Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas in 1999
Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas in 1999

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting items marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, post the item and change the header to (Posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
  • When consensus to post will not be reached, close the discussion section and change the header to (Closed). If the article's quality remains poor, leave a brief note explaining why to encourage and assist others in fixing it.

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Structure

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.


October 31

[edit]

Suspension of Bogdan Święczkowski

[edit]
Article: Suspension of Bogdan Święczkowski (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests erupt in Poland following the suspension of Bogdan Święczkowski, the president of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. (Post)
News source(s): AP News BBC NBC News
Credits:

 OrderlyOhioan (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Wait as a developing situation, but seems like a mass-scale political crisis in a region where they're not exactly common. The Kip (contribs) 09:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose Seems to be an ongoing constitutional crisis and power struggle which has been developing for some time. The protests seem minor as the AP source talks of "dozens of protesters". I reckon we need something more to blurb this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Wht? That makes no sense. what "ongoing constitutional crisis and power struggle which has been developing for some time"? You can;'t make things up as you go along. Also 4am police presence (which legally couldnt be IN the premises) is not minor anywhere.Psephguru (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The article says plainly in its lead that this is part of the Tusk government period of the long-running Polish constitutional crisis since 2015. So, this has been going on for over 10 years. I made nothing up; I just read the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
"Protests erupt" is an exaggeration that is not supported by the sources. This is an ongoing crisis since 2015 (Andrew Davidson: you're effectively quoting my currently uncontested edits, which I think are accurate per the sources). Something close to unique in terms of Wikipedia articles is that this is an extremely rare case for Wikipedia of a newsy event in which the "Reactions" section has a major academic reactions part written almost immediately, nicely classified into aye vs nay vs it's-nuanced, instead of being mainly just politicians' blabla. In this case, the interpretations, especially by legal experts, matter, because how civil servants, police, media, politicians, judges, lawyers react depends on which legal experts and opinions they trust the most. The Polish case is one of the most prominent European cases of democratic backsliding of the 2010s/2020s (the Hungarian one is the other most prominent one), and the events of 30/31 October may either continue the long crisis, or become an inflection point that evolves towards broad consensus in the Polish legal system. I'm an involved editor; I think the article quality is not too bad, and this phase of the crisis is notable, so it probably could be posted, but without "protests erupt" in the blurb. Boud (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong/obvious oppose per Andrew. ~2026-57945-69 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
strong/obvious support inprinciple highly notable even if it failed (as filed coups have been). Tittle is highly dweceptive as the prez even told the self-appointed Ann that sh is NOT a judge on the Const Court. He is the head of state with ultimate authority. IE he was not suspended. Js another donaly screwed in a weekPsephguru (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
See separation of powers for "ultimate authority". Boud (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Psephguru: Please edit your comment to fix the absurd amount of typos. It borders on unreadable right now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support major development in Polish politics, surprisingly fleshed out article, and receiving sustained international coverage. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 30

[edit]

Bangsamoro's first chief minister

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Abdulraof Macacua (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following decades of conflict and a peace process, the parliament of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Philippines, elects Abdulraof Macacua (pictured) as the first chief minister of the region's regular government, marking the transition from interim to elected governance. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following decades of conflict with the Philippine government and a peace process, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region establishes its first regular parliamentary government, with its parliament electing Abdulraof Macacua (pictured) as chief minister.

 UCinternational (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Absurd - OrdinariusFingius (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Can you at least try to give a semblance of reasoning behind your !vote? — Knightoftheswords(talk) 01:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is not Captain Kirk's blurb nomination. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
FWIW, what should have been nominated was the 2026 Bangsamoro Parliament election, as that was historic. This was just the aftermath of that. People here are very allergic to local elections tho, moreso if Muslims win. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
nothing to do with religion or atheism. wsilly to bring it up.---Psephguru (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)---------------reply
Did you see the attached non-local sourcePsephguru (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
strong support based on precedence i've said at least once (although someone said twice). Local elections that are historic as notable (west bengal democratic communists) and this is democratic islamists post insurgency/violence as even more so. caveat should have posted the election not the swearing in. (it woulda been fun to post MILF in the blurb)Psephguru (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Subdivisional politics. I’m not surprised it’s not even HLN worldwide. ~2026-57945-69 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose on significance. I don't see the depth or length of coverage of this that would warrant ITN inclusion. In fact, I don't see this in the news, apart from in the sources supplied to support the nomination. Yakikaki (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) Binance hack

[edit]
Article: 2026 Binance hack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ $6.3 billion is stolen from cryptocurrency exchange Binance in the largest ever crypto heist. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the largest ever crypto heist, $6.3 billion is stolen from cryptocurrency exchange Binance.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ $6.3 billion is stolen from cryptocurrency exchange Binance in the largest theft ever.
News source(s): Bloomberg
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Suspscions are on North Korea, but it’s too early to say for certain. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 11:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

I've just created an article, 2026 Binance hack, but it's a stub right now as I work on expanding it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support per above --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - added altblurb2 OrdinariusFingius (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, also support OrdinariusFingius (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose The article seems too sketchy and tentative. It has few sources and there seems to be a lot of guesswork and speculation. As this is a crime, we shouldn't be accusing people as the article does. As for the amount, that seems small compared to other financial movements such as the fall in Google's share price which was about 100 times greater. And as the exchange has been locked and recovery is in progress, the amount is tentative too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support. Largest heist and has receieved international coverage. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support absolutely notable. Skyshiftertalk 21:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Novaya Gazeta

[edit]
Article: Novaya Gazeta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia's longest-running independent newspapers, announces that it will cease operations on 9 November 2026. This follows the newspaper's eviction from its longtime Moscow headquarters. (Post)
News source(s): Meduza
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Novaya Gazeta announced that it will shut down its servers and cease operations on 9 November. The announcement follows its September designation as a "foreign agent", the loss of its reader-donation system, the recent search of editor-in-chief Sergei Sokolov's home, and the eviction of the newspaper from its longtime Moscow headquarters. The article has been updated to cover these developments. Melanie (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Close and reopen - Has not happened yet, this is like nominating an election a week before it happens. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait until it happens. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Not yet ready Article suffers from WP:PROSELINE and has a few CN tags. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 29

[edit]

RD: Jan Byś

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

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

Nominator's comments: Polish footballer. Article created by myself today. I realise it's a little short, but honestly not sure what I can expand with given the difficulty in finding sources for 80s Polish domestic footballers, and for a person who actively avoided media attention. Nonetheless his major successes have been noted and there are enough sources for the notable parts of his life. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: Andrés Mendoza (serial killer)

[edit]
Article: Andrés Mendoza (serial killer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Milenio
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Serial killer who was linked to 19 murders. Fixer88 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - No issues and decent quality. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support anyone know how he did it? CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 12:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: June Jones

[edit]
Article: June Jones (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, NBC Sports, Yahoo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Football coach who was the head coach at Hawaii, SMU, the Atlanta Falcons, and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. thrashbandicoot01 (User Talk:thrashbandicoot01) 20:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 28

[edit]

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Patrick Stewart

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Patrick Stewart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British thespian and actor Patrick Stewart dies at 86. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British actor Patrick Stewart dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): THR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Just reported so article needs updates. Aryicle is close, and I feel his cross media career and details covered by his honors section nake a blurb reasonable (though shpuld expand with legacy asoects) Masem (t) 19:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support blurb, leading actor and thespian. Edit conflicts on article left-and-right, but it looks to be in a decent state. RIP. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb A major loss, RIP. A larger update will probably be necessary though. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not around here that often; if he were to get a blurb (not weighing in one way or the other), should it mention one or two things he actually did (and his status as a knight)? Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
we could add Sir, but generally thats the extent of additional recognition. The article shpuld properly cover the highlights in the lead. Masem (t) 20:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Notable enough to warrant one CY223 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Blurb once ready - Some additional sourcing needed for it to be ready to post, but absolutely deserving of a blurb, one of the most well known and prolific actors of his generation, & the fact he’s remained famous and transformational up until the end of his life shows his impact on the industry. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose both on quality CN needs to be fixed. Oppose blurb popularity≠notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • (edit conflict) Oppose blurb Great actor who I saw on stage a few times, but not transformational. If the blurb does get voted in by trekkie and Xmen fans, then for the love of all that is holy, not the current and awful version of "thespian and actor": just "actor" will suffice, but I hope level heads prevail and we don't get yet another 'Carrie Fisher moment'. Oppose RD at present on quality grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    the Carrie Fisher issue was that she was famous for a recurring character in a popular movie series, but had little else impact full about her career. Stewart was a highly respected stage actor (he was knighted for his stage performances) before he became the huge TV/film star, and even after semi retirement, remained an advocate for gay rights among other aspects. He was also recieved nuneeous top awards indicating how he stood out from others in the field. We are going to have to deal with nerd-famous/pop culture !voting, but we need to look at the sum of the career and if the article properly shows which he meets the najor figure criteria, which as i noted needs inprovement but its not absent nor a long ways off. Masem (t) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I saw him on stage several times (and multiple times on film in X-Men and a Marvel), read his autobiography and liked him a lot, but he wasn’t transformational, nor does he reach the level for a blurb IMO. This really is looking more and more like a ‘Carrie Fisher moment’, and the sooner ITN takes steps to stop the fan-voting on film stars, the better it will be. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support once ready First Walter Koenig and now him? This is truly sad. RIP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreaderick (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb Outstanding in his field of theatre and TV, resurrected a sci fi series that lives to this day, article well written. Make it so Number One. Engage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb The honours section makes a sufficient case that he had a transformational career. He had major impacts in both theatre and Sci Fi film. The bar should not be set so high that only the Mandelas of the world get a blurb (and it has never been that high) FlipandFlopped ㋡ 20:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support Patrick Stewart is getting a blurb, folks. (agree with removing "thespian"). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • Comment It's pretty clear there's not a settled consensus on RD blurbability for household names, which will 1) naturally attract a lot of !votes and votes, and 2) conflate fan voting with reasoned argument. There also appears to be a kind of assumed consensus that cannot possibly gel with these "household names" circumstances, and part of the point of these discussions is to reconcile the two. This is difficult if a consensus for blurbability is already assumed because, again, these are different circumstances (cf Carrie Fisher incident, whatever that is (I can guess)). Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC) fwiw I'm not a star trek fan, and I loathe the MCU. I love I Claudius?reply
The "Carrie Fisher" incident just refers to the fact that many think she should not have been posted as an RD Blurb when she passed away in 2016, but there was broad consensus for posting her. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb Per above. Star Trek is an undeniably transformative work in the realm of Science Fiction, and he is possibly one of the most easily recognized actors in the world for his role in that alone. Rockview13 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb - Although I am not a fan of the Star Trek franchise (yet), I understand that he is easily one of the most well-known actors in his field. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support blurb He inspired several other actors, such as Hugh Jackman. ArionStar (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support An ENORMOUS name that everyone has heard of. It this isn't what ITN is for, I don't know what is... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb, an iconic stage and film actor. Nsk92 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb per above. Even beyond Star Trek he's got an outsized impact on his field internationally. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb per above. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 23:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blub, a generationally important actor who also did fine work in 2 long-lasting screen roles. The article looked well developed and well supported to me, but lemme see if I can ref anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb Major cultural figure. Had Wikipedia been around in the 17th century, some of you would have opposed blurbing the death of William Shakespeare. The Vital One (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb Multiple iconic roles, has had a major influence on other actors, and was considered a leading figure in stage acting. Undoubtedly blurb-worthy. The article has also received enough improvements to where it is of sufficient quality to post. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 00:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blurb I think Stewart was probably at, or near, the top of his field as a stage actor, but I would argue he wasn't at the top of his field as a screen actor; he was usually an ensemble player in film and television. Even on the stage, there are a few obvious British names still living who have surely been more transformative and prominent over their careers. I think the amount of awards Stewart has received backs this up; he was never nominated for an Oscar or a BAFTA and never won an Emmy, Golden Globe or a Tony. Stewart is often associated with Ian McKellen but he's more on the level of Derek Jacobi when you look at his career and awards. I don't think many would support blurbing Jacobi when the day comes, but then it isn't actually the field Stewart was at the top of that is getting him all of these votes; what is doing the heavy-lifting for Stewart in this discussion is Star Trek. When we're talking about cultural prominence, Picard is arguably his only major leading role. For that reason, I think we need to be very wary indeed about the Carrie Fisher effect. I think, also, that comments about how we must blurb him because "everyone has heard of" him are a bit inappropriate; there are a lot of "household name" elderly actors from Western film and TV alive right now and if that argument held water, we'd be blurbing them willy nilly. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with your oppose, but Star Trek is not the only leading role that Stewart was prominent for. He also starred as Charles Xavier in the Fox X-Men series. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Just noting that I haven't watched Star Trek, so didn't vote for the blurb because of that. Sahaib (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb He is the sort of household name that his death will and has led to widespread coverage. Altblurb supported without thespian. Arguably transformative in science fiction, as he took to it as if it was a Shakespearean role and elevated it from just "science fiction" to something more.PliskorCor (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Would also add that another blurb is up for consideration. A Mexican politician. I'm not going to argue for or against them being blurbed, and so far consensus seems to be that they will. I will say that if they are blurbed and Stewart is not. Then it will be just another chapter in the book of wiki editors finding any excuse not to include popular events of blurbs, in favour of events of blurbs that will have little public appeal. I'm sure someone will post a policy etc. But sometimes we have to think "What will people coming to wiki who aren't editors actually care about".PliskorCor (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb If he can't make it onto the blurb section then what actor could? Jon698 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support blurb. Was transformative in the field of sci-fi. BilboBeggins (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb Highly acclaimed classical Shakespearean actor of stage and screen, a well deserved blurb. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment As nominator, I don't feel the article is just ready yet for a blurb. As I mentioned, we need to better expand why he was considered a great figure. There's a limited basis in "Acting credits and accolades" to support this but it really needs to be strengthened to support the "major figure" aspect of RD Blurbs. From the few obits I've seen, this should be really easy to expand with those. Otherwise, as many opposes point out, this is just being supported because he was nerd-famous, and that is NOT a reason to post a blurb. Masem (t) 02:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    See Patrick Stewart on stage and screen. ArionStar (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blurb Highly famous, yes, although we should keep in mind that actors have an edge by default over other professions in terms of being recognizable to the public eye. However, that level of recognition alone is far from reaching the threshold of "transformative" in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 03:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Being "transformative" is not a death blurb criterion, "major figure" is. ArionStar (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support any option: "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY." The article had only one citation needed tag, for a sentence that the article currently can do without and can be restored if a suitable source can be found. (Which might be the credits for the program itself? Not sure here. Moving on, though.) If there is anything deficient, it would be Patrick Stewart on stage and screen, which is not being linked to. I will say that I am surprised by those opposed. Stewart did work in films over six separate decades, television work over seven decades, and stage work over six decades. His death is on the front page of the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Australian Broadcasting Company, BBC, and CNN. That despite the US election season that is less than a week away for the AP and CNN. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Goku, please state if you support RD, which do not need arguments on importance, just if the article is up to snuff, or for a blurb, where WP:ITNRDBLURB has to be satisfied. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I am supportive of any option, which is why I specifically did not say just the blurb, but I will correct that. (Though I would not be surprised if someone posts to ERRORS over the usage of thespian.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blurb per Humbledaisy. Love the guy, but not quite significant enough. The next ten years and more are going to see a considerable rise in celebrity deaths, given the boomer boom in the entertainment industry (Mick Jagger, Dustin Hoffman, Diana Ross, etc), and we must be prepared to set the bar pretty high in anticipation of this. Ericoides (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Why must we be prepared to set the bar pretty high in anticipation of the deaths of major figures? It's not like we're going to run out of room... Levivich (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb Reasons include:
  1. The subject's article is rated vital and so there's already a consensus that they "represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity".
  2. The subject's article was the top read yesterday as millions of readers have already come to consult it. This dwarfs all other topics such as the World Series which is ITN's current top blurb. Even the article about Stewart's wife, Sunny Ozell, got more readers than the World Series and so it's no contest.
  3. The article is high quality with so much material that there are spinoffs such as List of awards and nominations received by Patrick Stewart which demonstrate his status as a major figure.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
On the second point, you're going to end up with people pulling the old "page views don't count" thing. Because that seems to be the go too argument, when they don't want to post something people might actually read.PliskorCor (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
People already are reading it, so page views are actually an argument against including, not in favor; we don't need to draw attention to an already highly viewed article. This is why page views are a poor metric. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
They're not though. Who cares if its highly viewed already. That shows people actually want to know about the information. Wiki is a frustrating place because we have editors who feel their job is to push people to what they think people should be reading, not what they actually care about. "People actually care about this, thats an argument we shouldn't post it" is absurd.PliskorCor (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That's the job of The New York Times editor, editors/producers at CNN, etc. Yes, that's what we do here. I'm not sure why that frustrates you, other than you just disagreeing with consensus.
So you know what people care about? That isn't any different than doing what you say the other side is doing. You can only guess at this.
There are other considerations besides page views. If you want ITN to be a most viewed ticker(there certainly would be less contentious discussion, I'll grant that) WT:ITN is thataway. I do think there should be less room to oppose on super-notability grounds as is done at RD, but I digress. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It frustrates me because wiki editors seem to forget that they are editing a webpage that people use. Posting things they will actually read seems like a good idea. Do I want it to be a most read? No. But I think we can also agree that a subjects popularity can be a good basis on if they should receive a blurb or not.PliskorCor (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Popularity and page views are not the same thing. As noted below, page views are a Wikipedia metric that has nothing to do with the merits of posting a particular event. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm fairly sure we don't know that each page view is a different person. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Page views should not weigh one way or the other. Yes, it's the job of ITN to direct users to topical articles. I agree that the large number of page views undermines the argument that we should post the story in order to direct people to something they wouldn't otherwise read, but that's not the whole issue here. ITN would look very strange indeed if we only posted articles which both were in the news and had few visits. I will reiterate my usual point, that the number of hits an article receives is not a fact about the news story itself at all. It is a fact about Wikipedia's own articles and metrics, and Wikipedia is not a source. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Page views are a fact and so are objective evidence rather than opinion. They demonstrate the widespread coverage and interest and allow for objective comparison with other news stories such as the World Series or Elke Sommer. The numbers in this case clearly show that Stewart is the current top story. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is objective evidence of mass interest in something, not its' encyclopedic value. More people view news about someone dating or breaking up than news in science. Compare pageviews in case of average Nobel Prize Winner and a celebrity or socialitee. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The purpose of ITN is to help people find what they're looking for (WP:ITNPURPOSE) so yes, page views are very relevant as they're an objective indicator of what people are interested in. ITN isn't supposed to be for obscure news only. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Stewart's vital status confirms his encyclopedic value. The pageviews confirm that his article is getting a lot of traffic as a result of the news coverage and so it's "in the news" in a big way. The pageviews also confirm that people are specifically searching Wikipedia to find out more and ITN is supposed to help with that per WP:ITNPURPOSE. The quality is rated B-class and there don't seem to be any show-stopper tags. The last aspect to check is consensus and we have that too. The article ticks all the boxes and so it has been posted. Engage! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Post-posting blurb support - can anyone name a more important sci fi actor? Can anyone name a more important Shakespearean actor from our times? No? That's how you know he's a major figure. He is a cultural icon on the level of Elvis or Dolly. (Btw we're gonna blurb Shatner, too.) Levivich (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment I will confine myself to noting that we owe an apology to Olivia de Havilland and Kirk Douglas. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Agreed. I looked through both their nominations and it was all "oppose - old actor dies, yawn". Too many Wikipedians think the sun rises and sets because of their favorite movie/show and any major actors therein are gods. ITN really needs concrete, quantifiable criteria for death blurbs, otherwise you get absurdities like "my favorite sci-fi actor died! They need a blurb!" Ridiculous. -- Veggies (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The current "guideline" is WP:ITNRDBLURB, specifically the "Major figures" section. But I am in agreement that there is no concrete, quantifiable instructions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Based on my ITN experience gained, I would support all of them. ArionStar (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I know all about ITNRDBLURB. It's a joke that no one follows (as we can see here). It's not even a criteria, really. It's two words: "major figure" without even the most rudimentary of definitions. If anyone thinks Carrie Fisher was more of a "major figure" than Olivia de Havilland in the field of acting/entertainment, I've got a bridge to sell them. Just look at the posts here "Support blurb - make it so", "Patrick Stewart is getting a blurb, folks", "Actually someone everyone has heard of.". And some of those are from admins. Jesus! No justification, no weighing arguments, just a straight vote. Absurd. -- Veggies (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It isn't - or shouldn't be - a contest between 'popular culture' and 'high culture'. But all this complaining about Patrick Stewart's prominence in the former does a serious disservice to his importance in the latter. And yes, we should, at the very least, have posted Olivia de Havilland, and I said so at the time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't post Patrick Stewart. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
One of the biggest issues, apart from the lack of clear criteria, is that closing admins (or admins who make the decision to post the blurb or not to) rarely, if ever, give their determinations as they would on deciding an AfD discussion or a contentious RfC closure. They are supposed to weigh arguments based on guidelines and determine consensus in that manner—even if it's imperfect. Instead, I don't see anything except a tallying of votes, honestly. Those opposed to a blurb here had fairly strong arguments that a great deal of the pro-blurb !voters didn't address. If Meryl Streep lives to be 116, the Wikipedians of the future will certainly say "oppose - never heard of her" "oppose - old woman dies" rather than looking objectively at weighing accomplishments and analyzing whether she was "in a class all her own" (as she certainly is). "Popular culture" is not a criteria for a blurb. Neither is "high culture". And for that matter neither is page views or article rating. -- Veggies (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Since there are a lot of comments here about Olivia de Havilland, I looked into it and De Havilland was on the front page. The issue came after that.
De Havilland's blurb was posted at 4:21 p.m. UTC, which was eight minutes after the nomination. After that, a number of users who disagreed made it clear that they opposed the blurb. This led to the blurb being pulled at 1:57 a.m. UTC the next day. Rather than just pulling the blurb only and letting it be discussed further, the closer of the discussion said no need to discuss further and closed off any further discussion without considering that those who supported the blurb might not have voiced their opinions upon seeing it on the main page.
Honestly from these two situations, I can see why there are calls to reform ITN. It definitely feels like the situation with De Havilland was more one where it wasn't allowed to stay on the main page because it got posted to the main page too early. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Veggies should see the RfC which proposes to abolish ITNRDBLURB but replace it with nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Alain Delon too. ArionStar (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delone wasn't posted solely because of quality issues, AFAIK which surprisingly weren't fixed in time. He was otherwise blurbable enough. Brandmeister talk 21:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I am coming away from this with a different prospective than most of the replies under Ad Orientem's comment: That if a subjects most well known roles are only those on screens and only in one specific genre, then it will be harder than it should be to get posted to the main page. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I completely disagree; if a personality was at the top of a specific genre, a death blurb is possible. ArionStar (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: Elke Sommer

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

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

Nominator's comments: Seems to be breaking news but the German Wikipedia already has posted it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Mexican politician Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (pictured) dies at the age of 92. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Head of Government of Mexico City Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (pictured) dies at the age of 92.
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Mexican politician and a leading figure in the country's left-wing politics during the last century. The article covers the major aspects of his life. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Blurb for Cuauh? Ok, sure. Massive figure back in the day. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support Article looks good. Wouldn't be opposed to a blurb given how is death is receiving international coverage, with many referring to him as an instrumental figure in Mexico's democratic transformation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Dare I suggest a blurb? I'm undecided on it myself right now but from reading the article he seems to have had a pivotal role in Mexican democracy. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I was thinking about that. After reading the obits (Spanish and English/international sources), Cardenas was an instrumental figure in the country's democratic transformation. His role in the 1988 election (which was actually rigged against him) alone I'd argue would warrant him to be blurb worthy. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Chorchapu: Expanded the article and his legacy section shows how his leftist politics didn't just impact Mexico but Latin America. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Posted – robertsky (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: Alvin Hellerstein

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

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

Nominator's comments: Federal judge in the Southern District of New York, oversaw many prominent cases, most recently presiding over the case of Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Article looks well cited. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 03:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support looks well-cited, definitely notable enough. Lamp moth (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) 2026 World Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Milwaukee Brewers defeat the Tampa Bay Rays to win the World Series (MVP William Contreras pictured). (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

I always have a chuckle on how people would react when they see "MVP" on the Main Page... Howard the Duck (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It's linked, so they can click it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Although this does bring up a problem of WP:SEAOFBLUE. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
True, but that hasn't stopped us before. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Does this have a "alternative" or dirty meaning? As a sports fan, the only interpretation of MVP that I have is Most Valuable Player. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe it is a USA-centric term that other countries don't have any meaning for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Nah, most other sports have "Man/Woman of the match/series/tournament", they just didn't invent a rather odd TLA for it. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to figure out this original comment: I always have a chuckle on how people would react when they see "MVP" on the Main Page. Must be a meme or something I am missing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Overall, it looks well fleshed out. However, the "Rating" table is mostly empty. Also, the single prose sentence in the "Summary" section feels underwhelming. I think those are minor issues that should not hold up posting. ~2026-52228-20 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Nielsen ratings are released a few days after, so we don't know them for the most recent games. I don't know about the Spanish-language and Japanese ratings. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Mada Masr shutdown

[edit]
Article: Mada Masr (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Egypt forces the closure of Mada Masr, the last remaining independent news outlet in the country. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Last non-Sisi aligned news outlet is closed. Article requires a lot of work though quality-wise. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - Looking at the Google News tab, this is definitely being covered in the news. Article quality could easily be fixed with all these new sources. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support notability, wait quality - Article needs a lot of citation work, but I think this is a notable enough event and it's being reported on decently heavily. Gauze ↵ 18:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted RD, blurb discussion continues) RD/Blurb: Dolores Huerta

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Dolores Huerta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American labor activist Dolores Huerta (pictured) dies at the age of 96 (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support blurb. For reasons states by @TDKR Chicago 101 and @Oscar . Comecoquito (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb as per Masem, TDKR Chicago 101, and The Kip. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blub - per above. Also note that almost all of the "important person" blurbs that aren't former heads of state are almost all Americans. The criteria is vague and open ended, thus leading to obvious geographic and linguistic bias in how it's implemented. You wouldn't see labor activists of similar regional importance being blurbed who lived in Nigeria, India, Philippines, or Indonesia, for example. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Your "almost all Americans" over-states the issue.. So far this year, by my count, there have been 18 RD blurbs. Abut a third were Americans, about a third were former heads of state and about a third were non-American and not former heads of state. The proportions in 2025 were similar: 30 blurbs split about one third Americans, one third heads of state and one third other. The most recent example of a non-American activist was Bajrakitiyabha though it may have helped that she was a princess too. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurb Understand that my knowledge of them isn't the only reason to oppose a blurb. But largely only seems to be getting attention in the US, with a handful of international sources. I'm not in the US, and I tend to feel that if the only way I would know that someone has died is from the ITN candidates, they're probably not someone who needs to be blurbed. Blurbs should be people where their death is going to cause widespread international attention. Not localised coverage.PliskorCor (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Blurb per alsor Rockview13 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Posted RD for now, blurb discussion to continue. – robertsky (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blurb Seems like we're willing to try and blurb any random person these days. This is not what I think ITNRD blurbs are for. I'll note that I'm not the only one saying this, if you look at the archives for October every RD with a blurb discussion has someone comparing them to Hamilton rather than the usual Thatcher/Mandela. It's getting out of hand. Flyingfishee (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The number of RD blurbs so far this year is down on last year. The rates have been
    • 2024 17 in 365 days = one every 21 days
    • 2025 30 in 365 days = one every 12 days
    • 2026 18 in 302 days = one every 17 days
    Another issue is that few women get RD blurbs. Only 5 so far this year (Bajrakitiyabha, Dolly Parton, Yayoi Kusama, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Hamilton (software engineer)).
    Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I think the number of RD blurbs per year is interesting, I'll note that we're above 2024 levels so we would probably need to look further back if we wanted to see how this year sits comparatively. Either way choosing RD blurbs based on previous years probably isn't the best way to handle things. If someone is worthy of a blurb then we should blurb them (rather than choosing not too in order to not exceed previous years), if not then don't blurb them (rather than choosing to blurb them in order to match blurb counts of previous years).
    In terms of women getting less blurbs I think it would be worth keeping in mind that we're not here to right great wrongs. (FYI I'm in agreement with blurbs for all the women you've just listed aside from Hamilton) Flyingfishee (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The point is that your rhetoric like "getting out of hand" is hyperbole. The overall situation is that ITN posts very little of anything compared to other main page sections and so its blurbs are routinely repetitive and stale. ITN needs more blurbs, not less. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I agree with the general point that we don't have a "too many death blurbs" problem, but about the women, I feel like that's mostly because women only started holding major political office a few decades ago, and major political office is a source for a lot of blurbs. The important political women aren't as close to dying as many of the important political men are because their careers were more recent. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    The Thatcher/Mandela standard is not the usual and never has been. The guidelines leave it to everyone to set their own threshold, but this is one held by a exceedingly small minority of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb as per Masem, TDKR, and The Kip. Significant evidence that she was a transformational figure in the realm of labour activism. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 20:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb per above, especially in light of the fact that she retroactively received long-overdue celebration and historical recognition earlier this year after the allegations against Cesar Chavez. By the way, she coined the phrase "Sí se puede" in 1972, a precursor of Obama's "Yes we can". Davey2116 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Support Blurb per this argument. There were shameful reasons her legacy wasn’t celebrated as heavily until now, and we ought to reflect that. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb - One of the most influential labour leaders and workers' rights activists of the 20th century, who remained active into the 21st. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support blurb As mentioned by several others, not to mention just as influential as Gloria Eteinem. Erick (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose blurb per Alsor and others. Agree with Muboshgu and others that there are way too many RD blurb nominations recently. Many of these RD blurb nominations have failed, but my personal opinion is that someone should be "Mandela/Thatcher" level to qualify for an RD blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    "Mandela/Thatcher" level is a highly questionable argument. ArionStar (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Ready?) RD: Fátima Báñez

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

Nominator's comments: Spanish politician, died in the 2026 Toledo train collision. It was suggested in the discussion below to separately nominate her as an RD. ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Article needs work. I’ll get round to it later this evening _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support merge with blurb as her death is part of the same story, so it's redundant to list her seperately. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I’m sorry, but no. Nearly 70 people have died, and I don’t think it’s fair to focus the blurb on just one of them, without in any way detracting from her significance and career. we don’t do that in that way _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Featuring her in the blurb would in no way detract from the other individuals killed, nor her career since that career is the reason why she'd be listed up there. And we have done this in the past. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
close for now RS are reporting that she is still missing and have corrected their headlines. According to journalists, her relatives have gone to the hospital this evening; there is still no confirmation of her death. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hold the breath she is still missing as 29/10/2026 per RS: https://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20261029/fatima-banez-desaparecida-accidente-trenes-toledo-135872242 _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
El Periódico which previously said missing now confirms death Non-paywall from El País here . Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment the page uses a reference from ¡Hola!, the blueprint of Hello! (magazine), twelve times. I don't know anything about Hola's quality, but if I saw Hello cited, I would replace it immediately. The political things it is cited to will definitely be covered by better sources, and even her status as married with two children is generic enough to be in mainstream obituaries. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
¡Hola! is a RS used many times in wikipedia and the information about her marriage and children is relevant, however general it may be. It is not always necessary to identify husbands or wifes if that person has not been particularly in the public eye. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That's fine, it is you who is Spanish, so you would know the quality of the source. Sometimes countries' titles of the same name are completely different, like Sky News and Sky News Australia, and I bet people get confused about the reliability of those two. It's irrelevant now, but my comment was that her marriage and children could have been sourced to another source, not that we had to force in names that the media doesn't know. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 Japan Series

[edit]
Article: 2026 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeats the Yokohama DeNA BayStars to win its 13th Japan Series championship. (Post)
News source(s): Kyodo News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article currently orange-tagged. ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose due to CN tags MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2026 European unrest (ongoing)

[edit]
Article: 2026 European unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Consensus was to renominate after the blurb rolled off. CREditzWiki (yap)

  • Support The coverage of these protests are widespread and continually updated, precisely what ongoing is meant for. Unknown-Tree🌲 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support as the previous nominator. ArionStar (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support, high quality article and is regularly being reported on and updated. Gauze ↵ 18:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose but would support the French protest one to ongoing If you look at the individual protests, only the French one seems to be ongoing and properly updated. Others have clearly ended, and a couple where im not sure if they are going on lack updates. Only the French one as that. That's the problem with that article treating them as related events, they are only related due to geography and timing but not cause or reactions. Masem (t) 18:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support 2026 French unrest only; the European protests seem to be many different unrelated protests attempted to be strung together by that mess of an article. As Masem says, the French protests are the only ones really being updated regularly, and the article meets our quality standards, having only recently fallen off. And they are clearly continuing and in the news often: Al Jazeera, NYT, The Guardian. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak support I have no idea why we're still doing the "all the protests are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other"/WP:SYNTH allegations when this is still being covered as a general concept in popular and media discourse and in fact to a far greater extent now than when they were originally nominated. In fact, I'd wager only putting the French protests would be wrong since a lot of coverage of the French demonstrations are explicitly no longer covering it in a vacuum and covering it from a continental angle, largely over how its inspiring other movements in the continent or has similar causes to various other protests. Many of the movements were explicitly spillovers/inspired by the recent flare-up in France. The article needs to be restructured to give more general background, but it clearly has grounds for existing and IMO being put into ongoing. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    they are not related (only in a couple cases dud one influence another) but as the europe unrest article states, have a common thread of general concerns of cost of living, etc. If it were the case that one protest led to all of the other protests, then they would clearly be all connected in terms of successive events, but thats obviously not the case here. Masem (t) 20:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose this but support the French protests being added, per above. The Kip (contribs) 20:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose I don't see enough of a fil rouge here. Yakikaki (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose but Support the French protests per The Kip, Masem, and Chorchapu. Conflating all these protests together seems like a stretch to me. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 10:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Ready) RD: Liu Yandong

[edit]
Article: Liu Yandong (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Channel NewsAsia
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Vice Premier of China Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) 2026 Toledo train collision

[edit]
Article: 2026 Toledo train collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 68 people are killed in a collision between two high-speed trains in Spain. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Spanish politician Fátima Báñez is one of 64 people killed in a collision between two high-speed trains in Spain.
News source(s): the Independent, RTVE
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Announced in last hour, scenario and page will change rapidly over the day. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Support - major railway accident. Second involving high speed trains in Spain this year. High death toll. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Strong support A rare, terrible collision between two high-speed trains travelling in the same direction. Madrid–Seville is a popular train line and represents one of Spain's most used HSR corridors. Article quality is good so far with the details we have and I'll keep updating it as reliable sources trickle in with further detail on the scale of the collision/casualties. Oppius Brutus (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support on notability, Oppose on quality Will likely be updated over the next few hours, especially as more news comes out. But I support on notability, once quality of the page is fixed.PliskorCor (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@PliskorCor: What quality issues? Everything that needs to be referenced is referenced. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It read as if it has been translated from Spanish or written by someone for who English is not their first language. Refs may be fine, but reading it felt fairly unnatural, plus some grammatical errors. Sort of changes that will/should be changed relatively soon. But as it stood, it didn't feel suitable on quality.PliskorCor (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The article is less than two hours old, and is constantly being edited. Give it some time, this is excepted for current events. Fortek67 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Which is what I am saying. I feel it will change and be suitable. I just didnt think it was suitable at the time I saw it.PliskorCor (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support but wait The second deadly train accident in less than ten months. It’s unbearable. The article is fine, but I think we could wait a couple of hours for the content to be updated with any new information about the cause, the consequences (the news are reporting the probability of the death toll to rise a lot) and the reactions. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support, though the Investigation section needs a source. Gauze ↵ 13:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
No, WP:BLUE applies to simple facts such as that. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
No, it needs a source. I for one didn't find it obvious that the Autoridad Independiente para la Investigación Técnica de Accidentes e Incidentes (AIITAI) is responsible for investigating railway accidents in Spain. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Chorchapu: OK, I've added a source. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, that looks good now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support - Certainly notable based on the scale of the accident, and this is progressing in terms of article clarity and quality, understanding there are some things that need to be resolved, like clarity around the type of collision as is currently being discussed on the talk page. Upjav (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Israeli legislative election

[edit]
Article: 2026 Israeli legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Israeli legislative election, Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud and Gadi Eisenkot's Yashar tie for the most seats in the Knesset. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Israeli legislative election, pro-Benjamin Netanyahu parties win the most seats in the Knesset.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In the Israeli legislative election, Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud wins the most seats in the Knesset.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Incumbent prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party wins the most seats in the Knesset in the the Israeli legislative election, but its coalition fails to win a majority.
News source(s): AP, BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Both Yashar and Likud have won 51 seats, leaving Israel without a clear winner in the election. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

  • for the love of everything wait, less than 10% reporting so far
Gaismagorm (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Strong Oppose (current wording) and Wait Not only is this premature, this is simply not true. The 50-ish seat count refers to the bloc strengths of pro-Bibi and pro-Eisenkot parties, while the actual parties they lead are expected to hold a seat count closer to 20 seats. And we are a long while from knowing the final seat count. John Adams 362 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
My apologies, the news that I read made it seem like the parties each had 51 seats. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait until we can be more certain about the results, posting prematurely and having the results not match our projection could cause serious reputational issues. Also, I agree with John that the current blurb wording is problematic. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait, per above. On quality, the article seems okay, although it's understandably proseline. Neither proposed blurb works at the moment, I would suggest posting more alts before results are clearer would also be premature. CMD (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait. You don't get points for being first. Premature nom. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    I'm sorry, please WP:AGF though. I just saw that the election results had (to my understanding at the time) come out, and saw it hadn't been nominated yet. I did so, and while it turns out I was in fact wrong, the rudeness of the opposes has been a bit upsetting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait As reporting elsewhere has stated "There is therefore no outright winner and no simple path to power for either Eisenkot or Netanyahu, and this result is likely to set off weeks of jockeying over who can form a coalition government before a prime minister is declared or another round of elections is called."PliskorCor (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait until the picture becomes more clear. Strongly Oppose the current blurb, as neither the Netenyahu nor Eisenkot blocs will likely be able to return to power without the support of Arab parties, which is arguably the most significant known result at this time. Lamp moth (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait per all others, but strong oppose existing blurbs, especially alt1 per the two votes above me + the opposition bloc and Arab parties could both be described as anti-Netanyahu, which means the pro-Netanyahu bloc did not win the most seats. The Kip (contribs) 05:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support alt3, which I've made some technical edits to. Probably the best summarization we have at this point. The Kip (contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait results are still reporting. IDB.S (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait and oppose all current blurbs (two, at the time of this posting) as not reflecting the RS. This is a very complex election, and a full picture of the results and their implications has not yet emerged. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait The appropriate time to post this item is when a new Israeli government is formed, the composition of which is still very unclear. The results so far point to a deadlock which may take days or even weeks to resolve; no reliable source has indicated a majority of the Knesset has agreed on any majority or minority government arrangement yet. Noting this is ITN/R, I would also point out the article is decent quality for the most part but currently contains an orange tag dating back to August 2026 under the section 'Opinion polls'. Oppius Brutus (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait per above TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀)(Tuff edits for 🥶LE SIGMAS🥶) 14:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Wait I'm not sure why we are even discussing this while the results remain so unclear. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support I'm not sure what exactly we are waiting for? 93% votes counted and no-one has won a majority, which isn't a surprise as this is what usually happens in multi-party democracies and so far no party has won an outright Knesset majority ever in its history. Coalition talk may take months (or on extreme cases years, e.g. what happened in Belgium) or a new election will be called (or in extreme cases elections plural e.g. in Bulgaria where there were elections called every few months the for several years due to deadlock). Abcmaxx (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Added altblurb3. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The significant number of military/foreign votes, which may change the outcome, be what we are waiting for, I believe. Once we see if the trend in these results is the same, then we should post. Thursday sometime I'd think. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Nfitz: those remaining votes won't change the overall outcome though; it's coalition building or new elections, Likud won the most seats. The remaining votes won't change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 27

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Joseph Lagu

[edit]
Article: Joseph Lagu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Africanews
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Leading South Sudanese independence figure during the First Sudanese Civil War. Chomik! (talk?) 17:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: Stephen Kovacevich

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

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

Nominator's comments: Article has one uncited paragraph. Jiewei Xiong (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) RD: Tetsuya Chiba

[edit]
Article: Tetsuya Chiba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Japan Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death is announce on this date Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 26

[edit]

RD: Alfredo Sánchez Monteseirín

[edit]
Article: Alfredo Sánchez Monteseirín (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Pais
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Mayor of Seville who oversaw several major urban projects Jon698 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: Donnie Iris

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

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

Nominator's comments: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania musician know for work with The Jaggerz (The Rapper) as well as his signature solo hit Ah! Leah!, Love Is Like a Rock CoatCheck (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Closed) 2026 Ballon d'Or

[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: 2026 Ballon d'Or (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Harry Kane wins the Men's Ballon d'Or and Alexia Putellas wins the Women's Ballon d'Or. (Post)
News source(s): [Ballon d’Or 2026 live updates: Kane and Putellas win top prizes, full list of results - The Athletic]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Balon d'Or winners announced with Harry Kane taking home football's biggest individual award. Heatrave (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment This is not WP:ITN/R but it has been posted twice: in 2013 and 2014. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose on quality. In theory, I think the biggest individual award in the biggest sport in the world should be an easy pass for notability. That said, the issue with this article is the same as it's been seemingly for years now - the article is of poor quality for ITN in a general sense. Very low prose-to-tables ratio. I think there needs to be an overhaul to the yearly Ballon d'Or article structure before we can even think about posting 2026 Ballon d'Or or the like to the main page. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now per DarkSide830. Certainly notable, yet doesn't even have 10 sources and isn't sufficient quality. If it gets expanded, I will change my vote. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm generally opposed to posting pictures of individual players in team sports, and I honestly believe it's done when there are no free images of the winning teams. If we ever allow posting sporting awards, my first pick would be the Laureus World Sports Awards, which are considered the most prestigious recognition across all sports. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Every team winner since 2019 played association football. The last team not to play any kind of football at all was the 2018 Mercedes F1 team... Howard the Duck (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It doesn't make a case for an individual award in the sport to be singled out. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
FWIW, more people know what the Ballon d'Or is than who Mondo Duplantis is... Howard the Duck (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose I would agree an individual award for a team sport is odd, especially when we are comparing players from different leagues. The ranking here seems completely capricious and silly. Somehow Kane suddenly skyrockets up in the ranking for a ceremony they hold in England? Messi wins three straight, then moves to the MLS where suddenly he's not even in the top 30 for two years (despite winning two MVPs, a golden boot and three team trophies), then its a World Cup year so he's 5th again? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    You are arguing based on emotions and that is not the right thing to do. Argue the article, the facts or according to Wikipedia guidelines. Every individual award stems from the performance of the individual in a team environment. Whether rapper, actor or footballer. Everything they achieved singularly was as a result of the team they had behind them. So you cannot discredit the award because it is a team sport. Heatrave (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. I've explicitly provided the factual basis for my argument; declaring it "emotional" doesn't make it so. Significant sporting achievement is found in competition. There have been many failed attempts at handing out awards based on a popularity vote, but they are rarely sticky because it says more about the voter than the athlete. This year's award is getting trashed more than usual because is is especially egregious, but it has always been viewed as fairly arbitrary. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I know this isn't a forum, but there's nothing remotely "egregious" about this award. The fact that the ceremony was held in England doesn't mean that there's an English panel of judges. It's the same international voting system regardless of venue. Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support. Biggest individual award in the biggest sport in the world, surprised this isn't ITNR to be honest. This one is also significant for multiple reasons; first for Harry Kane, first English player to win it in a while, Alexia Putellas equalling the record for women's Ballon d'ors, and the first Ballon d'or to be hosted in England. I don't think it matters at all that the article for the actual award itself isn't great, anyone interested in this news is more likely to read the articles for the respective players, both of which are in very good condition (Kane's article is a listed good article). Flyingfishee (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose commentary on the merits of the award can wait - the page is 1,503 characters, three characters over the stub threshold for DYK (I know this isn't DYK but still), and that's even when including keys for the tables. Oscars, Grammys etc. when just a list of tables have been rejected on ITN. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose. Just a collection of tables. How about a paragraph of prose above each one explaining exactly what it's rewarding/recognizing? Moscow Mule (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support. I have added context for Kane's win in the lead paragraph so that the article is no longer just a collection of tables. I believe the article is of sufficient quality to support the higher quality articles of association football, Harry Kane and Alexia Putellas. I don't know enough about women's football to add a section about Alexia but if someone could do that, I believe the article would be more than ready. Gauze ↵ 09:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose per greatcaesarsghost. These are individual awards in a team sport with many players on the field. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support Most prestigious and well recognised individual award in the by far most played, popular, watched, followed, financed, spread out (and any other metric) sport in the world by a large margin. The prize is widely covered in mainstream media. The winners aren't exactly niche players who are singled out randomly, they are world-renowned best of the best among the globe in the most competitive sporting field, who are recognised even by those who are indifferent to the sport. The "it's a team sport" argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the sport and bit of a nonsensical reason to oppose: by that metric, we shouldn't post any acting award for actors as films are a team endeavour requiring multiple teams of varying roles, book authors as without publishers they would not be able to win any prizes, any musician not singing solely acapella, presidents winning elections as without the electorate and their parties they would not be able to win the office, Nobel Prize winners as without funding and laboratories they would not be able to conduct their research etc. etc.. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    We don’t post acting awards; we generally highlight the best film/picture awards. The other examples you provide (writing, singing, research) are all individual or small group endeavors with support staff. The sports analogy to your examples would be a tennis player or golfer and his/her support team. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Absolutely not how football works though. When you have a player of such stature as to be a Ballon d'Or nominee, the other players are support and play to that star's strengths akin to a lead musician and his band. This happens in basketball and other team sports too. How many people who don't follow the sport can name Messi's or Cristiano Ronaldo's current club? Not too many, but nearly everyone knows who they are even if they never even kicked a ball in their lives. By your reasoning Al Nassr and Inter Miami would be far more notable and recognisable than those two players. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Cyanide (gamer)

[edit]
Article: Cyanide (gamer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sheep Esports
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this day. Needs source work. Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Yeah article needs a lot of work as it lacks citations but given that a bunch of articles just came out about him following his death, it should hopefully be easy to fix. Gauze ↵ 21:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Barely any sources. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose article is nowhere near ITN material (Camilo Escalona was in way better shape and wasn't posted as a reference) --Bedivere (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support in my controversial take that might flame the fucking opinion Sorry for swearing if you arent fond. Anyways, he was one of the youngest champion, but some doings need to be done with the article. FlamingMingo 🦩 22:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • All articles about recent deaths of humans and even animals and plants are posted at ITN if the page is well written - whether he was the youngest champion or oldest, or tallest or shortest. To support this nomination if the writing is improved is not a "controversial take that might flame the fucking opinion", whatever that was supposed to mean. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
      Romanian is my main language. As a Romanian-Bahamian, I’m not as fleunt in english. FlamingMingo 🦩 16:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Per the RD nom box:

    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.

    ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) RD: Walter Koenig

[edit]
Article: Walter Koenig (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KARK, THR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Actor most notable as Chekov from Star Trek. News just broke, but article also needs major sourcing fixes. Masem (t) 16:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support Fixed up sourcing issues. Article looks good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2026 Ethiopian offensive

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

Nominator's comments: Sadly, this page (and its separate timeline article) have not been updated since October 18. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Removed. Left guide (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) 2026 Brazilian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Brazilian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the 2026 Brazilian general election, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is reelected as the president of Brazil. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Incumbent president Lula da Silva (pictured) wins the 2026 Brazilian general election after the second round.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is re-elected as the president of Brazil.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is reelected President of Brazil, while the Liberal Party retain the plurality of the seats in both houses of the National Congress in the country's general election.
Alternative blurb 4: ​ Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured) is re-elected as the president of Brazil, while opponent Flávio Bolsonaro flees to the United States, declaring himself leader of his country.
News source(s): Bloomberg News
Credits:

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

 Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Support as his victory has been confirmed by the electoral court. Procrastineur (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Resolve CN tags first, also add results prose, update header prose and the aftermath section accordingly. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Not yet ready Map in infobox is missing second-round election results by state. It's currently an empty map. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The counting isn’t still complete. but the map could already be done with simplemaps for example GustaPapp (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
tag the sections not the article GustaPapp (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The map is also gray OrdinariusFingius (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Pondering my orb (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Altblurb2 is short and sweet but the article isn't getting the flurry of furious edits that elections normally receive in the first 24 hours after they're called and that this article needs so I think the question is academic. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Jeez "obvious suppport" without explaining if the article is up to snuff is not a valid !vote. Do people read the two banners above (LOL)? Howard the Duck (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, I think in this case, it's fairly obvious why I'd support featuring the outcome of a presidential election, but that's my bad. Qwerty took the words out of my mouth. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
FWIW, it's not just you. Even Qwerty supported a blurb on article he admitted to have a "lack of some citations". I trust the admins would be able to read through these kinds of arguments. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
No, of course people don't read those banners -- see banner blindness. The {{not a ballot}} banner is especially bloated and useless. Everyone continues to post support/oppose votes regardless and so that's the pattern which newcomers follow. And the {{ITN discussion quality notice}} is a silly innovation as it mainly repeats what's already in the nomination banner. ITN has huge amounts of boilerplate -- see all the enormous orange banners at the top of this page. No-one is going to read through all that and adding to the banner bloat just makes matters worse. So, to address the issue, I've added a {{banner holder}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
And now Stephen has removed all those superfluous templates and more besides. That's fine by me. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm well aware of these discussions prioritizing consensus. I simply kinda wanted to join in and forgot that I had to give an argument to back it up Lazesusdasiru (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support. Elections are always significant events and this one was discussed widely by the international media because of a shift to the right-wing in Latin America which Brazil seems to have been immune to, meaning this is a very notable result since the opposite result was predicted. I am however concerned about the lack of some citations. I support alternative blurb 2 when it comes time to post this event. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support This is quite a significant result so we should post it quickly but the article will still need work. For example, the 2 hour extension of the polling, which got lots of coverage, doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose The 2 hour extension of the polling is not mentioned at all, the 2nd round campaign is not described at all, the campaign section is orange-tagged, most sections such as the candidates and results sections are just a sea of tables, akin to frequent quality issues on sports articles. Article is also incredibly long and difficult to navigate and probably could do with further splits per WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:FORK and I would expect there be enough content to have a 2026 Brazilian second round presidential election article. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak support alt2. – Obviously very significant news making headlines, but article not quite there yet, needs to and should be able to be fixed soon. Jiewei Xiong (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support altblurb2 pending the LLM orange tag being addressed and a few missing refs. I added some prose in the Aftermath section which mentions the voting hours extension and Bolsonaro's refusal to concede. Davey2116 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Not ready, LLM tag in the Campaign section and sparse sourcing issues in the article overall. I suggest we wait until both issues are fixed, as well as see what the article looks like after the split discussion has been decided. I think alt2 has the best wording. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support with the caveat that the blurb or altblurb1 should read 2026 Brazilian presidential election, which is a redirect to the general election article. "General election" is broader and in many places specifically refers to legislative elections while "presidential election" is likely to be clearer on this. See a discussion on splitting out presidential election which looks to have consensus for splitting, so the blurb will need to be changed anyways when that is closed. From a quick read of the campaign section, I don't think the LLM content is particularly egregious nor do I think it damages the quality of the article, I don't think it breaks WP:ITNQUALITY. In its current state it seems quite well cited so I'm not too worried about that. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Also oppose altblurb3, the general election is stale. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support alt2, but there are two sections currently flagged for possible LLM content. I don't have time to look into those in detail, but the issue should be resolved (one way or another) before posting. The rest of the article looks to be updated and sufficiently referenced. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support alt2. Although this discussion is not relevant for publication purposes, there are no valid grounds to annul the election due to the two-hour extension; the number of people who voted after 5:00 PM was fewer than 40,000, whereas the margin of votes between the two candidates exceeded 3 million. Therefore, even if the votes cast after 5:00 PM were annulled, the result would remain unchanged. A.WagnerC✍ (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support obviously Yacàwotçã (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support Article is in good shape Kampolama (user) 04:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Pretty important topic, I mean its one of the biggest countries in this world... Zuniwang (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is ITNR. It means it is important. Articles do not get posted here solely because "it is important". Howard the Duck (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
IDK what that means, I'm pretty much new in commmenting "In the news" sections and editing wikipedia in general, so sry for being unprofessional... Zuniwang (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Orange tag has been resolved. The Kip (contribs) 07:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't support it appearing here - it's a level of detail we wouldn't normally give, apart from anything else. But since when have we preferred primary sources to secondary? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose altblurb4, rumors of Flávio fleeing the country are not yet confirmed. ~2026-57387-86 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
CNN Brasil now. ArionStar (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply

RD: David Rigert

[edit]
Article: David Rigert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kommersant, Match TV
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Soviet weightlifter who won a gold medal at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 25

[edit]

RD: Eric Bauza

[edit]
Article: Eric Bauza (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KTLA, Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Current voice artist for Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck for last few decades. Article has the typical sourcing issues for actors (lack of sources in the filmography and other similar lists) Masem (t) 03:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

2020 was not a few decades ago, I hope. Celjski Grad (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
support he's been active as a voice actor in the animation scene for years. not sure about general notability to the average person but most people will know him by voice. astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 13:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
All recently deceased people with Wikipedia biographies are presumed to be significant enough to be posted at Recent Deaths. These items should be reviewed only on quality. @AstralAlley: please re-evaluate your !vote. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
noted for future :] thanks. i'm still a support, citation issues are, as nominator says, typical of these actor articles, might be able to fix lightly but everything else is good to go. astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 15:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now as there is multiple citations missing, however, support once issues are fixed. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bloxzge 025: some sources now added. Sahaib (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support - Sources added, article looks good TheFellaVB (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support following Harushiga's improvements ClarkBurbank 20:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

(Posted) 2026 Serbian parliamentary election

[edit]
Article: 2026 Serbian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President Aleksandar Vučić concedes the 2026 Serbian parliamentary election in favor of the Student List. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 2026 Serbian parliamentary election, the Student List wins a majority of seats, defeating former President Aleksandar Vučić.
News source(s): N1, AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Will probably update the blurb once full results are confirmed this evening though the Student List has most likely won.   Jalapeño   (user / talk / guestbook) 20:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply

As the results come in, expect improvements in article quality, specifically relating to results prose, the aftermath section, and the header. Vucic actually conceding the election to the Student List is a very significant thing. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Not to WP:CRYSTAL too much but I'm skeptical of such a quick resignation. We should probably let it play out, and see what happens in the end. With the official results   Jalapeño   (user / talk / guestbook) 20:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, Vucic has already resigned, hasn’t he? He was gambling on his party winning and him becoming PM, but that hasn’t turned out as he planned. For the past few weeks the de facto leader of Serbia has been a private citizen, and now with the election results we don’t know his future plans. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support The header prose, results prose, and aftermath section were updated accordingly and are now present. The Serbia election is now in a better position to be posted within a day or two later after the election, pending further result updates. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support once updated This is breaking news so I can’t expect a detailed update yet, but aside from that it is plenty comprehensive and fully sourced. Great quality for an election article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
very strong support orban level developement in serbia ~2026-57076-69 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support once issues resolved.... Sorry, I know ITN/R I should look at quality only, but just came back from celebrations... byteflush Talk 00:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support - Has conceded defeat in parliamentary elections. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support altblurb This is ITNR, so pending expected improvements to the article, and the full preliminary result coming in, it should be posted. However, I prefer reversing the blurb to have the subject of the sentence be the winner of the election. Hence I have proposed an alternative blurb that rephrases things.Gust Justice (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support altblurb, I'm not sure why you wouldn't directly say who won. KhokcheHendi (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait 60% of the vote has been counted. When we get to 90%, then sources should be able to call it. In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@EditorShane3456 Actually, it's 90% . And sources have called it a long time ago. byteflush Talk 04:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support altblurb. – Both significance and quality are there. Jiewei Xiong (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That was delayed due to quality. Someone actually did suggest holding for the PM, and they were similarly keelhauled for it. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
If we don't post election results for quality reasons, we sometimes post the resulting appointment if it happens separately. That's not a reason to pull a good-quality election story, whether or not there is a government-forming process after it. (In this case, we might post both, I think, because the election result doesn't lead to an obvious individual being identified as leader. Something similar may happen in the Israeli case.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

October 24

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Slavcho Binev

[edit]
Article: Slavcho Binev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sofia Globe Novinite
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Bulgarian politician who was a former MEP. There are some sourcing issues within the article, which I'm trying to fix TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 18:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)reply

References

[edit]

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

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