Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

250th anniversary of American independence celebration

Article: United States Semiquincentennial (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Celebrations begin across the United States for the United States Semiquincentennial. (Post)Credits:

• Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sure, it's the fourth every year, but this particular year has a Wikipedia article and for good reason. It's qualitatively different from last year. 🦅 Bremps... 20:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• An orange tag but nothing unfixable. Could do with more coverage on the local events as opposed to the big sponsors and the hullabaloo on the Hill. Bremps... 20:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I mean, I'm not totally against it, but with the full main page already being focused on US Independence Day, is this really necessary? Khuft (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I mean...seriously? Snow close this goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Why to add this to In the news? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support A significant milestone for a young country that has accomplished so much. Especially in such short time. CoatCheck (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and Snow close I dont believe we should blurb country anniversaries, even if the country is as widely regarded like the US. Also, as mentioned by Khuft, the main page is already full of US Independence articles (all of DYK, so 10, + On This day). R. M. Holda - (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Plus Liberty Bell... Khuft (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this is Americentric to just post our anniversary. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, maybe even Neutral. Good faith, and in the nom's defense, this isn't an unreasonable blurb idea - there is an appropriate target article that's not too stubby, it's something being talked about in the news not just in the US but globally, and readers are likely to be interested in it. That's honestly all I really think any blurb should need to pass, so I have a hard time opposing this. It's not an unimportant milestone by any means, it's one of the most noteworthy ones of our lifetimes. Many of us won't live to see the next major anniversary of US independence in 2076 (and we can only hope Wikipedia will still be around then, and as free and independent as it is today). But this is arguably just a milestone, just a number more than an event; the thing being talked about around the world is that the United States turned 250, not any specific event that took place during the celebrations. I don't think this should be rapidly closed, though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Switching to strong Support after recalling that we posted the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. We do post milestone celebrations at ITN. And when she passed, one hundred percent of sections on the main page were dedicated to her, and when I suggested it was a bit much, I received a lot of pushback saying that each section of the main page acts independently and what they do or do not post should not be affected by what anyone else is doing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  With the significant difference that, in the case of Queen Elizabeth, the celebration—though not on my part—was based on the exceptional achievement of a monarch reaching 70 years on the throne. A country celebrating 250 years is so common that there are countries that double or triple that figure...BTW, the mistakes of the past should not be taken as precedents. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I immediately thought of the Centenary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918, attended by 72 heads of state and marking a global occasion. That wasn't even nominated. Though a negative proves nothing. I struggle to imagine how recent bicentennials of Latin American independence would ever be posted, or 50-75th anniversaries in Africa or Asia. But somebody will probably reply with a reason why this one is much better. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I would like to see us post blurbs of this variety for anniversaries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. One reason why I didn't want to strongly oppose this is, because this is probably the first last and only blurb discussion for a major US anniversary ITN will ever get to vote on, an immediate snow close of this would de facto set a lifelong precedent that no other countries' anniversaries are worth posting, when I'd much rather we post more, not less.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site for celebrating anniversaries. Why should we celebrate or post about India's or Canada's independence? They'll also be celebrating their 250th anniversary. That's not the point of all this. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose DYK, TFA, and OTD can do the heavy lifting of acknowledging major country founding milestones, but unless something significant happens with any events, it would be improper to do this at ITN. Masem (t) 22:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

However, some have wondered if we are out of sync with the other parts of the MP, and so this would make us in sync if we posted this. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as a Yank myself, this anniversary dominates three of the five sections of the main page and is present in one of the others. We don't need it in ITN. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, of course, and surprised there is opposition. This nationwide celebration marks a key anniversary of the formation of the nation that, among other things, created enough freedom for its citizens to become the birthplace of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This nom concerns the specific anniversary, not the formation of the US itself. Departure– (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are bills of rights and debates about civil liberties that predate the United States by a long time. So... _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

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

---

Article: Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce get married at Madison Square Garden. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Wedding of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Comedian Adam Sandler officiates the wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden.

News source(s):

Credits:

• Nominated by M.Billoo2000 (talk · give credit)
• Created by DiaMali (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DiaMali (talk · give credit) and Ronherry (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: As suggested by Launchballer at the article talk. Thank you! M. Billoo 09:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Snow closure immediately ~2026-38281-17 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and Snow closure. Just a wedding and not an ITN candidate. ~2026-33354-92 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – zeroo notability --L'Éclipse (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support We've run multiple royal weddings and this is being described as one, see , , and .--Launchballer 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Note how the "royal wedding" is put in quotation, since it's just a mere comparison the US media used to describe it. I doubt we're even gonna need a blurb a celebrity wedding, even if that said figure is on the calibre of, say, Michael Jackson. NotKringe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's just celebrity wedding, and I think we only ever blurbed British royal marriage for the sheer media circus around it, which this one lacks. NotKringe (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We've blurbed Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, Albert and Charlene, and Harry and Meghan.--Launchballer 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice how 3/4 of these blurbs involves British royals, and 3 of them were more than 15 years ago, back when the blurb standard were much lower. Harry and Meghan got a blurb mainly due to the sheer drama and controversies surrounding it. NotKringe (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that none of those would have been blurbed these days. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that we have an article about this wedding with 107 references is very Wikipedia. Oppose, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose absolutely not per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Calling it zero notable is baseless. International media is quoting it as "royal wedding" . I have added another blurb. Otherwise, I may consider DYK. M. Billoo 10:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support despite my extreme disinterest in the topic; it appears to have significant coverage in the press. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Clear example of the problem with WP and NOT:NEWS (see Black Kite's comment above), and why we have to work against media bias on some topic areas (like celebrity news). Masem (t) 11:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose eh... certainly nothing like a royal wedding. NOTNEWS. News media just reports on whatevers popular. I guarantee you nobody internationally is throwing parades for this wedding, I feel like this may be too American-centric (or Western-centric). jolielover♥talk 12:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This isn't important enough of an event. What impact does it even have? other than two celebrities getting married. ITN should not be the place for celebrity news. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support – We have posted royal weddings before, and this has been called the American equivalent. This is in the news, there is widespread international coverage, the cultural significance is apparent, and the article is worth showcasing. Though no one has explicitly expressed as such, please do not !oppose due to a dislike of pop culture or Taylor Swift. And please avoid any temptation to snow close as many oppose !votes are with little-to-no basis. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 13:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC))

  This isn't a royal wedding as neither Taylor Swift or Travis Kelce are royalty. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I understand, that's why I called it a de facto one to differentiate it — a comparison also made by others). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I know but I still wouldn't call this a "royal wedding". Can you give me some reliable sources that describe it as a "de facto royal wedding". GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/04/style/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-american-royal-wedding.html Celjski Grad (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I can't read the article, what does it say? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  There's no mention of the words "de facto" in this source and I would argue, that the term "royal wedding" is not being used literally by media sources but as a metaphor. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is becoming pedantic. I will edit my initial message. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Unless their heir becomes king of the United States I do not consider this a de facto royal wedding either jolielover♥talk 12:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose "American celebrities get married". Tabloid stuff really. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per @~2026-33354-92 Karteno (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, the fact that it is being compared to a royal wedding in the press doesn't mean that it is one, especially as it doesn't have all the implications for dynastic succession, etc. "Just" two major celebrities getting married. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I'm not a fan or very interested in the event myself but it has clearly been getting huge coverage as I've been hearing regular bulletins here in the UK. As a popular spectacle, it's just as significant as all the sport that ITN promotes and the article looks to be top quality with lots of content and over a hundred citations so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thing is, we don't blurb "popular spectacle" if it ends up amounted to nothing. We have a bunch of big events here and there like state funeral or wedding, yet none of these are getting blurb for simple fact that it doesn't change anything. NotKringe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and close This can't be true. A singer and a sportsman are getting married... well, fine, congratulations to them. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We're not going to reach a (serious) consensus, so we should close the nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

(Ready) RD: Victoria Cruz

Nominator's comments: Puerto Rican trans activist. Died June 25, death announced in reliable source today (July 3). Funcrunch (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Good article, consider nominating.--Launchballer 09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support looks good, all sourced jolielover♥talk 12:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Marked as Ready. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) Khamenei's funeral

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.

---

Ali Khamenei days before his death

Article: State funeral of Ali Khamenei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ali Khamenei's weeklong funeral ceremonies begin across Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The state funeral of Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran assassinated during the Iran war, is held, expecting millions of attendees.

News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/03/ali-khamenei-six-day-funeral-millions-iran

Credits:

• Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Iranians take this funeral stuff very seriously; 30 million (about a third of Iran) is expected to be in attendance. Technically also the funeral of his family members too. Bremps... 19:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support alt Certainly the largest funeral of the century. ArionStar (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose have we posted any other funerals (by themselves)? We typically just post the death blurb and that is it, and we already posted his death several months ago. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. We didn't for Thatcher nor Queen Elizabeth, who clearly has a week+ long series of state functions to honor their passing, but we posted their blurbs at death, not the pomp afterwards. Masem (t) 19:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I think based upon the above precedence of the fact that we didn't do one for Queen Elizabeth's funeral but did feature her death as a blub. Just as with HLM, we did run Khamenei's article as a blurb when he was killed. That would suggest that it would not be suitable to run the funeral on ITN too. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Khamenei's death was blurbed, that suffices. I also doubt the assertion that "Iranians take this very seriously" - what's the punishment for not attending? Khuft (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure why we'd effectively blurb this twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

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

RD: Roger Vangheluwe

Nominator's comments: Belgian former bishop, highest ranked Belgian clergy member accused of child sex abuse --Rolluik (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

He died on 1 July, was burried in secret and it was only known today publically. Rolluik (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 Peru general election

Article: 2026 Peruvian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Keiko Fujimori (pictured) is elected as the president of Peru. (Post)
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In the 2026 Peruvian general election, Keiko Fujimori is declared the winner as president of Peru, becoming the first woman to be elected to the office.

News source(s): Reuters

Credits:

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
• Created by WMrapids (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: ONPE has declared her the winner, and this is the article's new nomination. Rushtheeditor talk 01:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per before. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 04:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rushtheeditor where is the reference that indicate that ONPE declared her winner? The references cited here were from last week! – robertsky (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Updated Rushtheeditor (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Posted without consensus? ArionStar (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

itn/r Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rushtheeditor thanks. that's the announcement of the winner of the election from last week. I thought we were waiting for an official proclamation from ONPE?

@ArionStar the consensus to post, albeit delayed, was already achieved at Special:Permalinl/1362285441#(URGENT)_2026_Peru_general_election. it seems that admins were waiting for the official proclamation to be made first anyway. – robertsky (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternative blurb 2 is better, in my opinion. ArionStar (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Dina Boluarte was the actual first female president of Peru (succeeding Castillo when he was impeached); being the first elected female president is less of an achievement. Also, the "is declared the winner" phrasing is one we usually use for dodgy elections. We shouldn't be implicitly saying the Peruvian election was not kosher. Khuft (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Being the first woman elected is far more commendable than becoming president through a presidential succession. Boluarte was indeed the first—undoubtedly a historic achievement—but this time, the Peruvian people have, for the first time, freely chosen a woman to lead the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Which is commendable, but every election can lay claim to a "first" of some kind. Donald Trump was the first reality TV personality elected US president, for instance. First female head of state overall is usually considered the milestone worth highlighting. Khuft (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s not fair to compare the first TV personality elected president of the U.S. with a woman elected president of a country for the first time. We’ve always highlighted the latter on this portal because, as is the case in Peru, there are many countries that still have a significant gender gap in their top leadership positions. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this was posted slightly early, but it is finally official now: CNN Natg 19 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Post-posting support I don't think we need to mention that she was the first woman 'elected' in the blurb. Boluarte was already President of Peru; the alt is technically true but could cause confusion for that reason. In addition, most of the RS are not mentioning her being the "first elected woman" in their article titles, so correspondingly we should not emphasize it in our blurb. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 18:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The opponent did not recognize her victory. ArionStar (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  To this day, Donald Trump refuses to recognise Joe Biden's victory, so that fact alone doesn't invalidate posting Fujimori's win. Khuft (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Political opponents not acknowledging their defeat/making fraud claims/quite frankly being sore losers is becoming an increasingly common thing in general elections worldwide. If we make this a reason not to post an election because the other side is having a hard time admitting defeat/making unsustainable claims/conspiracy theories, nothing will get posted.

  We’d be feeding into their narrative of wanting to undermine their respective democratic process. Plus it goes without saying in most cases, these claims get tossed out in court or independent observers despite said claims. We should never oppose an election result getting posted to INT if the opposition refuses to concede or makes conspiracy theories about their defeat. The only instance would be if a higher court actively investigates the results or does find irregularities which then the election would be nulled (which that itself would be an ITN story). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Lam Wing-kee

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

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

RD: Anna Dawson

Nominator's comments: English actress and singer Blondebeetle (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The references need some improvement work. Author names are missing for some sources (such as the BBC one), one of them has "Guide, British Comedy" as the author's name, and the last two references include the "by" in the author name. Also, Plex is used as a source in the article, but I'm a bit unsure about whether that's a good idea - does Plex gather the list of acting credits themselves, or is it just pulling them from something like IMDB? – numbermaniac 11:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) Roman Catholic / SSPX schism

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

Support Per nom. It is a major schism that has led to direct conflict with the Pope; it has received extensive and ongoing international coverage, and nearly 17,000 followers and clergy of the FSSPX are directly affected. The article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The passive voice in this blurb feels a bit weasel-ly and unnecessarily indirect. Perhaps something like: Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as the Vatican excommunicates members of the Society of Saint Pius X for consecrating bishops without the Pope's consent ? (I also wonder if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate"? I'm not familiar enough with Catholicism to know if e.g. "appointing bishops" would work.) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I went with passive voice because, as a matter of Catholic canon law, the bishops were all excommunicated latae sententiae the moment they performed the consecration. So technically the Vatican didn't excommunicate them, but merely confirmed that the factual pattern had arisen that led to them excommunicating themselves. If there's a way to reword to something more active-voice, no objections, but I think you'd have to find an alternative to "... as the Vatican excommunicates ...". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've written a slightly longer/wordier blurb that clarifies who the active agent is in each part of this story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe "all clergy" is correct (nor is "and followers" in ALT1). Specifically it's the six bishops. The Times article says The decree against the Society of St. Pius X excommunicated at least 750 priests but links to , which says priests and followers will become excommunicated latae sententiae if they "adhere to the schism" (I assume meaning go to SSPX services), but technically doesn't say they're excommunicated yet. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, my source was Vatican News , but it's possible I'm misinterpreting it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I see where you're getting that from The excommunication newly separates the bishops and priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X from the Church of Rome. As for the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Fraternity are to be considered excommunicated, although it's carefully imprecise wording. I imagine sources aren't being too picky about this because, in practical terms, any priest who stayed with SSPX as it did something excommunicatable is unlikely to change their mind all of a sudden, so they probably are all excommunicated already, or will be shortly. Still, I think the best course is to mention the bishops' excommunication while being silent on whether anyone else is excommunicated. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this NPR article explicitly says "all priests of the SSPX [...] were now in schism and excommunicated". I agree the exact state of things is confusing though. Thanks for explaining the logic behind the passive voice; I think your approach makes sense. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Reuters and the Associated Press also explicitly say the priests are excommunicated. The AP even emphasizes the number of priests affected: 750.

I think with three high quality sources, we shouldn't be afraid to say this in Wikivoice. The difference between 6 people and 756 people being affected is huge, and gives important context to why this is the largest schism in a while. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate", but one potential issue with my blurb is that "consecration" means several things in Catholicism. But the more specific "consecration of bishops" would be repetitive, and really both blurbs run into the problem of how do we succinctly say that all six people excommunicated were bishops, but two are the bishops who consecrated the other four. (And yes, the new four are still considered bishops by the Vatican despite having been immediately excommunicated for it.) Maybe... Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, after the participants in the Society of Saint Pius X's unauthorized consecration of bishops are excommunicated.? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as members of the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated for appointing bishops without Pope Leo XIV's consent? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

For consecrating bishops. Canon law is clear on this, and it's what brought the excommunications forth. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support beat me to the nom. Significant, current, and news. Bremps... 21:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support on notability The past tension between the Holy See and SSPX, which started in 1988 after the Écône consecrations, was only limited to the excommunication of six bishops that was later lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. This time around, with the 2026 Écône consecrations, it is clearly an escalation because the issued excommunication extends itself to all the clergy and the laity of SSPX. The schism has also reignited/continued tensions between Roman Catholics under the Holy See and Traditionalist Catholics under SSPX. I don't have a position on the article quality. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, definitly notable and significant. Up there with King Henry VIII in directly defying the Pope like that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Much smaller (in terms of relative and absolute numbers in the smaller fraction) than the possibly-impending Anglican/GAFCON split, but nevertheless one of the largest and most prominent schisms in Western-Rite Christianity in a very long time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the Anglican/GAFCON situation but I imagine it would be posted too if it happens. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The last couple of paragraphs under Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans#History summarise the current situation. GAFCON insists they're the real Anglican Communion and everyone else is out of step, but they flinched from appointing a rival head of the Communion after Archbishop Mullally was appointed last year. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support This is the largest schism in centuries and is achieving widespread international coverage. The article also seems well-cited and provides a good enough narrative of events. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 22:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support on notability High coverage. ArionStar (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support alt3 Highly significant event in religious news. Has gotten widespread coverage globally including in the mainstream (non-religious) press/media. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support notable, exactly the type of thing that should be posted to ITN. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Wow, its my first ITN, Thanks. This is the largest schism in centuries and is the most major event since the Second Vatican Council. Maybe add that Pope Leo XIV was the one who authorized the excommunication. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality looks good and this is a major story that will have lasting consequences worldwide. It's also a bit different to what we normally post, which is nice. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose alts that include a vague "largest excommunication in 150 years" in the blurb. Even minus that, the matter-of-fact "The Society of St. Pius X is excommunicated" is more concise and demonstrates notability given the context in the article. Support on notability. Departure– (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, but suggest a different alt along the lines of “Following its unauthorized consecration of four bishops, the members of the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated by the Catholic Church”. I believe this gives the full breakdown on the cause and effect of what happened without being too redundant or getting too in the weeds. RPH (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted Unanimous support for posting, less so for particular wording. I found the arguments towards a simpler blurb convincing, with the wording based on ALT1 and the two suggestions immediately above; general consensus also seems towards active voice and to specifically include the word schism. Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Bosnia High Representative resignation

Article: High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christian Schmidt resigns as the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Principal Deputy Louis Crishock (pictured) being appointed as acting High Representative. (Post)

News source(s): The Guardian

Credits:

• Nominated by V. L. Mastikosa (talk · give credit)

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

CommentI think it’s ITNR. In any case, I think the sensible thing to do is to wait for Crishock’s article to be created or for the formal appointment of the new High Representative. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that only applies to the constitutional executive office, not the de facto one, so it's not ITNR. But it might be within the spirit of ITNR. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

that's a good point. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support in principle because, as Feeglgeef notes, a change in the de facto head of government is in the spirit of ITNR, although not the letter. Given the circumstances, I would want the target article to be in very good condition. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Louis Crishock's article has been created by @BeanieFan11, and is of pretty good quality. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the OHR article and went more in depth on Schmidt's. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment The quality of the bolded High Representative article is fine, along with Crishock's article. Schmidt's article has multiple unsourced paragraphs in the 'Member of Parliament' and 'Parliamentary State Secretary' sections. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I think it's notable enough and ideally the article would be of very high quality. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and Wait While I agree that this should be posted eventually, I think at this point the nomination is slightly premature. Louis Crishock is only the acting High Representative and the Peace Implementation Council aims to make a final appointment by 14 July (see here), which is relatively soon. As such, I think it would be reasonable to wait until Schmidt’s permanent successor is named and then post the change in the High Representative. John Adams 362 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Julio Revuelta

Nominator's comments: Mayor of Logroño, Spain. Given issues with previous nominations of contemporaries, I have expanded with local policy and achievements. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Ongoing removal: Russo-Ukrainian war timeline

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

• Remove the entry entirely – The main article receives sporadic updates – 'events' ends in May 2026 – with most editing being gnoming, so the timeline article is the only one that's really relevant for ITN. En.wiki hasn't historically maintained years-long entries in 'ongoing', the Gaza war and Russo-Ukrainian war were aberrations from that norm. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Both Gaza and the Russo-Ukraine war are continually covered in the news at a good volume (compared to the Sudanese civil war), so satisfies that prong for ongoing. The timeline articles are regularly updated (eg it doesn't take an ITN removal to prod editors to fix), so some part of that article grouping is being properly updated as ongoing expected. Its this really nuanced thing that some editors expect that the updated article (the timelines) be presented in the ITN box. I've said this on other recent ongoing: as long as the timeline is very clearly given in the infobox on the main target article, and working that WP:SS is the standard approach for writing about large topics, then ongoing is satisified as long as the timeline article is regularly updaed but we don't need to keep the timeline presentin in the ITN box to save space. Masem (t) 23:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - The war in Ukraine is still a extremely significant and talked about conflict, and the timeline page is consistently updated with daily developments, the fact that the idea of removing the conflict from ongoing is being talked about at all is absurd. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose An ongoing major war should be removed from 'Ongoing' after it's, well, not ongoing anymore. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Trepang2 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's literally stated in the nomination that this does not remove the main conflict entry from ongoing, just the timeline. Stephen 00:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Trepang2 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support removal of timeline, it would be fine if the ongoing was super empty but right now i don't think the timeline is adding much. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I'm undecided, sometimes I think the war has reached a point where it's not being discussed and then there will be a flare up in the news. For example it's currently on the front page of the BBC, the front page of RTÉ, the first story on France24 and on the front page of CNN. However the reason I am undecided is, the removal of (only) the timeline may still be justified. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• The issue is that this is the article that is actually receiving constant updates. It would make more sense to me to delete the main subject article, and make the timeline the sole item featured in ongoing. I'd be happy to see both finally removed, though; Ongoing items shouldn't last this long. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  You mean remove the article, not delete it, right? Feeglgeef (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Haha, yeah, remove it from Ongoing :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove the entry entirely but failing that, remove the timeline. We are not serving any of the stated purposes of ITN by featuring a stalemate war for its entire duration. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why if we were to have ongoing, why such a massive war, that remains not only in the news, but in the headlines, would be dropped. Nfitz (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ongoing exists to deal with a quirk created by the way ITN wishes to exists conflicting with the natural occurrence of events. But it remains a subset of ITN, and should serve its aims. It is not to meant to feature all ongoing news events anymore than ITN is meant to be a news ticker. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is the mpst important event that is in news. I fail to see a reason for removal here. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  My limited understanding: It doesn't matter how important it is beyond a minimum significance. It's either significant enough for ITN or not. What's more relevant for Ongoing is updates (climate change doesn't get regular updates). It's a philosophical question whether or not timelines should count towards regular updates to the relevant article, related to the question of whether or not timelines should be listed under ongoing in general Placeholderer (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - if people want the timeline, they can find it in the article. I'd also support changing "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Ukraine War", which is it's WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Name ideas are probably best suited for the article talk page. ITN should use whatever name the article is using.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose As others such as Maplestrip have noted, the timeline is the article receiving the most frequent updates. We should direct ITN readers to the page where those updates can be found. Removing the timeline accomplishes precisely the opposite. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why would we think that people would be drawn in particular to the latest timeline, rather than a more general article. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Nfitz: If we image the people using the Wikipedia home page as their home page, which article do you think they are more likely to click on every day or every week? The one that is constantly updated, or the one that is mostly static? The goal of the front-page is to give returning readers a dynamic selection of our work to read. Every user who has been on the Wikipedia front page for the past three years has had the opportunity to read the article on the war already. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds like a case to remove ongoing completely, and give more room to new stories. Do we have any stats on those that use Wikipedia as a home page? Nfitz (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Article is still receiving updates and to be frank this thing is still ongoing. Not long ago Ukraine launched a strike to Russia where even Putin acknowledged the damage it’s caused. The war is still ongoing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Readers can easily navigate to the most recent timeline from the main article on the war, so this is completely unnecessary and not in line with WP:ONGOING (it nowhere mentions that we can post links to multiple articles about the same ongoing event). I know that removing the link to the timeline would leave an article with no regular updates on the main page, but this is something that has to do with the wording of WP:ONGOING, which seems to be inconsistent with the postings onto this section in the past couple of years. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support removal – let's cut some slack for the overflowing tank that is the state of the 'ongoing' section today. The navigational templates and section hatnotes will still make the timeline easy to find anyways. I feel like a good majority of people already know about the Ukraine war by this point in time, so having that timeline link still there might be overemphasis on the topic now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The war is still going, and likely coming to a crucial and defining moment. There is no reason to remove it precisely now. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@BilboBeggins and TDKR Chicago 101: your oppose !votes here don't seem to quite align with what the nomination is proposing. The proposal isn't to remove the Ukraine war entirely, it is just to remove the "timeline" part. So instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (timeline) it would be changed to just Russo-Ukrainian war. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The same narrative applies, timeline is closely aligned with the war itself. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I don't think timelines really belong in the "ongoing" section, nobody is really interested in reading those, and it's the main war that is the article we wish to highlight. I think there was some concern before that for large-scale events, the main page doesn't receive frequent enough updates, but that doesn't mean we should have a fudge like this pointing people to a page they are unlikely to want to view. Better to just IAR and keep the main entry in anywya. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  "nobody is really interested in reading those" well. there are 85 127 views this month, so this is definitely not the case. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) per Masem's response to Mr rnddude. This never stopped being big news, I still see new reporting on it all the time as someone who reads a lot of news. The timeline article is also being sufficiently updated and BilboBeggins's response to Amakuru shows readers do in fact still care about this and want up-to-date info about it. I'd rather we relist the Gaza war and genocide - which never ended despite many erroneous comments in the discussion that led to its removal from Ongoing - than delist the war on Ukraine. Not that I expect that to happen, many feel we already have too many things listed currently so any proposal to add something is going to face an uphill battle.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Vladimir McTavish

Nominator's comments: Scottish comedian GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, an incredibly short stub that totally fails WP:ITNQUALITY. CoconutOctopus talk 18:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support as article has been much improved since. CoconutOctopus talk 12:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as per CoconutOctopus, article is currently a stub. R. M. Holda - (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• @CoconutOctopus: @Robert Motecinos Holda: I have expanded the article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I personally feel that the article is still too short at 1150 characters. R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 Bremps... 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose far too short, scant detail, and missing basic details (e.g. date of birth), as well as large gaps in his biography. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Expanded again; I think this is acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment @CoconutOctopus: @Robert Motecinos Holda: @Bremps: @Abcmaxx: The article has since been expanded. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Still way too short and lacks detail. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, i still oppose R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Abcmaxx and Robert Motecinos Holda: What more would you want from a notable but routine stand-up comedian? We have posted bios far more scant than this in the past. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no date of birth, no list of works (or events), his biography lists several awards and nominations without expanding on what basis they were awarded or what for, television appearances are just a list without even briefly describing what roles he played or what he did on them, nor how he came to be on those shows and for how long, whether they were brief secondary appearances or key roles. The article also says he a was a director of a comedy club but does not say what he did in that function at all, such as what events he oversaw, changes he made, direction he took the club, who he worked with etc. The biography section reads more like a short brief rather than any basic description of his work and life. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  We don't know his date of birth. I could list his comedy tours but that would really add nothing because it's just a list. The awards are self-explanatory - I mean, what do you think a Lifetime Achievement Award is for? Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Victor Willis

Nominator's comments: Lead singer of Village People ~2026-37585-67 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not Ready for the usual reason. Sad news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support on notability, oppose on quality. The guy made YMCA and co-founded Village People. However, there are cn tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This is an RD nomination and everyone is notable by default. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But that doesn't guarantee the article will get posted. The article has several citation tags that need to be addressed. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

That's true; I was referring to "Support on notability" !vote. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Needs work There seem to be several controversial issues and the article's account of them seems weak. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Michael Byrne

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

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

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

RD: Phyllis Kinney

Nominator's comments: American-born authority on traditional Welsh music born 1923. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Publications section needs references or ISBNs; otherwise this has appropriate depth. Spencer^T•C 04:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Humphrey Smith

Nominator's comments: British businessman and brewer. Fixing a malformed nom by Mark.s.shaw. Gotitbro (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced, well written and been updated. Good to run. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Trump v. Barbara

Nominator's comments: Coverage by major news outlets on a SCOTUS decision that has to deal with an article of the U.S. constitution. Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose this was a case where, from the oral session, it was clear the EO wasn't going to stand and the status quo remained. The decision added no new qualifiers or anything. If anything it is the fact three justices were willing to ignore the plain text of the amendment that is causing an uproar, and that itself is political and not good for ITN. (And if anything cases like Trump v. Slaughter have a much larger impact than this one). Masem (t) 12:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Political and not good for ITN" does this mean all stories that pertain to something politically controversial should never be posted? Or does this only apply if they are politically controversial in the United States? IntoThinAir (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose not all SCOTUS decisions are ITN-worthy. Opposing per Masem, nothing changes. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument, no one is arguing that all SCOTUS decisions are ITN-worthy, but this one is extremely significant, high-profile, and widely covered by news outlets around the world. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose it’s just a routine controversial American political story, nothing significant enough for posting imo. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. Maybe if the case gone the opposite way, it would have been potentially ITN-worthy, but the result amounts to "nothing changes, the status quo stays the same". Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Internal national matter, not really having an impact worldwide. Plus WP:NTRUMP. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) 2026 Stade shooting

RD: Penelope Keith

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

• Support The picture is poor and we don’t seem to have a good alternative. (...later...) But now, a much better picture has been found to replace the poor one and so we are making good progress. This picture is much more evocative of the subject in her prime and so I have updated my !vote accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 02:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why would a picture be a reason to oppose? ItsShandog (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  The picture is ghastly. It seems to be a surreptitious picture which was scraped from Flickr and that's presumably why it looks so bad. This is important because the picture is the first thing that readers see and which will dominate their impression of the article. The citations which obsess others at ITN are comparatively unimportant because readers just don't look at them.

  The subject was a national treasure and so it's not a good look to be presenting her so badly. Other sites will be showing much better pictures of the subject and so Wikipedia will look bad by comparison. That's a significant quality issue. Q.E.D.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 18:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  all nonsense concerns when we focus on freely licensed content. Clearly of her, in a public appearance and certainly not disparaging. Sure, if we had a free photo of her when she was in her heyday, that would be better, but this is not a disrespectful picture and fully compliant with image and BLP policy Masem (t) 19:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Flickr original seems deliberately disparaging. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's a joke relating to the custard throwing contest. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  While it would be good to have a better picture it's not justification for an oppose. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Andrew, you should frankly know better by now than to be making comments like this. Image quality is not one of the concerns listed in ITNQUALITY, and citations explicitly are, and no amount of soapboxing will change that. It's not even that bad of a picture. Stop violating NOTFORUM, please. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Not relevant, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

And now the photo has been changed by Howardcorn33 and so this entire discussion is moot. Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Howardcorn33 seems quite good at finding and loading such images as they did something similar in the case of James Burrows – another major sitcom talent whose recent ITN nomination was quite neglected and so was not posted. It has scrolled off now but the good news is that his article got about 300K views regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 02:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I will say that I agree with the others that you should not have opposed the article being posted on the basis of its lead photo in the first place. If there had been no other photo, the previous picture would have been fine for an RD posting (or on the main page blurb if the article was significant enough). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Support Article is extensively referenced. Technical quality of picture is fine; whether it flatters her is opinion and not relevant. ~2026-33735-27 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Filmography and works section now seems sourced. Genuinely confused by the issues with the image. Admittedly I've never heard of her, but never in a million years would I have opened the article and thought, "Wow, what an awful photo, Wikipedia is really disparaging her". IMHO, it really just looks like a neutral, candid picture, taken in a public setting... Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Guessing Andrew's problem is that she is not smiling and is somewhat frowning. But fully agree that this does not matter at all. Natg 19 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support and topic-ban User:Andrew Davidson who after all this time here, thinks a picture (which doesn't seem that bad to me) is grounds for rejecting a RD; clearly there are competence to edit issues here. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not saying I agree with them, but a picture issue is a quality issue. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would argue that believing a picture as innocuous as the one previously present constituted a serious quality issue is evidence of a lack of competence, however. I'm a frequent lurker here at ITN and Andrew's comments are a consistent source of confusion, but this one just may take the cake. Loytra^✨ 00:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  But a frowning free image is more important than citation issues!

  Andrew's just making it really hard for anyone to believe that he actually wants ITN to improve rather than the dubious pointy comments that derail noms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  One good nom being derailed is better than one bad nom making it on the main page. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, it really isn't. A biography without an image can still be a great article. We have many FAs which are such. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this is the place to propose topic bans of users. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  While you might not like or agree with his perspective he does contribute differing view points which is good. How many times have you seen people say "no lasting notability"? That's as much a criteria as anything Andrew has said. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  The issue here isn't his differing opinions on significance, as those are within reason (even if the pageviews stuff annoys a lot of people). The issue here is his consistent disregard for the text of the quality requirements (which are much less subjective) in favor of his personal view on what makes a postable quality level. His flippant attitude towards one of the few hard rules for RD, sourcing, is disruptive. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm glad you said his pageview points are acceptable even if controversial as that's partially what I was referring to. However I agree, I overlooked him dismissing sourcing. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sometimes I'm not sure whether comments like "The citations which obsess others at ITN are comparatively unimportant because readers just don't look at them" are honest opinions or hooks to engage others into debating off-topic claims. However, the old adage of defending others' rights to an opinion rings true. The forum for a topic ban is WP:ANI, but I'm not sure that unpopular opinions are a reason for one, unless they are based on hate of demographic groups, which these aren't. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Filmography is still missing references; the theatre section is mostly unsourced. Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. The Theatre subsection of the Works section definitely needs more ref work. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  It should be sufficiently cited now. ItsShandog (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

These are now cited, but is Theatricalia.com a RS? It looks to me to be a theatre database maintained by 1 person. Natg 19 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It is the only source I can find for most of those details, much of the theatre‑related information is not widely reported elsewhere. ItsShandog (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think people tolerate a lower bar for Filmographies due to the difficulties finding sources for small productions/parts. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Filmographies and the like don't usually need sources because the works are recorded, have lists of credits and so are self-documenting. Live theatre may be more challenging but there are usually adverts, programmes and reviews . Such facts are rarely controversial and, per WP:V, citations are only expected when there's some reason to doubt them. Featured articles don't require them and so it's silly for ITN to make a fuss about this when the main fact we're reporting is the subject's death. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Where does WP:V say this citations are only expected when there's some reason to doubt them? There are competing essays WP:SKYBLUE and WP:DOCITEBLUE. Natg 19 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment There are about 15 roles that don't have a citation between TV and Movies. A couple of them are listed as "uncredited", which, honestly, means we probably need a source more than for a role where someone could hunt down and check the credits. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Are any not listed in the IMDB link that's on the page? Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, and should only be included as an external link. Other sources are required to be used to meet WP:V Masem (t) 23:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, @Masem. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Masem, your assertion contradicts WP:V. When content is certainly verifiable, sources are not required . Any TV or movie in which the deceased appeared is certainly verifiable. This article is abundantly ready for RD, IMHO. ~2026-33735-27 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Not yet ready Many items in the Works section are unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Which items? ItsShandog (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

ItsShandog, as above to Masem: When content is certainly verifiable, sources are not required. ~2026-33735-27 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

(new) RD: Günter Lenz

Nominator's comments: Iconic German jazz bass player. The article was basically there but lacking references. The recordings still need refs, but some of them even have an article, - can't be too difficult, - help wanted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• update: most recordings have a ref now. I'm out for the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is sufficient. A few of the recordings still don't have sources, but there's few enough of them to where I don't think it'll hold up posting. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Akihiro Miwa

Nominator's comments: Japanese actor, singer, drag queen, composer, and notable figure in queer Japanese history as a well-known public figure. Miwa died on the 20th but the death was announced on the 28th. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• I will make some edits to remedy that. Jon698 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• @QuicoleJR: I have completely overhauled the article. Jon698 (talk)

• Support Sourcing issues have been fixed; article quality is now sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support all statements are sourced and article broadly covers the notable activity of subject. Jon698 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mignon Dunn

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

• Support per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

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

• Support sourced jolielover♥talk 18:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support 5261 characters (862 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 19:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support sourced and comprehensive enough. @Admins willing to post ITN: ready to post. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment (this is how I nominated her when I reached a presentable state, yesterday) American operatic mezzo-soprano, a leading lady at the Metropolitan Opera from 1958 to 1994, also present at houses of the world, especially in Europe and Latin America. Sadly, her article was a copy from one of the sources, mostly a plain list of roles and venues - no character. I'm not yet happy but have no more time today, - a start is made, everything is referenced, and help - as always - is welcome. There's a NYT obit, which tells of notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  update: the unspeakable long lists of roles here and places there are gone. More is needed to do her justice: the lead should be better, the paragraph about concerts lacks links to places and is missing repertoire completely, and recordings are also missing. help? - I'm busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  update: I also think now that it's ready: lead revised, identical phrasing with source avoided, individual concert and recordings, more reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted – robertsky (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wan Shaofen

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

• Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Posted – robertsky (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) Aleksandar Vučić's resignation

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.

---

Aleksandar Vučić

Article: Aleksandar Vučić (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) announces his intention to resign as President of Serbia amidst anti-corruption protests. (Post)

News source(s): AP Reuters Euronews

Credits:

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Per Starmer's blurb. ArionStar (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Intrigued I saw a comment back on the Starmer nomination that ITN had posted the announcement of Miloš Vučević intending to resign as the prime minister of Serbia back in February 2025. Now we are discussing Vucic declaring his intention to resign from the presidency of Serbia within the next few weeks. Would the past cases by the resignations of UK prime ministers also apply to other countries as well? CastleFort1 (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about like a election to elect the new leader of the party in the UK, then I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I believe that they will be calling in early elections according to Vucic. Sotjrma (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to oppose Per comments from Gotitbro and Vacant0. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance Serbia is practically irrelevant compared to the UK. A parliamentary system is also different from a presidential one. No prejudice towards blurbing the new guy as that's ITNR I think. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it's actually not ITNR as the Prime Minister has executive power. Double down on my oppose, then. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The Prime Minister has power only on paper, in reality he is highly irrelevant and Vučić's puppet, barely ever making public appearances or issuing statements. Most Serbs don't even know the PM's name, while everyone knows Vučić. Djodjor (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Believing that the UK is more important another sovereign state is an outrageous comment and the very worst of British exceptionalism. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Vučić has de facto to power and rules Serbia in am increasingly authoritarian manner. The protests have been continous since the Novi Sad disaster, which is a very long time to cling onto power. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Change to oppose per Vacant0's comment. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Vucic is the de facto leader of Serbia. Setarip (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose. It's better to wait until he actually resigns. Setarip (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, acknowledging that this is not ITNR, but agreeing that Vucic's status as de facto leader, and the connection of his resignation to the protests and the Novi Sad disaster, make this a highly significant story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I have struck my support and now oppose this, because if the same guy has said it before and then not done it, it's a very different situation. We should wait until he actually does it, or at least begins a process that he can't just arbitrarily stop again. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has not been updated to reflect his resignation. No mention of an announcement, not even a sentence. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment reading the AP and Reuters article, they note that this is probably just a ploy to weaken protesters as Vucic runs and returns to power as prime minister. À la the game of musical chairs Putin and Medvedev played. Sources are doubting that the student protests were the primary cause. I think we need to wait a few days to see if this is anything more than an electoral strategy. 1brianm7 (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, from what I saw all he said was he would resign within "weeks", once we have a clear timetable and a better understanding why he's resigning now we should post. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose These "intention" noms are getting out of hand. With the UK there was an attempt to justify it by saying that the word there simply meant he's resigned (I still reasoned against and opposed that flimsy argument). With Serbia you don't even have that justification, Vucic's in power [illegally as he's the president and shouldn't] and will remain so. Ping me if/when he actually resigns. Gotitbro (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As the major contributor to Serbian politics, I can assure you that Vučić has said many similar things many times since the last elections and that we cannot trust his word. See , , , , . It's best to wait until it actually happens. I doubt that he will resign in the coming weeks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, as someone who has been observing Serbian politics, I had a similar feeling; oppose. — Knightoftheswords 11:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose once it takes place, then we can do it (reasons per Vacant) Braganza (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose - Not considering anything until he actually submits his formal resignation for once. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I lost count how many times that person announced their resignation byteflush _Talk 23:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Huh? Isn't this the first time: Aleksandar Vučić#President (2017–present). Gotitbro (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait until it happens. The nomination for Keir Starmer announcing his resignation was closed, but was later posted when it happened. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose he's said this multiple times. He also still retains power in Serbia and probably will even after his resignation.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 07:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

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

(Blurb posted) Ongoing or blurb: European heatwaves

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

• Comment – Shouldn't we nominate a blurb first before considering "Ongoing"? Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

World-historical events need blurbs? kencf0618 (talk)

Many ITN blurbs tend to be historic events 👍 Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 20:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this should be a blurb first, and then we can see if an ongoing is needed when it is about to roll off. However, while I'm not against a blurb, I do think ongoing for heat waves while climate change continues to get worse is not really appropriate - we might as well add in the North American hurricane season and the SE Asis typhoon seasons as ongoing for that same reason. Masem (t) 19:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

the heatwave started on the 17th, so I’m pretty sure it would be considered stale — Knightoftheswords 🎂🥳 19:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Would support blurb, agree with the above. Yakikaki (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Converted to blurb. May need wordsmithing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support blurb, considering this heatwave is exceptional in many ways. Yakikaki (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose We are living in a time of climate change, and it is summer in the northern hemisphere. There are heatwaves in Europe every year, particularly in the Mediterranean. It is what it is, and we have to get used to record temperatures. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose It's summer. Hot but not particularly deadly without high humidity. Not sure why it would be an ongoing when not even blurbed when it peaked. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Altblurb2 - Record breaking heatwave for Europe, with a significant death count AntarcticFoxes 04:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb It is a record heatwave with a high death count and it is making news globally. The article is good in quality (aside from the Highest temperature by country section). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Setarip (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb2 – Records breaking everywhere and significant death account. --L'Éclipse (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb. Although common, European heatwaves do kill thousands, which is a death toll significant enough to get a blurb. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Globalise The article has a lead image (pictured). What I notice in this is that North Africa and the Levant seem far redder and hotter than Europe. My impression is that this is First World problems which may be much worse elsewhere. We should perhaps try to cover this globally as I gather that there's a super El Niño this year which will cause widespread problems. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  I hope we'll get a good article on the super El Niño, if it occurs, so that we can feature that too. We can only feature articles we actually write after all. I think climate articles should have a lot of potential to give our readership insight in the impact of climate change worldwide. It's a shame that it's frequently only the European and such articles that are of appropriate quality for a front-page feature. I don't think that's a reason to oppose the one good article we do have, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Climate change is happening. Weather is f'ed up everywhere. That doesn't make it a good topic for ITN because of how sporadic and disparate the effects are. Masem (t) 12:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Information It is not a excepcional event; see Category:Heat waves in Europe. ArionStar (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb while heatwaves in Europe are not unusual, one where national records are broken in multiple countries with a notable death toll is clearly exceptional. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Even so, high death tolls in European heat waves are not excepcional. ArionStar (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  This has happened for 5 years now. We have a rising trend in which there are heatwaves every summer which break national records and have a death toll. But a death toll of 5 hundred is not significant for a continent because about 5 million people die in Europe every year. Elderly people are frail and so die from a myriad causes and hot weather is a comparatively minor one. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no requirement in ITN for the subject to be "exceptional." Most ITN blurbs aren't. It just needs to be in the news. I will refrain from responding to your comment about "elderly people"... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb per Yorkshiresky. Jusdafax (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The 2022 European heatwaves were posted on 20/7/22 when their death total was 3,600. Depending on your source, the death toll for this one is somewhere around 1,500. However (a) this heatwave is still continuing, and (b) it's worth noting that the final death toll of the 2022 one was in the region of 20,000. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support alt2 – In the news, updated, receiving significant coverage, article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Appears to be the now routine (cf. climate change in Europe) 2022 European heatwaves, 2023 European heatwaves, 2024 European heatwaves, 2025 European heatwaves. The only one of significance here appears to be the 2022 one, which our current heatwave is nowhere really near. Gotitbro (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  To add most of these broke records and had similar/higher death tolls. So nothing unusual there either. Gotitbro (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think this might be our highest-quality article of this series yet, which in the end is more relevant than the actual temperatures and death-counts. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing, too many already. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is the norm now and a yearly reminder – usually during the Northern summer – of that is superfluous. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb – Article looks good. Very detailed, exactly the kind of thing we like to see on ITN. Requirements (ITNSIGNIF, update) are easily met. I think a blurb is just fine here; the start and end of this kind of Ongoing are really blurry. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb 2. Yes, this is a new normal, but one that is worsening progressively which makes it newsworthy. In these heatwaves several national temperature records were broken again and the death toll is high. Brandmeister ^talk 09:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing as the climax of the heatwave has already passed. Most of the countries affected experience significantly colder temperatures today, so it'd be very belated to post it to ongoing when the heatwave is practically gone. Of course, we can talk about the consequences, but that can be summarised in a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. DarkHorse234 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support since its 100% in the news with large impact. It's a news item that belongs in ongoing rather than ITN imo. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is it really ongoing though. If the above comments are anything to go by, hasn't this largely subsided? Gotitbro (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Posted blurb alt2 for brevity. – robertsky (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• Looks like there might have been a mix-up in the casualty counts between this and the earthquakes, as both display the same number? Pinging updaters: @Stephen @Robertsky. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby looks like it. – robertsky (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looks to have been fixed. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: David Hencke

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

• Support 2147 characters (331 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 15:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready – Article is 80% proseline. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• @Nice4What: and @Admins willing to post ITN: I improved the article, can this be posted before it falls off please? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Sergei Ivanov

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

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

Snyder Fire

Article: Snyder Fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three federal wildland firefighters are killed and two injured battling the Snyder Fire, a wildfire burning along the Colorado–Utah border. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Snyder Fire, a wildfire burning along the Colorado–Utah border, grows to 28,200 acres amid a wind-driven burnover that kills three firefighters.

News source(s): The Colorado Sun NPR ABC News

Credits:

• Nominated by CostalCal (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Snyder Fire has killed three federal wildland firefighters in a burnover incident and grown to over 28,000 acres in under two days, making it one of the deadliest wildfire incidents for firefighters in the western U.S. this year. Article currently lacks victim names and a finalized cause determination, both pending.  CostalCal (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose slightly at least for now, it lacks a widespread significant impact as there's not too many casualties, and i believe several wildfires with tens of thousands of acres per year. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and close It seems to have become something of a tradition that every summer, fires in Canada or the United States are nominated even though their impact is minor. It is important to bear in mind the general consensus so as not to waste time. In this case, the death toll is very low (and none of the victims were civilians, moreover), and the impact is typical of a summer fire. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you on the oppose !vote, but where is a newbie to ITN supposed to find "general consensus"? There are no guidelines that show what we typically do or do not post. Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

CostalCal is not a newbie. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This comment is off-topic and irrelevant but if it's important enough it should be written down somewhere. Expecting someone to understand 1000 (in the case of the English common law) or even 25 (in the case of the English Wikipedia) years of precedent without having been there is ridiculous. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Again. CostalCal is not a newbie and it's not the first time he has nominated fires in North America. General consensus are relevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Vetrenarisisum. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose and move to a formal close The Snyder Fire is now 95% contained as of 3 July 2026, per the WatchDuty map. The fire isn't notable enough for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)