Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
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]
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.
Headers[edit]
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]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
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]|
June 23, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(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.
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. Credits:
- Nominated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
- Support Yesterday's readership shows that these topics are the top sporting news currently as Messi and the goal-scorer list rank only below Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer. If we're going to run sport then it should be fresh news like this rather than stale stuff like the ice-hockey and basketball. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:POPULARPAGE Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:MISUSE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't. If pageviews aren't substantial and determinable enough for an article itself to stand. They certainly aren't for any other avenue including ITN/the Main Page.
- On the other hand, I wonder whether repeatedly citing pageviews despite being told to desist this disruption is a misuse of this forum. Gotitbro (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:MISUSE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Browsing today's news on the NYT, I notice that their top story for the World Cup is The Race for the Most Goals at This World Cup Is Shaping Up to Be a Classic. The BBC describes it as A Golden Boot race for the ages. Such coverage indicates that this is more significant than usual. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- WP:POPULARPAGE Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support – List of FIFA World Cup top goalscorers is an FA, so that's exciting to feature. ITNSIGNIF is met. The only question is really "update." The list doesn't exactly have much prose to feature, let alone new prose. I think it's fun because we don't get the opportunity to feature this list often, but it's certainly borderline. It's not quite covered in the Ongoing FIFA cup article yet, but maybe it should be... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose All noms for individual records have been rejected, this is no different. Moreover this is ongoing of course, let what the sections that were created serve their purpose. Gotitbro (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose as this is a pretty trivial individual record in a team sport. Also, note that Kylian Mbappe trails Messi by two goals and already equals Klose's previous record, so this doesn't really seem like an unexpected groundbreaking achievement. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose (quite apart from the notability issue) for the very obvious reason that the record could be beaten multiple times during this tournament, given that Mbappe is only two goals behind him. Would we post it every time? Obviously not. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- If the record is broken quickly then we would just update the blurb. If the blurb has scrolled off then we might add the list to Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- So why would we add this random stat list out of the tens or so that exist for FIFA. Why would we even feature this trivia as a blurb or otherwise for what is already covered by ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- The infobox for 2026 FIFA World Cup has a section for tournament statistics and lists just four which are currently:
- Matches played = 44
- Goals scored = 134 (3.05 per match)
- Attendance = 2,851,010 (64,796 per match)
- Top scorer = Lionel Messi (5 goals)
- So, the top scorer seems to be one of the most significant stats. Q.E.D.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- All trivia. The things that have actually received significant coverage beyond trivia are those listed at list of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies. Trump travel/visa bans, Iran etc. A much more valid nom could be made for any of them, though I'd still oppose ("ongoing"). Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- The infobox for 2026 FIFA World Cup has a section for tournament statistics and lists just four which are currently:
- So why would we add this random stat list out of the tens or so that exist for FIFA. Why would we even feature this trivia as a blurb or otherwise for what is already covered by ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- If the record is broken quickly then we would just update the blurb. If the blurb has scrolled off then we might add the list to Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. Perhaps a similar blurb could be posted at the end of the tournament but not while the tournament is still ongoing. Natg 19 (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - Include the record in the blurb when the tournament is over: "FIFA World Cup concludes with X defeating Y in the final with person Z becoming all-time top scorer". --Mika1h (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Minor trivia, and the tournament is already in the ongoing section. ITN has consistently declined to post individual records in team sports, and this isn't a particularly important one anyway. Modest Genius talk 09:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose since it's mere sports trivia of a specific event, which is already covered in ongoing. NotKringe (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wait – With Mbappé only two goals behind, this record could likely fluctuate throughout the tournament. I agree with Maplestrip above that it'd be nice to showcase an FA. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. It is simply trivia Setarip (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
June 22
[edit]|
June 22, 2026 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
2026 Côte-des-Neiges shooting
[edit]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. Credits:
- Nominated by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Alansohn (talk · give credit)
- Updated by IrateSpecialist (talk · give credit) and Raskuly (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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) - 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)
- 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)
- A shooting at a company headquarters that killed/injured multiple people is not common. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- A shooting at a company headquarters that killed/injured multiple people is not common. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
RD: Eddie Knox
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. Nice job fixing up the sourcing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(RD ready) RD/blurb: Clive Davis
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American record producer Clive Davis (pictured) dies at the age of 94. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Monkeysoap (talk · give credit), ItsShandog (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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)
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)- 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)
- Can we try for a double death blurb? ―Howard • 🌽33 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)- Question Oliver Tree's tragic death was not posted, but does Clive Davis deserve a blurb? ArionStar (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- "
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose Blurb I don't believe he warrants a blurb. Setarip (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Blurb Ready) RD/blurb: Alan Greenspan
[edit]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.
- Updated and nominated by EaglesFan37 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Qwerty123M (talk · give credit), Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit), TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit) and PrinceArchelaus (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- Internal wiki assessments of coverage quality hold no water for WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
Oppose blurbComment 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)- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @Masem: & @Gotitbro: Expanded his death section. Might actually split it into a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Masem: & @Gotitbro: Expanded his death section. Might actually split it into a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support blurb Hugely influential central banker, clear evidence of being transformative in his field. Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support alternative blurb, the article is in a good state and the longevity of this central banking official means he has a lot of impact and notability. I agree with other editors that you should include the word "United States" before "Federal Reserve" to eliminate any confusion and make sure to link the name of the central bank. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb on quality. Most of the article written in WP:PROSELINE style, which reads poorly but also does not contextualize content well. This is just not the kind of article we want to feature. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support Blurb 30849 characters (4791 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Not ready – Several unsourced statements, I've added a dozen [citation needed] tags to help other editors out. Before rushing to !support blurb for a recent death, it's always worth checking out the article's quality first 😊.Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)- @Nice4What: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- No remaining quality concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Nice4What: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Influential economist and Fed Chair/important figure of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb when ready. This is one of the few living economists that we rank as Level 5 critical (WP:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists#Economists and business theorists). Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Old man dies, blah blah blah. Another instance of pro—US bias on the Main Page. If Greenspan were the central banker of, say, Zambia, would he be blurbed? ~2026-36331-69 (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- What a ridiculous comment. The United States is the world's largest economy, and generates a considerable share of global economic output. Greenspan's actions held far more significance than anything the governor of the Zambian national bank could do, especially as he presided over, or was a key figure in, several economic downturns that had worldwide impact. Of course he would be put on a higher pedestal than say, Denny Kalyalya, whose article is a stub. OwenCobalt (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb on quality.Support after article quality was met. Setarip (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)- @Setarip: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Seems sufficient now. I would say Support now. Setarip (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Setarip: How about now? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb - All tags are now dealt with fairly, after considerable and laudable effort by editors, and seeing as Greenspan is/was a historic financial icon, this seems a valid blurb. Argumentation regarding “bias” is unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Massively transformational on the economy both in America and globally, and has a solid Legacy section to boot. He easily warrants a blurb. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger:
Please do not ... add simple 'support!' or 'oppose!' votes without including your reasons
(WP:ITNCDONT). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger:
- Oppose blurb, support RD just an old American man dying of natural causes. Skyshiftertalk 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb: Highly influential economist who played a major role during the 2008 financial crisis. Article has been substantially improved in the last few days. MidnightMayhem (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Resignation of Keir Starmer
[edit]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.
- Created and nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Howtomedia72 (talk · give credit), RottenEgg780 (talk · give credit), RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk · give credit), Moondragon21 (talk · give credit) and ~2026-29058-56 (talk · give credit)
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)
This nomination was previously opened before the event, this collapsed section contains opposes for that reason. Please add comments at the bottom of the nomination, not up here.
|
|---|
|
- Reopening now that it's happened — Knightoftheswords 08:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hasn't happened, it's just expected to. Jalapeño (u t g) 08:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know why it would be reopened rather than renominated. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've collapsed them so the discussion should now be clearer. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)- 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)
- Support altblurb 2 - Significant event in UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support altblurb2 - In the news, obviously, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Looking further back, we've done the same for every PM since ITN began: Theresa May, David Cameron ... and going all the way back to 2007, Tony Blair as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- I read an interesting fact yesterday, that the only PMs since WW2 to win an election and then go on to fight the next election and lose it, are Attlee (1950/1951), Wilson (1966/1970), Heath (1970/1974) and Major (1992/1997). PMs standing down midterm is entirely the norm it seems, so good to have a boilerplate blurb to use for this scenario. — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Looking further back, we've done the same for every PM since ITN began: Theresa May, David Cameron ... and going all the way back to 2007, Tony Blair as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Why does 2026 Labour Party leadership election (UK) exist when there might not actually be an election? How very odd. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- The leadership contest has been triggered by Starmer today with the announcement of his resignation. Burnham may run unopposed but there is still an election process with nomination's etc. HowlongForever (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- We still have an article for 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK) and October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election even though Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak ended up being elected unopposed in both cases. — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Both of which were also started before it was clear that there would not be a vote. It just strikes me as very Wikipedia-esque to have (in some cases, detailed) article about things that never happened. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well, we all know where WP:AFD is. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Especially given that Streeting has just said he will support Burnham... Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Elections by acclamation are still elections. Rushtheeditor (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well, we all know where WP:AFD is. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Both of which were also started before it was clear that there would not be a vote. It just strikes me as very Wikipedia-esque to have (in some cases, detailed) article about things that never happened. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 2: for 2 reasons
- he has only announced his resignation it has not yet come into effect
- 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)
- Support alt blurb 2: Keep it simple. Shakya2007 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt 2, for simplicity. Renerpho (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted alt2 per consensus above. Sandstein 11:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Should "prime minister of the United Kingdom" not be capitalized per MOS:JOBTITLE, as in "Keir Starmer"? J3133 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not doubting the posting of this, but given there were only 5 hr from renomination to posting, alongside the fact this is in the UK and way early in the day in other parts of the world, this should have waited to make sure there non-UK editors had a chance to get their comments in. We are not meant to be up to the second timely, and a few more hours would have not hurt. Masem (t) 11:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- 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)
- "mineral" I see WP:CRYSTALs here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- If the older comments are under no consideration, complaints about them should have no bearing either. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The people to whom I pay most attention are our readers. In this case, their top 5 ranking of people yesterday was:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- Perhaps. Would we have posted it if Trump had resigned? Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Different systems; in presidentialism, the vice president assumes the presidency immediately. ArionStar (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- That said, I note we posted Trudeau's very similar resignation in only 38 minutes, as opposed to 58 minutes here and while I didn't have a chance to comment, I did hypocritically criticize a pull suggestion. Mind, Trudeau was better known internationally, and the senior G7 leader, with a decade in power and winning 3 elections in a row, as opposed to only 2 years. Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Different systems; in presidentialism, the vice president assumes the presidency immediately. ArionStar (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Perhaps. Would we have posted it if Trump had resigned? Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support per above. Setarip (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Article in good shape. If we wait to post Starmer's resignation when Burnham is elected as his replacement in July (if uncontested) it would be old news. Starmer's resignation is making global headlines plus it kinda resolves the Labour leadership crisis which had been ongoing since May. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting then, @TDKR Chicago 101, that we don't post the invitation by the King, which is when the PM-elect becomes PM (well a few seconds later when they say yes). Likely before the September 1 resumption of Parliament. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that Starmer's resignation should be treated separately than his successor's election. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Even though both his resignation as PM would be after his successor's election? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that Starmer's resignation should be treated separately than his successor's election. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- What makes these routine resignations anymore special than the Bulgarian political crisis (2021–2026) of which we haven't ever featured an "announcement" or even a resignation. Hmm... there might be something other than notability rushing these to the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose one could argue that such an event for a major nation that's a permanent security council member, or has a huge population like India is simply more notable than a minnow. Bulgaria is no bigger than Scotland, and I don't think we blurbed the recent ins-and-outs there (correct me if I'm wrong). Which suggests it might not be language-based bias. Maybe this is something we just accept - though perhaps not codify. Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting then, @TDKR Chicago 101, that we don't post the invitation by the King, which is when the PM-elect becomes PM (well a few seconds later when they say yes). Likely before the September 1 resumption of Parliament. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- This was posted pre-maturely, and should have been posted when UK got a new PM. Nothing has actually happened yet, and we're probably gonna post the new PM in September anyways. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- In recent years, we simply haven't waited until the UK got a new PM. Both the resignation announcement and the new PM were posted for every PM from Cameron through to Truss. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 06:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support per Davey2116. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 06:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
2026 Ethiopian general election
[edit]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.
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose, another Sham elections
- QalasQalas (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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:
Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)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.
- Wait article is very bare bones. Scuba 13:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
2026 Tacloban school shooting
[edit]Blurb: In the Philippines, a school shooting leaves 3 people dead and 20 others injured. (Post)
- Nominated by Militant.Insurgency (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- Support: per TheNuggeteer, I think this is the largest mass shooting in the Philippines. In solidarity, ROY is WAR Talk! 10:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- No, that would be Kawit shooting, but they do seem to be relatively rare. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
2026 Colombian presidential election
[edit]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.
- Nominated by EditorShane3456 (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Assuming this means "got the most votes", but that is odd wording. Natg 19 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment There's an orange tag in the 'Candidates' section that hasn't been resolved since January 2026. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comments. Alt blurb (sans "becoming...") proposed. De la Espriella's article is borderline acceptable for the main page; the election article still has gaps (but OK, it isn't bolded...). But suggest waiting for the final count (which would give us time to polish both articles, including deciding on whether it's "De la Espriella" or "de la Espriella" when he appears mid-sentence). Moscow Mule (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - He assumes office on August 7th. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- We typically post election results, instead of the actual inauguration day, except for special circumstances. Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Aftermath section has a quality tag and feels like a lot of information is still missing given the closeness of the result. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support altblurb3 Standardized blurb. ArionStar (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
June 21
[edit]|
June 21, 2026 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Sports
|
2026 U.S. Open
[edit]Blurb: In golf, Wyndham Clark (pictured) wins the U.S. Open. (Post)
- Nominated by Rawmustard (talk · give credit)
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)
- Not ready. There's still no prose on the final round and the overall results. Modest Genius talk 10:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: Flamingo Revolution
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by UnitedStatesian (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- Support it is escalating and there is daily updates. Setarip (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- I’ll support if we label the item as Flamingo Revolution. 2600 etc (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support Good article and relevant ongoing event. ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- Oppose - zero sources. Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- ? --L'Éclipse (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- An iq too low? LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please refrain from personal attacks against other editors. This is not an appropriate comment. Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- I have updated the nomination as the article has been renamed to Flamingo Revolution. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
Posted. Left guide (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
RD: Francisco Guterres
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Tinh1000000 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Not ready – The article should go in depth about Guterres's presidency beyond just the pandemic. Also, there are original research concerns (see the webpage cited to support the claim
with the number of COVID cases in the country significantly dropping after the campaign was launched
). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
June 20
[edit]|
June 20, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Bolivian protests update
[edit]Blurb: Bolivian president Rodrigo Paz declares a state of emergency amid nationwide protests. (Post)
Nominator's comments: The article "2026 Bolivian protests" is currently in the ongoing section. UCinternational (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose Already covered by ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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 ㋡ 17:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose per nom. 2600 etc (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- oppose per _-_Alsor above. ACMehta (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Kepler-1229b (talk · give credit)
- Created by Knowledge, I Say In All Caps (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mcfnord (talk · give credit), Robertsky (talk · give credit), Maksiwood 2 (talk · give credit), Issac I Navarro (talk · give credit) and Guylaen (talk · give credit)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose yes it is a notable article, but not relevant for ITN. Skyshiftertalk 00:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting story, but "local news" to just the involved people. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's been covered on the BBC, CBC, CBS, Gizmodo, IGN, Yahoo, MSN, the New York Post... how is that local news? Guylaen (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly over now. — Knightoftheswords 01:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- The first trial is scheduled for the 22nd, it's nowhere near over. Guylaen (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Also, the same judge from the Charlie Kirk murder case is presiding here. Guylaen (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- The first trial is scheduled for the 22nd, it's nowhere near over. Guylaen (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
June 19
[edit]|
June 19, 2026 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(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.
Blurb: A train crash kills 1 and injures 100 in the United Kingdom. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
- Created by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- 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)
- Basing your "vote" on how others "vote" is actively disruptive towards determining consensus, actually. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Basing your "vote" on how others "vote" is actively disruptive towards determining consensus, actually. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose - I appreciate the nomination, but with only one death it is going to be very hard to argue for posting. Maybe this could go to DYK, as the 2024 Talerddig collision did? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite the fact this was front page news on the BBC for two days (indeed, it's still the third story there now) and the very large amount of injuries, I find it difficult to claim that it's eligible for ITN, with no passengers killed. Tragic, but I don't think it's notable enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose local train crashes without multiple deaths. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - genuinely locally significant, but it does not (in my opinion) meet the bar for ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Certainly an unusual event, which was getting substantial media coverage before Starmer resigned. However the death toll is thankfully (and remarkably) low, so I don't think this rises to ITN significance. It woudl make a good DYK though. Modest Genius talk 13:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
(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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
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.
RD: James Burrows
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DarkStarHarry (talk · give credit), NathanielTheBold (talk · give credit), Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit) and ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
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)
- Opppose filmography is largely uncited, as is a few paragraphs in the main body. jolielover♥talk 04:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment We should consider a blurb as the BBC report indicates that he was a giant in his field – "The 800 lb gorilla of television comedy for fifty years". The article is vital but needs some work, I reckon. I'll start by adding a picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
RD: Trond Johansen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by QuicoleJR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by LinusBraun100 (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- Comment Added reactions from political and military leaders. ~2026-36005-77 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Mona Khalil
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Turtle conservationist, Mona Khalil, dies from her injuries in an airstrike on Lebanon. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Blythwood (talk · give credit)
- Updated by LongueDurée (talk · give credit), 2kbfloppadisk (talk · give credit), Chomik1129 (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
June 18
[edit]|
June 18, 2026 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Sports
|
June 2026 Diori Hamani International Airport attack
[edit]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. Credits:
- Created and nominated by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Comment This appears to be a principally military engagement with minimal civilian casualties (6 total incl. 2 fatalities). It is also not the first time that this mixed civilian/military air port/base has been attacked this year: January 2026 Diori Hamani International Airport attack (I don't know how to check whether this was featured). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:51, 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)
- Support significant attack by militants in major conflict This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability and quality good article that has everything it needs to, and an attack on international airport with many casualties is notable. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose These Islamic insurgents carry out hundreds of attacks in the Sahel alone and this is the second such attack on this airport this year. So, this is a skirmish in a much larger campaign and, as an encyclopedia, we should be summarising the big picture, not each incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support on Quality, Weak Supporty on Notability as attack is notable, but as Andrew said, sadly commonn. Even considering that though, an attack in an airport and with that number of victims and media coverage does seem to meet notability for ITN. R. M. Holda - (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
RD: Tay Keith
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by SirPhilippines (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
(Posted) RD: Al Worthington
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support – GA quality, looks good to go. Would prefer if after the single sentence mentioning his death, there was a sentence or two explaining his legacy, though I wouldn't want that to hold up this posting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
June 17
[edit]|
June 17, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Carlo Ginzburg
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Yakikaki (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support sourced throughout. jolielover♥talk 17:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Islamabad Memorandum
[edit]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:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Crampcomes (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- Added more sources from BBC and Al-Jazeera. Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- I thought Axios is reliable? WP:AXIOS. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Added more sources from BBC and Al-Jazeera. Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wait It is not the peace agreement and the article is too orange-tagged. ArionStar (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- wait official signing is today in geneva. Also too many orange tags.Psephguru (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note that if this does get posted, then Iran war should be removed from ongoing. Stephen 04:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Start a new thread? BTW- I agree.Psephguru (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support as it's been signed. Setarip (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
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)- The war has concluded. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- The war in Lebanon has not concluded. Sources: The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and CNN --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The war has concluded. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong oppose Again? Skyshiftertalk 13:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support as it has been signed today. The final peace treaty isn't ready yet, but this is the biggest development in the war, ending the hostilities themselves for now. We would have posted the Armistice of 11 November 1918 even if it wasn't the Treaty of Versailles. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- An armistice that actually works, maybe. An armistice where one party simply doesn't get the message every time, certainly not. Gotitbro (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- This isn't a world war or anywhere close to one by any possible metric. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed because most ship owners see it as too much of a risk. That is not going to change for probably several weeks, assuming that the pause of hostilities doesn't break down. Some ships are going through but traffic is still far below normal levels. For comparison, traffic in the Red Sea has remained far below pre-Gaza levels despite the Houthis stopping their attacks on ships for months. The shipping company Maersk, for instance, has said that they are keeping emergency restrictions in place for the Persian Gulf despite the MOU. The language of the blurb should reflect this, with something like "memorandum of understanding intended to reopen the Strait of Hormuz." Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wait/Oppose per Gotitbro and Romanov loyalist. Point #1 of the memorandum says no less than three times that hostilities need to end in Lebanon and the deal requires the US and their allies (i.e. Israel) respect Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty (i.e. Israel needs to get out). Israel has already signaled they disagree with this and have no intentions of following these terms. The US and Iran may have signed a deal, but they signed a deal that is entirely conditioned on Israel doing something that we have every reason to believe they won't do. We've been here before. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support post something now- it's a significante development; big global media cover. amps (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose No certainty Trump or Netanyahu will follow through. Trump is already running his mouth again about bombing Iran. Noah, BSBATalk 22:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose US/Iran talks in Switzerland cancelled. Black Kite (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- This was known (the reason it was signed electronically)? Shouldn't affect the MoU. Regardless, the MoU itself isn't notable whether signed digitally or in Switzerland nor would be the talks leading from it. Unless there is some sort of actual deal ITN and the world can stay put. Gotitbro (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose With fighting continuing and the next USA/Iran negotiations cancelled, this MOU is completely meaningless and the war remains in ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality – Two expansion tags, a fairly severe WP:Proseline issue, and that's not to mention that sections like Analysis are very short as well. I don't think this is a great feature right now. For a subject that's already covered under WP:ONGOING, we should have pretty high quality requirements to post additional articles. Though I recognize the Ongoing doesn't meet quality requirements anymore either; maybe we may as well just replace it with this entirely...? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- And it looks like Iran has closed the strait again until Israel de-occupies Lebanon, nullifying this. Really, the story here is really when a true ceasefire agreement is signed, not some MOU. Masem (t) 11:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please cite your source(s). The latest I'm seeing is that shipping is starting to move through the strait again but they are being cautious because of the risk of mines. Who says that Iran is closing it again? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ceasefire in Lebanon agreed upon. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's BBC, and they since seem to be reporting that the Isreal is has since attacked Lebanon again, and the source of the ceasefire being agreed upon is the USA - who I don't think we can rely on for truth. War continues. Perhaps we should close this and wait a few days to see if a ceasefire takes place. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- These sources about the Lebanon ceasefire [9][10] note that Israel continued hostilities after the ceasefire was reportedly agreed to and reiterated that they intend to continue their occupation of southern Lebanon. The AP source also seems to suggest that Hezbollah was not able to confirm that there is a ceasefire in effect:
A Hezbollah official said an agreement to stop fighting could be announced soon, but he stopped short of confirming it was in place.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose in the least shocking turn of this conflict, the war that has been declared over dozens of times by the United States, is indeed not over. Canadianerk (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Walter Parazaider
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by RadioKAOS (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit) and BradyBunchFan (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support RD Article in good shape.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. @RadioKAOS: even if this likely isn't blurb worthy, it would be greatly appreciated if you could still expand upon Parazaider's legacy in his article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
(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.
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)
- 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)
- My bad... I shouldve looked into it more before this nomination. Withdrawn. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's all fine, I added these after your nomination. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- My bad... I shouldve looked into it more before this nomination. Withdrawn. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Robert Thurman
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Strattonsmith (talk · give credit), BradyBunchFan (talk · give credit), Kasuga (talk · give credit), Editrite! (talk · give credit) and Tacyarg (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above.
- Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Bremps... 05:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted as RD, discussion may continue) RD/blurb: Major Oak
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The Major Oak in Sherwood Forest, which was about a thousand years old, has died. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by EvergreenFir (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Moochos (talk · give credit), Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit), Martinevans123 (talk · give credit), Thincat (talk · give credit) and Pristino (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support blurb There's currently some ballyhoo about the US being 250 years old but this tree was about four times that age, going back to the time of Robin Hood. It was quite major – the clue is in the name – and The Guardian headlines it as the "Most famous tree in the world". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- We didn't blurb the US being 250 years old so it's a false equivalence. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- The US anniversary is on the 4th of July and I suppose the ballyhoo will climax then so that remains to be seen. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- A country versus a tree is a false equivalence – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- For an American take on the superior nature of trees see Trees (poem), which is a fine GA. It contains an interesting account of the "Kilmer Oak ... whose remains ... are presently kept in storage at Rutgers University." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- A country versus a tree is a false equivalence – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- The US anniversary is on the 4th of July and I suppose the ballyhoo will climax then so that remains to be seen. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- We didn't blurb the US being 250 years old so it's a false equivalence. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Quirky, well sourced and not often something that comes around when we lose something living for over a millenium. Following the precidence of the Sycamore Gap tree, I would support blurbing. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Sycamore Gap tree has generated quite a lot of continuing coverage as there have been numerous organised efforts to preserve and commemorate it in various ways (fresh example.) But that tree is not actually dead whereas this one seems to be. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb, unique tree happening. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb as above. qcne (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, weak oppose blurb. The article is short but sufficient to post in RD. I don't think this is significant enough to merit a blurb, and the article isn't of particularly high quality. On the other hand, we could do with posting something. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- we never should weaken standards just because ITN is stale. Masem (t) 13:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that might be a real snag. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- we never should weaken standards just because ITN is stale. Masem (t) 13:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Unique story which is garnering coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 10:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- To be fair, it was on there this morning. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- To be fair, it was on there this morning. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Historic tree of international importance. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- International importance? Why? _-_Alsor (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Very famous (even though it does not appear by name in Robin Hood: Men in Tights or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC) p.s. has anyone taken a cutting??
- Support blurb per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb per Masem. While the Sycamore Gap tree was blurbed, I think the fact that it was felled added more to the story there ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- "... not much outside of that"? It gets "350,000 visitors" a year. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yeah you're right. The Major Oak pizzas are rubbish, aren't they... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- "... not much outside of that"? It gets "350,000 visitors" a year. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, sceptical on blurb. The article is fine. Yakikaki (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – Not a transformative
figuretree, 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 beingvery 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). - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support blurb as per above. Article is also good quality. GWA88 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose blurb per Masem and others. OLDTREEDIES. Natg 19 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- OLDTREESIES is the most insane argument I've ever seen on ITN. ArionStar (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OLDTREEDIES gave me a chuckle not gonna lie. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- 😭😭😭😭 Jalapeño (u t g) 08:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- OLDTREESIES is the most insane argument I've ever seen on ITN. ArionStar (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support blurb Age is the primary factor that makes a tree notable, so those saying OLDTREEDIES put forward a valid argument for a blurb. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Posted RD there's no reason not to do that, even as discussion continues. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above. Significant coverage, and of interest to readers. An individual tree surely meets a very high bar of notability already if it has its own article. Davey2116 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb not significant. Our readers agree. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- You mean our larger number of US readers agree? Maybe more views if the Major Oak had been killed by a crashing helicopter. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, we don't want anything lifeless in RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb not significant. Our readers agree. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
June 16
[edit]|
June 16, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
Dialog leak
[edit]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:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Created by FlarpenX (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Deamonpen (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support - This is major news in the field of online security in its own right, and makes public an existing story of great importance. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support The nomination's list of sources seemed too obscure but I see the news reaching The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter and RTE. I expect that interest will grow as reporters cross-reference this with the Epstein files. Of course, Wikipedians who hide behind super sekrit pseudonyms can't really complain about others who discuss the world's affairs in private but so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
RD: Daveigh Chase
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Useless Niamh (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose for now. Multiple sections of article unsourced LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now as there is multiple CN tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support The quality is adequate and there has been massive interest in this lately, making it the top read article for days, as it's quite a tragic tale. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready – Six CN tags and Filmography section is mostly unsourced. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
RD: Camillo Ruini
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Ian P. Tetriss (talk · give credit)
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)
- Not ready – Several unsourced statements. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Still a couple of {CN} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bobby Prince
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by EvergreenFir (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rhain (talk · give credit) and NegativeMP1 (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support. Everything is sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
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:
