appears to have been pretty important to local folklore, but not much outside of that, and besides isn't a part so large it'd warrant coverage alongside world news when it inevitably died. There are other trees that old, and people not familiar with the story of Robin Hood or the Midlands region in general will not recognize Sherwood Forest, and mentions of Robin Hood can't be added to the blurb as it can't be confirmed--we only have The tree has long been linked in local folklore with Robin Hood and his Merry Men, who were said to have sheltered beneath it, a very shaky at best connection. Very little outside of the tree's age and connection to Robin Hood are notable. Support RD--article's in pretty good shape. Departure– (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"... not much outside of that"? It gets "350,000 visitors" a year. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So? Sheer numbers aren't enough to convince me something's worth a blurb when I don't have anything to anchor that off of. I'm sure more people go to Pizza Hut every week in the US for food, but nobody nominated its sale. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right. The Major Oak pizzas are rubbish, aren't they... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, sceptical on blurb. The article is fine. Yakikaki (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb – Not a transformative figure tree, no "death as the story" argument either (whereas Oliver Tree's death got more coverage, yet was only posted as an RD). Article is also quite short to be an ITN blurb. Edit: and !votes simply based on the tree being very famous, etc., should be expanded upon; mere fame is not the threshold for a blurb, otherwise most of ITN would be death blurbs considering how many famous people die every day. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, maybe Support RD - Seems more like a bit of trivia suitable for a future “Did you Know…?” entry than anything else. And yes, it was an old tree, but there are plenty of known trees that are thousands of years older than this was, so it’s not like it was particularly unique on the global scheme of things. RPH (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how many of these are old and have just died. Nor what percentage of "known" old trees have wikipedia articles about them. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Article in good shape. Historic tree and per RD guidelines, RDs and by proxy blurb also applies to living non-human subjects. This tree was truly historic and notable in their field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as per above. Article is also good quality. GWA88 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I don't see a good reason not to. Legendary thousand-year-old tree that appeared in folklore, very "in the news" (did a quick news search and found almost every outlet I can recognize covered it), sufficient quality for RD if there's no consensus for a blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Masem and others. OLDTREEDIES. Natg 19 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    OLDTREESIES is the most insane argument I've ever seen on ITN. ArionStar (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What's insane is that that there is actual serious consideration of a blurb for an old tree, given the number of actual people with actual major figure appropriateness and quality articles that get passed up. This makes the entire RD blurb approach nonsensical and more reasons it needs to go in favor of leavign the RD line and only covering deaths where the manner of death is the news story (like assassinations). I'll stress the RFC to add non-human biological deaths to the RD line only covered RD, not blurbs, so this even goes against the blurb allowances. Masem (t) 00:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If that RFC explicitly prohibited blurbs for non-human RDs, that looks like a pretty clear giant red line. Else the RFC might need to be re-run? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    RDs are for routine deaths from old age where the coverage is a pro forma announcement or obituary. This case is not like that because the coverage has been news stories rather than obituaries. The cause of death is complex and uncertain and so much of the coverage details the numerous factors including climate change, soil compaction, mining and water table changes, counter-productive repairs and scaffolding, fungus and whatever else. This makes it a "death is the story" situation which is a standard reason to blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of our RDs are based on news stories reporting of deaths, not material you find in the obituary pages.
    The tree died by, for all purposes, natural causes with some minor complications from inadvertent actions, but it wasn't like vandalized, cut down, or the like. No one is treating this like "death as the story" which we would use to cover as sassinations or crash. The equivalent case here would be the death of a centenarian, where their death notice is accompanied by the various treatment or illnesses that might have contributed to their passing by otherwise natural causes. Masem (t) 11:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For a fresh example, see Al Worthington – the most recent RD that I looked at. That article and the coverage says just about nothing about his death, just recording the fact that he passed on at age 97. Their focus is his career as a player and coach which was some time ago. The death is not the story in that case; in this one it is. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    OLDTREEDIES gave me a chuckle not gonna lie. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    😭😭😭😭   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. The folklore connection is only mentioned in a single sentence, and certainly doesn't make it rise to the transformative level we'd expect for RD blurbs. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Ready for a blurb"? With 14 explicit support blurbs, 9 explicit oppose blurbs, 1 weak support and 2 inexplicit opposes. Overall I don't think 15 to 11 is ready for blurb, it warrants further discussion. With that being said I can't see further discussion going anywhere. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - I'm generally opposed to death blurbs for any non-human, and this tree is of no wider significance. The Robin Hood connection is purely fanciful, and the tree has largely been killed by misguided attempts at preservation over a long period. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Lessons for more effective preservation might make this demise more significant, not less. It seems we spoiled ourselves with the recent illegal and violent death of the Sycamore Gap tree (also also known as the "Robin Hood tree" for some rather fanciful reason)? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I legit haven't heard of this tree nor its connection to Robin Hood until now. The fact that it took until its death that someone actually bothered to expand its page says enough about its supposed "notability". NotKringe (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles nominated here for RD need improvements. (Or is that practically all?) I can assure you that there are very many American real people who appear at RD that I've never heard of. (or is that practically most...) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression is that the news coverage of the tree didn't leave many unanswered questions that people might have and so they may not have felt a need to come to Wikipedia. The pop star looked a lot weirder and so people may have been more curious to find out more. It's what DYK calls hookiness.
But, this is not the correct comparison. Nominations should be compared with the existing blurbs to see whether they will be an improvement. In this case, ITN has been leading with the 2026 Stanley Cup Final for a week now and so it's quite stale. And it was never that popular to start with as the oak tree had a bigger spike. ITN should be running many such interesting stories rather than looking so lifeless too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want anything lifeless in RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

[edit]

Dialog leak

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Dialog (organization) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The directory of Dialog, a secret society founded by Peter Thiel (pictured) and Auren Hoffman in 2006, is revealed in a leak. (Post)Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am entirely aware this is a longshot nomination. However, I do not mean this as a WP:POINT or to try and move the Overton window around these parts; I do believe this has a chance to be posted. Dialog has been compared to the World Economic Forum, but prior to now, we knew basically nothing about its inner workings. The breadth and depth of the organization's penetration into politics, business, news, entertainment, religion, and the military was previously not understood. Bremps... 04:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, that's a flagrant violation of WP:NPA, and an unwarranted intrusion of your personal politics into this discussion. Please retract it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the nomination's original list of sources was Cameron, Dell; Almazova, Yulia (June 16, 2026). "Leak Exposes Members of Peter Thiel's Secretive 'Dialog' Society". Wired (magazine).. I thought that was a list of different sources but I see now that it was just a single citation – the Wired article and its authors. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you've definitely seen my request that you retract your attack on those of us who edit under pseudonyms, but you're ignoring it? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the nomination slightly and found the Wired article and linked it. I second the above, please retract that sentence, it goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and needlessly escalates what can already be sometimes a quite challenging corner of Wikipedia. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh I see no personal attacks here, just a joke about anonymity in WP and this story. Natg 19 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability but Oppose on quality A data leak for a secretive organisation led by some of the world's most powerful meets notability threshold. However I would expect the target article to be something along the lines of 2026 Dialog data leak. The section in the current proposed article on the leak is very short and does not expand much in terms of impact, aftermath or consequences. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – No follow-up scandal, so uncertain about its significance. If people lost their jobs or there was public outrage as in the Epstein list, then I'm sure this could be worth posting, but for now, it seems to me that elites were included on a list of elites. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nice4What. This leak does not appear to have any consequence, as this conference or group is unknown to the general public. There is minor outrage because of the connections to Thiel, who is controversial, but don't think this has any major significance. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing yet if any significance has happened, ITN shpuld npt be thd place for speculative stories. Now if this leads to resignations or the like (similar to when the Epstein files were released, at least outside the US), that might be a story, but the mere existence of this leak is not a good topic for ITN. Masem (t) 17:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nice4What. All the hype surrounding a secret society always stems from the mystique of the Illuminati and all that sort of thing. They exist, full stop. A group of millionaires and influential figures get together and do whatever they like. We’ll see what consequences and significance this particular one has; for now, none whatsoever. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Daveigh Chase

[edit]
Article: Daveigh Chase (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
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 former child actress known for her roles in Lilo & Stitch and The Ring. May not be ready yet but nominating anyway to spread awareness. Useless Niamh (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Camillo Ruini

[edit]
Article: Camillo Ruini (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: Article updated and looks good. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – Several unsourced statements. Nice4What (talk · contribs) 15:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Prince

[edit]
Article: Bobby Prince (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IGN
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: Composer for 1990s video games such as DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article is in a bit of a rough patch right now, lots of unsourced statements. But I really want this to appear. I'm going to try and find sources and fix the article to the best of my ability so it can appear. (And to think I was just recently wanting to make an article for the Doom soundtrack.) λ NegativeMP1 19:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We can possible put this under June 19, as that's when the death was first announced, even though he died on June 16. Masem (t) 19:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So I ended up axing half of the article at the end as I couldn't find sourcing for a lot of things on first search, which is unfortunate. But, in other news, the full article is actually sourced now. I think it should, in theory, be suitable for RD now? λ NegativeMP1 20:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything is sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: