Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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

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

Kibale chimpanzee
Kibale chimpanzee

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death or include a death of an individual without a standalone article; such nominations are called nonstandard recent deaths (RDN).

All articles linked 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, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not 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).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Structure

[edit]

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

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

April 14

[edit]

April 13

[edit]

Canadian Liberal Party obtains majority Goverment

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 30th Canadian Ministry (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following a series of floor crossings and by-election victories, the Liberal Party of Canada led by Mark Carney (pictured) obtain Majority Government status in Parliament. (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Extremely notable and unprecedented event in Canadian history, with a party gaining majority status nearly a year after the Federal Election. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Beninese presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Beninese presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Romuald Wadagni wins a landslide victory in the Beninese presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
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: Provisional results were revealed on 13 April 2026. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment forgive the scepticism but 94% with only 2 candidates seems very suspect? The article doesn't mention any observers or comment on the legitimacy of the election at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimacy is not part of the criteria for an ITN/R election. We post all elections. Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Article: Naval blockade of Iran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States impose a naval blockade on Iran following the failure to end the war in the country. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A major event of the war. ArionStar (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Covered by ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

[edit]

2026 Laurence Olivier Awards

[edit]
Article: 2026 Laurence Olivier Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Laurence Olivier Awards, Punch wins the Best New Play and Paddington: The Musical wins the Best New Musical. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: I'm in a process of expanding the winners prose as best as I can. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Masters Tournament

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Rory McIlroy wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In golf, Rory McIlroy wins the 2026 Masters Tournament.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The game summary has a prose. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hungary parliamentary election

[edit]
Proposed image
Peter Magyar
Articles: 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag) and Péter Magyar (talk · history · tag) and Viktor Orbán (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Hungary, Péter Magyar's Tisza Party ends sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz in the parliamentary election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Hungary, a parliamentary election sees Péter Magyar's Tisza Party end sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In the 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election Péter Magyar's Tisza Party wins a 2/3 constitutional majority, ending sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ In Hungary, a parliamentary election sees Péter Magyar's Tisza Party win a two-thirds supermajority, ending sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz.
Alternative blurb 4: ​ Péter Magyar's Tisza Party ends sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz in the 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb 5: ​ Péter Magyar's Tisza Party wins the 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election, ending sixteen years of rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz. Credits:

One or both nominated events are 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: MI VAGYUNK MAGYAR PETER! In all seriousness, the Independent and other outlets are currently projecting a 2/3 parliamentary supermajority majority (133/199 seats) for Tisza, so I'm nominating this article even though no winner has officially been declared so that we can look at the articles' quality. The reason I'm proposing all three be blurbed is due to how historic Orban's loss is. — Knightoftheswords 18:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, obviously (the latest projection is 128 seats, but that may change considering how Orban has rigged the electoral system to favour him). But yes, it would be useful to look at the article qualities. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb probably should be more neutral, mentioning first that Tisza won the majority, and then mentioning ending Orban's rule. That latter facet, while we'd not normally include in an election blurb, is a core part of all reporting so we do want to include it, but should be the secondary part of the blurb. Masem (t) 19:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready, some issues I spotted: In the election article, the list in Contesting parties and candidates does not cite ideologies for most parties. Series of interviews uses a single source for each paragraph. In the Péter Magyar article, Early life and education is mostly unsourced. Demonstrations uses a single source for each paragraph. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Support.. Whilst Orban has conceded, the poll stations are still counting and yet to report the full results. Results are in, ready to go. TwistedAxe [contact] 19:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Full results have never been a prerequisite for posting. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not predict elections and whilst yes, it was pretty apparent that Magyar won, we still wait for the results from officials. TwistedAxe [contact] 21:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Full results aren't in and won't be for almost a week, @Twistedaxe. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of editing my message and casting a support vote, a majority (90% if my memory serves me correct) of the preliminary results were in. TwistedAxe [contact] 19:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just say that you changed your mind, and we don't need the full results, while striking the incorrect comments you'd made. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that Orban has conceded, there's no need to wait for full results; these can take weeks to months, and there's no policy suggesting this. Even without an election a president conceding is ITN, if not ITN/R. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect, full results of elections are usually posted no more than a few days after the election. TwistedAxe [contact] 20:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Where, @Twistedaxe? Usually takes a month or so in Canada, even though the opposition conceded less than 3 hours after polls closed. Nine months with the 2025 election being challenged in the court, and the overturn and rerun in one riding tomorrow. The concession is the story, not the weeks of full counting. Nfitz (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    France, Brazil, Sweden, Israel along many more but these are some examples. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you making such false claims @Twistedaxe. The French one says "preliminary" and the Swedish one says "The county administrative board carries out the final vote count, which begins on the Monday after election day". I didn't check your tertiary refernces to Brasil and Israel. We simply don't wait for full results - we never have, and we won't here. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the French page:
    Almost all French voters cast ballots in person on Election Day. Its overseas territories started voting on Saturday, April 9, while voters in France went to designated polling stations on Sunday, April 10. (Voters can designate someone to cast a ballot on their behalf by proxy.)
    Most of the polling stations closed at 7 p.m., while some in larger cities such as Paris closed at 8 p.m.
    Scrolling a bit down reveals:
    The Ministry of Interior published the day after, in the afternoon, the consolidated results taking into account all the results from France, French territories overseas and the French people living abroad, Confavreux said. The Constitutional Council announced on April 13 that Macron and Le Pen were the official winners and will advance to the runoff.
    Meaning that from April 10 to April 13, it's 3 days. That is when the Constitutional Council reveals the results in France.
    For the Swedish page, that is literally what I said. The Swedish general elections are always held on the second Sunday of September. "Monday" in this case is literally the day after the election. I think I'd know my country's election system well. The results are finalized usually on this day.
    So no, I'm not making "false claims". Before you utter, please do fact-check and read the sources I've actually given you. Yes, we do wait for results, we do take preliminary results into account if they are actually accurate. In most first world countries, preliminary results weigh more simply because they're more reliable. It is always the electoral authority that has the final say though no matter what. TwistedAxe [contact] 19:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to read your sources closer, @Twistedaxe. Going back to Sweden, you note that they START the following Monday. Keep reading - The Swedish Election Authority determines the result of the election with the Riksdag approximately ONE WEEK after election day" Nfitz (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Approximately one week equals a few days, which is what I said. If we take a look at the 2022 election and the 2018 election, they were both finalized by the following week. In my initial reply to you, I misworded it - votes are counted on Monday, but even then, sometimes they are even finalized during the same day. TwistedAxe [contact] 23:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added another blurb. I think mentioning the fact that Tisza wins a 2/3 majority is important to include. Of course this is awaiting that most votes are counted. Gust Justice (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the full results are in. Although Orbán has conceded, TISZA may or may not win a supermajority. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When ready just wait a bit, maybe a day. Orban just conceded, but we can wait a bit for the full results becoming a bit more clear. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Orbán has conceded, I think the time to post is right now. Yakikaki (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The victory is confirmed, 2/3 not sure. Time to post, when the news are hot. Grimes2 21:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are in no rush to post any story. The quality must be there first and foremost. There is no "news is hot" metric. Masem (t) 22:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we can always amend the blurb when the supermajority gets 100% confirmed. I think that simply stating that they won the election for now is enough. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 3 Mentions two-thirds supermajority and the end of Orban's premiership. Article quality appears to be fine. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb and update once 2/3 is confirmed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altblurb 4, just added, which avoids that god-awful "In ..." intro that every single other one has. I'd probably be happy with other tweaks to it, but for the love all that's good and holy, get rid of "In ..." unless it's actually needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, finally! Support alt4 for this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 5 for now. We ought to add mention of the supermajority once it's widely reported by reliable sources. Gust Justice (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 1 or 3, I don't know why we would argue In Hungary as being clunky, but support blurbs that include the more clunky and irrelevant (readers already know what year it is) 2026 Hungarian parliamentary election. — Knightoftheswords 01:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 or alt5. Orbán's loss here is internationally significant. Ideally "2026" would be removed and alt2 would say "two-thirds supermajority" like alt3 does. Opening with "In Hungary" feels a little clunky (as does "In Hungary, […], in the parliamentary election"), but Hungary ought to be mentioned towards the start of the sentence, and not at at the end as in alt4. Just splitting hairs here because that's what the alts are doing. threeqc (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt5. Tisza's victory is the primary news here, so Fidesz's defeat works better in the second sentence. Agree that "In Hungary" is redundant and looks clunky. Elijahr241 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support An historic election. Any of the blurbs work, though probably my preference is the original blurb. -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Marie-Louise Eta appointed as manager of Union Berlin

[edit]
Consensus to post is unlikely to develop --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Marie-Louise Eta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Marie-Louise Eta (image) has become the first woman appointed to manage a men's team in one of Europe's top five leagues after being named head coach of Union Berlin. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Marie-Louise Eta (image) becomes first ever female head coach in men's top five European leagues at Bundesliga side Union Berlin. Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: History! Importante step. amps (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose That's an arbitrary criterion if ever I've seen one. Is there a special importance to the Top 5 that doesn't extend to the Top 6? Also, the first blurb appears to be a near exact copy of this BBC source, sans the word "interim", and the alt is less comprehensible to those not familiar with association football. Departure– (talk) 00:14, 13 April 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.

Blurb/RD: Asha Bhosle

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Asha Bhosle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination – nonstandard
Blurb:  Indian singer Asha Bhosle (pictured) dies at the age of 92 (Post)
News source(s): Republic
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nonstandard recent death nominations concern individuals who don't have a standalone article and/or whose deaths are being proposed for a blurb. Unlike standard recent death nominations, nonstandard nominations are not simply judged on quality (see WP:ITNRDSTANDALONE and WP:ITNRDBLURB).

Nominator's comments: Legendary Indian singer, and a great loss for the country TNM101 (chat) 07:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If people are just doing exclusively an RD nomination, why write a blurb? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. There’s sections in the article that needs additional sources. Also the article could use a legacy section to properly outline why the person why notable in her field. I’m not doubting since I am aware of her impact but it’d be nice to have a section outlying it for readers to understand why she was an influential figure. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability, oppose on quality The article is frankly terrible and would need industrial-strength sourcing (and probably a large amount of trivia cut from it) to make it ready for the main page. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Too many uncited paragraphs and tagged on the top. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality is a major problem, tons of unsourced. If this is to be a blurb, the only statement that speaks to being a major figure is this unsourced line in the lede "Known for her versatility, she was described in the media as one of the greatest and most influential singers in Hindi cinema." that I don't see backed up in the body. As usually, this can be fixed with some type of legacy or impact or equivalent section to illustrate this factor from multiple reliable sources. Masem (t) 12:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, is not on par with Mandela/Thatcher in notability. Article is not ready due to poor sourcing. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going on the "notability" subject, should we talk of all the actors and singers who were blurbed before her and were not notable either ? Varoon2542 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERSTUFF in regards to individual merit. I personally don't think celebrity deaths should be blurbed in general since the discussion frequently devolves into popularity contests. I think the Thatcher/Mandela threshold is a good litmus test in regards of what should be considered blurbable notability. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do believe subject is notable for blurb, however the quality is pretty abhorrent at the moment. jolielover♥talk 15:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support RD The article is good enough for RD and I believe that that should be done while the debate is ongoing for a blurb. She collaborated with foreign musicians and was a household name for South Asians for nearly seven decades, but I'm afraid she'll again be overshadowed by her sister in death whose death was blurbed.Varoon2542 (talk)
  • Strongly oppose blurb, oppose RD on quality. Plenty of orange tags, citation tags and WP:SLANG tag at the top. All of this needs to be resolved before the article can be pushed towards the front page. Once these issues are addressed, I support RD as this person doesn't seem notable enough for a blurb in my opinion. TwistedAxe [contact] 20:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb on notability, oppose on quality - lots of unsourced stuff. JaxsonR (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on the merits not a household name, not a serving political officeholder, death not notable as event This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whose household? Yours??? ~2026-22793-07 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m an American currently studying at the University of Toronto. Figures. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
She was a household name for 1.8 billion people. Given your public political views, it's quite ironic how you brush away a non western singing icon. You should ask Mamdani.Varoon2542 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD as article is orange-tagged. Neutral on blurb - while I'll admit my first instinct was no, I've seen enough coverage of her death from global/non-Indian news sources to be swayed against opposing. The Kip (contribs) 17:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb on notability: Now covered by various international news sources. Strongly oppose on quality. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Chimpanzee war

[edit]
Proposed image
Chimpanzee at the Kibale National Park
Article: Ngogo chimpanzee war (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Uganda, a conflict escalates into the deadliest war between chimpanzees on record. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Uganda, chimpanzees are engaged in their deadliest war on record.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ A study finds that an ongoing chimpanzee war in Kibale National Park is the deadliest on record.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ In Uganda, chimpanzees in the Kibale National Park (pictured) are found to be engaged in their deadliest intraspecies war on record. Credits:

Article updated

 Personisinsterest (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not, honestly, kind of interesting, a unique story, article looks solid. It's always nice to have news stories that aren't just "some election happened" or "something really depressing happened". Gaismagorm (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? Support - hell of a lot of WP:SUSTAINED coverage from multiple, international outlets for days now (NYT, BBC, Guardian, WSJ, ABC Australia, NBC,
, Globe and Mail, Daily Telegraph NZ, etc., not even including the numerous foreign language sources discussing it). I've definitely seen a lot of anecdotal coverage (friends, Social Media) as well. If people want ITN to not be "disasterpedia," "all about sports," "election news ticker," or whatever else, then they ought to put their money where their mouth is, otherwise, they have no right to dissent against the state of ITN. Oh, and for those who will say that this has been ongoing for a decade, evidence of it being a civil war has only dropped recently, which is the story. The article is of decent quality, so we are doing our readers a service by offering them a quality article on a topic in the news. — Knightoftheswords 01:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, for anyone asking, I would have supported blurbing the Gombe chimpanzee war if ITN existed in the 1970s for similar reasons (PS, RIP Jane Goodall 🫡). — Knightoftheswords 01:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique and interesting story that has sustained coverage. The article appears to be fine in quality. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original 9 April paper in Science seems to indicate the escalation occurred between 2021 and 2024 (graphs in Fig. 5), and the publication of the study is the current event. 93 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. After reviewing more of the sources in depth, they seem to just be reporting on the paper and highlighting the events that happened. This conflict has been happening since 2015. But would it still be considered "in the news", since it is ongoing and there's sustained media coverage right now? Personisinsterest (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose how can a war between chimpanzees outnumber a war between actual humans (see on going which is mostly made up of wars fought by real humans) ~2026-22494-41 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notable event of immense anthropological importance. We don't blurb events only related to humans. Varoon2542 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess...support. Wow, what an interesting headline. Looking through the table of contents and seeing "chimpanzee war" was not something I expected to see today. Reading through the article makes this all the more interesting honestly, and even if it's quite trivial, it also holds enough notability in my opinion for ITN. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above. This could be interesting to some readers...
~2026-51002-1 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is this an out-of-season April's Fool joke? In all seriousness, though, this has very minimal impact in the grand scheme of things and so this shouldn't take over the precedent like, say, an actual human wars. NotKringe (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not some "out of season April's Fool Joke". There are plenty of ways how much this can impact things, mainly in the jungles of Uganda.~2026-51002-1 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The cited NYT report explains that this study ...may provide clues to the origins of human warfare, and how to avoid it. That seems reasonably significant. The blurb that seems to have the least impact is the basketball results which seem to have zero significance but which have been posted for five days and counting. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of posting NCAA blurb either since it's just college sport, but at least that one has some recognition compared to this which is basically relies on it being reported by the media as a side news as a measure of "importance". The same goes to the penguin blurb that relies heavily on "household name" and nothing else. NotKringe (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting and unusual scientific news that poses a lot of questions about the behaviour of non-human hominids. This is great ITN material of high encyclopaedic value. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as not meeting WP:ITNSIGNIF, also concerned about racist undertones. It would be farcical to post this Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    racist undertones

    really? — Knightoftheswords 19:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You pointing that out makes you sound like the racist. JaxsonR (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be a great feature, but I'm afraid it's stale no matter how you look at it. Such is probably the nature of this kind of article and touches on an old problem with the ITN section. I suppose newly released studies on events from years prior is an ideal type of subject for DYK. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not stale because it's in the news right now. For science news, there are often demands that we use peer-reviewed sources. Such research and review takes time – 30 years in this case for the full study. See WP:ITN, For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources. This will often be the same day as the event itself, but sometimes it can be some time later, such as the reporting of scientific discoveries... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, the blurb is incorrect, and the article doesn't go into enough detail about the study itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why not. It’s in the news, being covered by international articles, in my 12 years here I’ve never seen or remember a nom like this hence its rarity IMO and it appears significant in terms of casualty / impact. Article could be expanded a bit more but it looks good enough. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has been going on for over a decade, we would effectively be blurbing the fact that an article was published in Science. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting, impactful, unusual story with sustained coverage. Even if the study began in 2015, it's "IN THE NEWS" now in 2026, which should be the main metric for determining whether something meets the criteria for the "In the news" section of an encyclopedia. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 12:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More suited for DYK. Please ping when this closes as I intend on nominating.--Launchballer 13:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some academics have too much time on their hands. They are also very good at marketing. This is as useless as a reality TV show. Lets focus on useful Knowledge. Tradediatalk 13:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What a pathetic and anti-scientific comment. Academics are just doing their job. Not all science has to be serious. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on blurb, oppose image, this is certainly an interesting and unique headline, however I'm uncertain if the article quality is there. That said, since the image does not directly depict either faction or the conflict at hand, I oppose the image. Not every blurb needs an image. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, interesting for humans and life. amps (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems to be a very notable story in the field of animal behaviour. Though the conflict has indeed been occurring for years, the influx of reporting on it recently I think qualifies it for ITN. Also, it's just great to have ITN listings that aren't about politics, sport, or tragedies (although I guess in some respects this can be considered a tragedy :P ). Loytra✨ 16:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm seeing a lot of coverage over this. Setarip (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Utterly bizarre this is even being debated. Entirely local event, no real meaningful impact for humans. A scientific curiosity at most. The Chimp conflict has been going on for some time, and this is part of the trend of posting attention grabbing headlines from science articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "Utterly bizarre"? If I remember correctly, some actual local events were posted on ITN, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be included in ITN. ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need to talk about the chimp war TheFellaVB (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the reasons above. LoganP25 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support image as it depicts a chimpanzee from the relevant park. — Knightoftheswords 20:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, why not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready, consensus seems to be in favor of posting @Admins willing to post ITN: . — Knightoftheswords 22:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to reflect what is in the news now, which is the academic study, not the 10-year old war. It has one line about the paper and why this is of interest to the scientific community, so it is nowhere close to being ready for this reason. This seriously is far far better as a DYK with a fresh article. Masem (t) 22:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's in the news is the war. Practically all the coverage of this, even the scientific ones, come from the past few days. This would have been like not posting the East Palestine train derailment because initially it didn't generate much coverage. Even then, the article lists the discovery of the Science AAAS research (the chronology, recent developments, analysis) throughout via references to WP:RSes that use and analyze them, which satisfies WP:ITNUPDATE. — Knightoftheswords 01:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Alt3 is incorrect, as it is not an "interspecies" war (the chimpanzees are all of the same species). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will be bold and strike alt3 to avoid an admin potentially posting it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:43, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped interspecies with intraspecies. — Knightoftheswords 01:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claim deadliest intraspecies war on record should be added to the article first if we're to use it in a blurb. Do humans not count? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering that the author of the blurb had meant that, but surely intraspecies wars such as the Second World War were more deadly... Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped to their deadliest intraspecies war, if that's still not enough, than other blurbs can be used. — Knightoftheswords 13:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is of encyclopedic interest due to the science, of reader interest, the article is quality, and it is in the news. Bit of a no-brainer. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought this was some kind of late April Fools' Prank.... this is crazy!!! JaxsonR (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some sources say that this only happens every 500 years. JaxsonR (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 as its phrasing best explains the significance of the event. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose really? really? We're really going to post "Science published a memeable article" as news? 28 chimpanzees dead over 10 years is the "deadliest war ever"? We might as well post that Sentebale is suing Prince Harry, Eric Swalwell is no longer running for governor of California, and Trump is feuding with Pope Leo. This is not news, it is science-y tabloid fodder. ~2026-22522-51 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The deadliest war ever for chimpanzees. Not humans. This is also a rare event, and this could be certainly news because of the reason I have stated above. You are also free to nominate whatever, just get ready for it to be possibly closed. ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above TA (-51). This is clickbait. If we're going to blurb this, we should at least put the numbers in the blurb. Y'know, like we do in blurbs for human casualties on a similar scale. Otherwise, it's actively misleading. —Cryptic 03:52, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Then wouldn't that just be Ongoing material? You should also factor that death casualties can change, and it could cause burn out, changing the casualties count every single time would certainly cause that. I therefore think that this better off as a blurb. ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Altblurb3, the "deadliest intraspecies war on record"? Clickbait nonsense. War in ants ranks way up there, along with certain Homo sapiens events. ~2026-22793-07 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it should be changed to "deadliest interspecies war among non-human primates"? Gaismagorm (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should just not bother with any hype? The conflict either sells itself or it doesn't. Scorekeeping is only an afterthought. (PS: intra-, not inter-) ~2026-22793-07 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Calling it a "war" is inflammatory clickbait, let alone the "deadliest war on record" (just how many chimp wars have we recorded?). Read this passage from the article, then remind yourself this is describing a conflict with under 3 deaths a year: "The Western faction, despite being numerically inferior, launched coordinated lethal raids into the Central Ngogo chimpanzees' territory, seeking out and killing rival male adults. The raiders often ambushed isolated chimpanzees, overwhelming their targets with numbers." C'mon people. This is a Kardashian-level event. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There is possibly not another term that we can describe this event. "War" might be the best one we have for now. And like I said before, the deadliest war for chimpanzees. This is also an extremely rare event. ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I found at least three other such conflicts in chimpanzee populations at various other national parks over the last ten years. Definitely not rare. Masem (t) 14:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to clarify that I was stating that this was the most deadly chimpanzee conflict ever recorded. (Correct me if I'm wrong though) ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above - unusual and scientifically-notable story with sustained coverage. Support ALT2 or ALT3 though, given the study is what's in the news. The Kip (contribs) 17:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Stale, this war has been ongoing for a decade, and while a rare event, this is more suited for DYK than ITN due to the fact that this in it of itself just doesn't seem that notable. In the field of anthropology, sure, organized flighting between individuals have been documented and this one is a statistical outlier, however I'm not yet convinced this in it of itself is notable enough within the field of anthropology rather than the headlines being clickbait. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale as this picked up in recent times. ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we were reporting on it from the scientific angle, the article would be focused on how biologists compare this to past human conflicts and how it may compare to other early human conflicts. Instead it is reporting it solely from an event standpoint, so not as a scientific story. Masem (t) 20:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's too pedantic a standpoint. Scientific papers are mentioned in the article, and the background section seems to me (a non-primatologist) to take an analytic point of view. Let's not have perfect being the enemy of the good. Khuft (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I should add that primatology is of course a scientific field in its own right, with no need to reference humans for scientific validity. Khuft (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The event is stale if it was a human conflict or disaster, we've passed multiple times on similar "late" coverage to an event that has been ongoing for weeks or months before, after the media suddenly decides to report on it. The only reason this is in the news is the existence of the paper, and so that scientific aspect should be the focus to otherwise prevent covering a stale story. Masem (t) 22:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very interesting and unique story and the article is good enough for ITN.
WhatADrag07 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Unusual but a good article for the front page. Good quality and certainly seems like something our readers would enjoy.
AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

[edit]

RD: John Nolan

[edit]
Article: John Nolan (British actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

 Happily888 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment We don't post stubs. Schwede66 09:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Dalgleish Donaldson

[edit]
Article: John Dalgleish Donaldson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Father of Queen Mary of Denmark. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose has 1 CN tag and could definitely use a better picture (if we can find one) Scooglers (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Phil Garner

[edit]
Article: Phil Garner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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) 21:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National

[edit]
Article: 2026 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, I Am Maximus wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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.

 Benjamnjoel2 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Needs prose expansion in the article body, particularly a summary of the race itself, which seems missing. Left guide (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready At this time the article appears to be a stub. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Iraqi presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Iraqi presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nizar Amidi (pictured) is elected as president of Iraq by the Council of Representatives. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The president of Iraq is ceremonial meaning the blurb isn't ITN/R, but the election may hold a weight of significance considering the events that are currently going on with Iran and the broader Middle East. I'll note that a similar case from the posted Greenland election might be at play here for the case of Iraq's presidential election. Whereas Greenland was posted due to its relation to the Greenland crisis, Iraq's presidential election lies tangent to al-Maliki and the 2026 Iran war. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I went back to the archives of the 2022 election and 2018 election to see if we posted those. Interestingly, I couldn't find a single mention of the 2022 Iraqi presidential election. In the archived posted stories of 2018, I couldn't find that we posted the 2018 election, however, in the archived discussions, I see mentions of the presidential election with unclear status of whether or not it was posted. Regardless, even if the Iraqi president is mostly a ceremonial role (and therefore has no executive power, therefore rendering this ineligible for ITN/R), I still see this as being notable enough to be posted - as the president still has the power to appoint the prime minister. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Marcel Niat Njifenji

[edit]
Article: Marcel Niat Njifenji (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cameroon Concord
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: President of the Senate of Cameroon. Article is a bit short but meets minimum quality requirements. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is short but is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing removal: Sudanese civil war

[edit]
Article: Sudanese civil war (2023–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: While the conflict is still ongoing, article updates have recently trickled down. Currently the article is edited maybe once or twice per day, and even then the edits aren't usually significant updates. FallingGravity 18:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose the latest update on the fork is from 8 April. It would not be wise to add every single detail to the main parent article for obvious reasons but as there has been no major breakthrough this month there is not anything major to expand upon. However that doesn't mean the article isn't up to date and doesn't make the conflict suddenly less significant. The article is still edited daily, which is still frequent given we have ongoing conflict articles outdated by months. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of substance was added to the article on 8 April, and the most recent information added was a sentence on 2 April about the Libyan Army. That's a far cry from WP:ONGOING's criteria that the "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." FallingGravity 23:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article gets updated frequently and I still see people talking about this regularly. Setarip (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Looking at Timeline of the Sudanese civil war (2026), the type of entries that have been added over the last few weeks are extremely small scale incidents and nothing of major significance to the overall war. They are also not daily events (4 of 11 days in April have events). Also, using Google News, reporting in mainstream sources is very spotty, which indicates this is not getting daily news coverage, so that's a failure to meet the expectations for Ongoing. Masem (t) 04:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support removal per Masem. 2600 etc (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Only one significant sentence has been added in the past 12 days ("In 2th of April 2026 head of the..." I'll go and fix that lol), so this article is indeed no longer seeing constant updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per Maplestrip, that though there may be regular edits to the article, they are no longer substantial. Masem also raised the point that media coverage is nowadays minimal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per the others above, but also because the conflict seems to be turning all more dormant. I do feel like we need to make more space in the ongoing section for other conflicts that are blossoming up. TwistedAxe [contact] 20:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Unfortunately it must the removed. There is simply not enough going on being reported by the media and edit frequency is very low. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The conflict is still ongoing? Why would we remove an ongoing conflict that doesn't have a ceasfire or anything? Guz13 (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guz13: Ongoing items at ITN are judged not based on whether they are merely happening but primarily on their severity, media coverage, and scale/frequency of updates. For more information see WP:ONGOING. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I admit that in the past 12 days, the article has not been updated, which is unfortunate. However, this is not for lack of coverage about the conflict. In the past seven days alone, the following articles were published by reputable sources regarding the war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If the LA Times, Financial Times, Washington Post, Council on Foreign Relations, and others, are all writing about updates to the war, then clearly there is still coverage. I will work to integrate these articles in, but it's just not true that the media is not reporting on this. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 02:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 2026 Djibouti presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Djiboutian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Djibouti, incumbent president Ismaïl Omar Guelleh is declared the winner of the presidential election (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Djibouti, incumbent president Ismaïl Omar Guelleh is re-elected for a sixth consecutive term in the presidential election
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In Djibouti, five-term president Ismaïl Omar Guelleh is re-elected in the presidential election
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Ismaïl Omar Guelleh is re-elected for a sixth consecutive term in the Djiboutian presidential election. 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: Exact number of votes are yet to be confirmed TNM101 (chat) 12:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added two altblurbs to convey it better TNM101 (chat) 15:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article other than a very brief mention at the end of the lead, is written as if this was normal democratic process rather than a sham election legitimising a de facto dictatorship. On that basis even if this was fixed I would support only the initial blurb rather that the two altblurbs on the basis this wasn't a real election. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we shouldn't just post things that essentially say "nothing new happened". I mean, for all these dictators, an election would only be notable if they lost, or (perhaps) if they triggered nationwide protests. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless. Besides, there isn't really a neutral way that I can think of that both discusses him "winning" the "election", while also making it clear that the elections are essentially mock elections. Besides, it's a pretty tiny dictator anyways. I could maybe see an election blurb being posted for places such as Russia and China, where the elections are notable since the countries hold an enormous amount of geopolitical power. But, for a dictator of a small nation like Djibouti, it's kind of pointless. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Nothing of substance occurred here. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if we posted the 2024 Russian presidential, than I don't see why we should post this. It isn't Wikipedia's place to WP:RGW, and I fret that establishing this precedent can lead down to some very slippery slopes regarding how people interpret personally certain electoral results. — Knightoftheswords 22:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality is decent. ArionStar (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a national election for a head of state/government. I just want to point out that a few weeks ago the 2026 Republic of the Congo presidential election was posted, and the circumstances there are pretty similar. So there is precedent. Romanov loyalist (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason why that precedent has to stay. I think that, until we find a way to have a blurb that is both neutral and recognizes the deceptive and dictatorial tactics used in these elections, that we shouldn't post the result of an election whose winner was determined from the very start. Not only that, but the article for the election in the Congo at least describes some slight pushback and goes a tad bit more into detail about the injustices that occured. There were things that happened during and as a result of the election, even if the status quo remained largely unchanged (although I would've still been opposed to posting that blurb in all honesty). Basically, this election seems to have been a relatively normal mock-election, while the one in the Congo at the very least had some hiccups along the way that made it at least somewhat notable. Once again, however, I still think that posting the results of mock-election is giving them too much credit. Besides, it's a bad look on our part if Wikipedia is seemingly supporting the results of these elections (trust me, we need as much good pr as possible). Gaismagorm (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note The event is WP:ITN/R and anyone who argues that this shouldn't be posted because it's a sham election will have their input discarded. If you want to argue that point, Wikipedia talk:In the news is the place to do so. Schwede66 04:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you reiterating this, this argument comes up far too often lately, along with the blanket dismissal by some users of any election occurring in disputed states, despite WP:ITNELECTIONS stating these elections may be judged on their own merits. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should've read up on that article, that is my bad. While my opinion still stands, looking back, I can definitely see how this can become a slippery slope. That being said, I do think the article should go into a tad bit more detail, but, even so, if the disputed nature of it must be thrown out, then in that case support Gaismagorm (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. I prefer the original blurb. – N Panama 84534 🏝️🥥 03:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added an altblurb to remove the "In Djibouti" from the start of the sentence. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2026 Irish fuel protests

[edit]
WP:SNOW-close. Participants noted the protests' small scale and ties to the Iran war, having this fall partially under the Ongoing. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2026 Irish fuel protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ongoing nationwide fuel protests in Ireland, driven by rising prices linked to the 2026 Iran war fuel crisis, escalate as demonstrators blockade major roads and fuel infrastructure, prompting a large-scale Garda operation and deployment of Defence Forces support. (Post)
News source(s): [2], [3]
Credits:
 Edl-irishboy (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in the news, receiving sustained coverage internationally, mostly decent article. — Knightoftheswords 22:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb, oppose ongoing. I could see this being a blurb, but for ongoing, I personally don't see these protests holding on for very long. As with other more pressing conflicts such as the Iran war, we waited to post that story to ongoing. Let this story develop for a bit, if it develops into something more severe, we could potentially put it into ongoing. However, I think Andrew's take is better here; as we've seen protests in multiple countries (not just Ireland, even if the Irish ones are probably the most notable right now) such as the Philippines & India, it would be better to group these "protests" into a single blurb & put them in ongoing if they keep causing major disruption. Not to mention, the final and last oil tankers that have left the strait before the war started have yet to reach their destinations, fueling the ever increasing costs of fuel at the moment, so we have yet to see how these stories develop. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as ongoing means several blurbs from this topic is eligible; there is none. Protests and "emergency cabinet meetings" have happened elsewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are there any photos that look more than a big shopping day? Nfitz (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Small scale protest, also tied to the Iran war so within the heirarchy of articles from that, this would be covered by the ongoing. Masem (t) 04:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Other nations are also affected, and maybe the fuel crisis could actually be a bracketed ongoing event.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Falls short of notability for ITN. Also, I would oppose a (bracketed) Ongoing for "fuel crisis." Tradediatalk 11:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close is just another protest. A small part, a very small part, of a much broader, far broader event. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:49, 12 April 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.

April 10

[edit]

RD: Angela Pleasence

[edit]
Article: Angela Pleasence (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Manchester Evening News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British actress, daughter of Donald Pleasance. News became known yesterday. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated) Artemis II returns to Earth

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Artemis II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA's Artemis II returns to Earth after performing its lunar flyby maneuver, the farthest crewed mission from Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ NASA's Artemis II arrives in the Pacific Ocean, completing its crewed lunar flyby mission.
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Update to the existing blurb to mention that the mission has ended successfully. Making a new nomination as the original discussion has rolled off. PolarManne (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose Altblurb(I think that's what I would say) I would personally rephrase the blurb, including ", the farthest crewed mission from Earth." doesn't make much sense grammatically. Maybe something like "NASA's Artemis II splashes down in the Pacific Ocean, completing its crewed lunar flyby mission. pancake (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this better. I admit the blurb as proposed sounds clunky but I wanted to preserve "the farthest crewed mission from Earth" as there was consensus to include that during the last update. PolarManne (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb, historic moment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Significant moment that's all over the news. InTheseOtherWorlds (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Historic and notable spaceflight with worldwide coverage. Also support including image of the splashdown. MidnightMayhem (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the existing blurb does not look like it will be rolling off soon. We don't need to reorder this (a failed return may have garnered more concern, but great they are back with zero incident) --Masem (t) 02:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support initial blurb more informative and timeless IMO. — Knightoftheswords 06:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eliot Engel

[edit]
Article: Eliot Engel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: United States Representative from New York Goosedukeee (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: S. R. Ramaswamy

[edit]
Article: S. R. Ramaswamy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: B-class article EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I counted six full paragraphs that have no citations. Left guide (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jacek Magiera

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Well-known Polish football player and manager, current Poland national team assistant manager, tragically passed away. Playing career needs expansion and sourcing, and the managerial statistics need a reference, but the article otherwise is in good shape. Some playing statistics would enhance the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support He was a household name amongst Polish football enthusiasts, and his sudden passing shook the European football community. His accomplishments with Legia in the Champions League are undeniable, especially with the 4:8 loss against Borussia breaking the record for the top-scoring CL game ever. Article is solid but admittedly could use a little expansion. FryUaj (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

[edit]

RD: Jeremy Beecham

[edit]
Article: Jeremy Beecham, Baron Beecham (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC LDRS
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Lord Beecham, longserving leader of Newcastle Council, prominent in the Labour Party, member House of Lords (COI: I knew him slightly, in the sense that Newcastle is Britain's biggest village) ChrysGalley (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is short, but of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Afrika Bambataa

[edit]
Article: Afrika Bambaataa (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 standalone 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.

 Abcmaxx (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are several unsourced sentences, in addition to a couple of entire paragraphs. Left guide (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All the tags have now been fixed. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-posted) Emperor penguin now endangered

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Emperor penguin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The emperor penguin (pictured) is downgraded to an endangered species by the IUCN due to the effects of climate change. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The emperor penguin (pictured) is now an endangered species due to climate change, the IUCN says.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ The emperor penguin (pictured) is added to the endangered species category by the IUCN due to the effects of climate change.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: May need a bit more work to the penguin article, but a sad development. Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added an alt2 which avoids the upgrade/downgrade verbiage. Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suggest alternate blurb. Jahaza (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Other animals are added every year"... okay, and so what? With respect, that rationale makes no sense to me. "Lots of people die every year", yet we still post death blurbs. "Lots of storms happen every year", yet we still post hurricanes. "Thousands of elections happen worldwide", yet we still post elections. The entire premise of ITN is that a narrow subset of those various "happenings" might be particularly "IN THE NEWS" and therefore become especially noteworthy, meriting inclusion on the main page. In this instance, the emperor penguin is a household name and well-known species which is the subject of abundant media and popular culture attention. The endangerment has garnered in-depth, widespread news coverage. It stands out relative to most other additions to the endangered species list. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 22:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one species out of a thousand means that we are giving preference to that one species (and in this case, because its a popular species, the same problem when we have RD blurb suggestions for famous people). Species becoming endangered is routine, and ITN is not for routine stories. We're an encyclopedia so just having a broad range of news coverage doesn't mean its an appropriate ITN item. Masem (t) 01:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't address the thrust of my argument. Hurricanes, elections, public figures dying, sports events, and awards are all sorts of things which by definition happen "routinely", and yet we post them if they are being widely covered. There is no basis in policy to write off a story just because it falls into some amorphous "routine" category. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE apply. We don't cover every sports match, only the final one that culminates a series. Just as with past climate change related stories, various events that are a result of it (which this is part of too) aren't posted as well. And again, the favoritism is an issue. Penguins are cute and fun to watch, so that's an implicit bias to covering them (both in the news and on WP). Even further, endangered is a key level, but per the red list, there is far more concern if they were at the critically endangered category, with far more attention towards trying to save the species, and as about 6% of the total red list, that would be a far more reasonably selective point to consider inclusion. Masem (t) 01:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nominator's attempt to update the article was reverted, so there is currently no updated content, and the article therefore fails WP:ITNUPDATE and can't be posted regardless of significance. Interested editors may want to establish consensus at the article talk page on how to proceed regarding the inclusion of relevant material. Left guide (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started a consensus discussion proposing to re-add the nominator's content. In the meantime, I think that tentative !voting based on notability alone can continue while these quality-related disputes are resolved. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flipandflopped: Agree with your last point. Thanks for kicking off that discussion. Left guide (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the notability and impact since its one of many species that whose status has been changed this listing. I also disagree on notability on the fact that the main subject of the blurb (in this case, IUCN's list) lacks an article or dedicated article section which I think is a determining factor for what should be considered the floor in terms of notability and impact for ITN blurb inclusion. Furthermore, as of writing this, there are zero words on the blurb's story on the suggested target article, thereby failing WP:ITNUPDATE.~2026-22070-15 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this means the fact that the main subject of the blurb (in this case, IUCN's list) lacks an article. The main article for the blurb is emperor penguin, and there is also an article for endangered species (IUCN status). Natg 19 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability per Flipandflopped's reasoning ("lots of _ happen every year" isn't a good argument against posting any one "_", posting things that are "in the news" so readers can read quality Wikipedia articles about them is our purpose). Not ready yet on quality due to the ITNUPDATE concerns raised by Left guide above.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but not yet ready as per ITNUPDATE. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a rating, not perfectly objective, and just an estimate. The organization changes ratings all the time. A declaration of extinction would be notable and easier to confirm and more notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some context. We are going through an anthropocene extinction, so these rankings of endangerment shouldn't surprise anyone. And are we really going to sit here at ITN to arbitrarily decide the importance of entire species (based on as arbitrary a criteria as "household names" to merit inclusion), I don't think so. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than ITNR, pretty much every blurb is arbitrary.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps but I can at least figure out the criteria why a person, event et. al. maybe notable for a blurb on the grounds of "popularity". This is a judgment no one should be making for entire species at least I certainly wouldn't want to. If there are other factors, beyond poparity, such as this signalling a larger crisis in climate change or the like I can reconsider but I don't see them listed here. Gotitbro (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per Flipandflopped. I mainly agree with the point that the emperor penguin is a household name sort of animal in the way many endangered species aren't. The Kip (contribs) 06:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when the update is done. Reasons include:
  1. The Emperor penguin article is FA quality, vital, very encyclopedic in tone and has a good picture.
  2. Amidst all the current fighting over fossil fuel, it's good to have a reminder that climate change has not gone away
  3. It's in the news
  4. Penguins are cute
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Truth nuke on #4 JaxsonR (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support but not ready. This isn't the most impactful news - lots of species become endangered - but it is a high profile one. We need to post something in the template, which is very old, and this is an opportunity to bold a featured article. However, the article has not been updated: it still describes this species as 'near threatened' and the 'conservation status' section stops at 2023. Needs a careful update that incorporates the latest news without diminishing the overall article quality. Alt2 is the best proposed blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Lord.of.the.Proterozoic has done a good job of updating the article. Modest Genius talk 12:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the update got reverted and the discussion continues on the talk page of how to update this properly. Natg 19 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support widely-known species. Setarip (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @TheGlobetrotter, as we do not want to be systematically biased against gradual events, and this is as good a point as any to feature it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: C. D. Gopinath

[edit]
Article: C. D. Gopinath (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: India's oldest Test (international) cricketer, last survivor of India's first ever Test victory. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: 2026 Lebanon war

[edit]
Article: 2026 Lebanon war (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think it's about time we add this to the ongoing section. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Extension of the Iran war, ongoing even with the 2026 Iran war ceasefire enacted shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we blurb this first as there's a newsworthy event that happened? (See nom below) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we should blurb that first and then add this to ongoing TNM101 (chat) 14:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a decent chance that the blurb doesn't go up tho. — Knightoftheswords 15:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as bracketed addition to Iran war as per Gotitbro and QuicoleJR. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support bracketed addition Setarip (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support parenthetical addition to Iran war. — Knightoftheswords 07:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Doug Allan

[edit]
Article: Doug Allan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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.

 Yakikaki (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is ready for RD, as the awards section is fully referenced. Other sections also have sources. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mario Adorf

[edit]
Article: Mario Adorf (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Süddeutsche
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: German actor (The Tin Drum) Grimes2 14:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see sourcing in career, awards, and filmography sections. Appears fine enough for RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Imrich Bugár

[edit]
Article: Imrich Bugár (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sport.cz
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Czech discus thrower, article is a bit on the shorter side TNM101 (chat) 12:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support While short, the article does appear sufficiently sourced enough to move forward with a post on RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Davey Lopes

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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) 23:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) :April 8, 2026 Lebanon attacks

[edit]
Article: 8 April 2026 Lebanon attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli attacks on Lebanon kill at least 357. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Israeli attacks on Lebanon kill at least 357, hours after a ceasefire was announced in the region.
News source(s): CBS
Credits:

I'm not sure if this is necessarily covered by ongoing as 2026 Lebanon war isn't in ongoing. In any case, 254 single-day fatalities (and counting) are quite unusual even in the Middle East.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, how this ties to the strait closure and threatening the ceasefire should be part of this Masem (t) 19:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also this doesn't feel like it needs to be separate article because of how much it ties to two existing topics (we can still blurb based on how this attack impacts those those). We are doing far too detail on news stories as an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 19:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally agree, but I don't think this article is a good example of the issue. Of course this attack's full impact is hard to predict, but Category:2026 building bombings contains a few articles about attacks that are much-less reported upon and likely much less significant for the future history of their region. 2026 Beit Awwa salon strike or 2026 Lamerd sports hall attack might be a much more obvious examples of WP:NOTNEWS violations. An unexpected attack with 250 civilian deaths seems like the kind of thing any encyclopedia could reasonably have articles on. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an indication of the wider problem of NOTNEWS. Not every event that gets widely covered over a day necessarily needs an article, because if there's no significant followup coverage, that's just a news blip, not a notable event. And here, we have multiple articles on the broader conflict that has already costs many lives, and given that this was more an event that feed into specific reactions (Iran closing the strait, etc.), it is far better to discuss in the context of that. The way to think about this is that if we were trying to write these actions from scratch, all the same sources available to us, but ten years after this event, would we have that same level of coverage? No, but editors are too wrapped up in trying to include every element and make it more significant that it might be in the bigger picture that we get into these situations. Masem (t) 11:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly convinced we would have an article on this specific attack. This incident seems to be of the scale of the 2020 Beirut explosion. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a case of an industrial accident that has had numerous studies to understand what happened. It is unconnected to any other event. This attack is part of an ongoing conflict, and what happened is pretty much well understood. It doesn't need it's own article because other more comphlrdhensuve topics will also cover it. Masem (t) 15:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - just another front of the Iran war, which is already in ongoing. Our own article notes that it started when Hezbollah militants attacked Israel because of the Iran war. That Iran has insisted that the Israeli attacks into Lebanon be part of the Iran war ceasefire, confirms this. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant casualties even for this conflict. Also, the Lebanon war should be considered for adding to ongoing conflicts, given that it's a separate country, Israel is sending troops into that country, and it's having a large humanitarian impact. Israeli officials indicated several times that Israel will continue the war in Lebanon even if the Iran war ends. Romanov loyalist (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 250 people killed in a day is certainly notable but I don't think we post casualty updates as such unless these are part of a single attack/incident (e.g. Russo-Ukraine and Gaza wars), though one can correct me if that isn't so. The article as such also appears to be hastily/poorly written, the hook should be the 2026 Lebanon war. On the other hand I see the case for posting a ceasefire very weakened, if an entire theater of the war is still open season. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes across to me that "Operation Eternal Darkness" was a single attack/plan. It just happens to be an attack spread out over multiple cities. Featuring the Lebanon War article would make sense, but I think the article on the attack is a bit higher quality right now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the continutation of the same war. Guz13 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nfitz - this is part of the broader Iran war. Khuft (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered by ongoing. TwistedAxe [contact] 21:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the war in Lebanon seems to widely be considered a theater of the Iran war, which makes it covered by ongoing. The Kip (contribs) 21:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I wonder if the Lebanon War could be its separate ongoing event, but you can put it in brackets after the Iran War.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It had been nominated as such when Israel invaded Lebanon, of course with the Iran war being the main item of significance in the news and the article quality being poor it wasn't posted. Certainly a bracketed nom can now be considered. But I extensively read the article last week and it had nothing but chronology to offer, so quality issues may persist. Gotitbro (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – A single sentence in the "Iran War" article does not constitute this being "covered by ongoing." This is a side-show to that article at best. A combined blurb with 2026 Iran war ceasefire would have been reasonable, though even that would feel odd. Regardless, I see no reason not to feature an article like this. The quality is appropriate and besides easily meeting WP:ITNSIGNIF, it also matches pretty closely the common subjective "requirements of notability" that tend to go around here, being unexpected, an enormous death count, and presumably high-impact for the future of the region. Though of course I'd rather just let the sources speak for themselves. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is arguably and sadly the largest single day loss of life since the start of the war in Lebanon, which would make it noteworthy. It may be worth including the hook in the context of the regional ceasefire. Droodkin (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is going beyond the scope of the Iran war. Arguable it's a new corridor of the same war, regardless it's a major development.
Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Koo Sze-yiu

[edit]
Article: Koo Sze-yiu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hong Kong Free Press
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Hong Kong activist —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

[edit]

(needs reviews) RD: Christian Schwarz-Schilling

[edit]
Article: Christian Schwarz-Schilling (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ZDF
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: German minister of technology, EU peace-builder in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article was mostly there, but many refs missing. There could be more detail from de, if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jim Whittaker

[edit]
Article: Jim Whittaker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cascadia Daily News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: First American to climb the summit of Mount Everest. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rodney Pyles

[edit]
Article: Rodney Pyles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WBOY
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: West Virginia politician Engineerchange (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, but second opinion needed The article does appear to be referenced. The one thing that's shaky is that the article appears to surround a single obituary, which is used 13 times throughout. A second opinion is needed to make sure the article is all good before posting on RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That source appears to be an obituary submitted by the subject's family to their funeral home. I'd consider it to be self-published and non-independent. Left guide (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Seán Ó Laoire

[edit]
Article: Seán Ó Laoire (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RIP.ie (Death notice)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Irish architect TNM101 (chat) 10:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iran war ceasefire

[edit]
Article: 2026 Iran war ceasefire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A two-week ceasefire to the 2026 Iran war is agreed upon by Iran and the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Iran war, a Pakistani-brokered ceasefire is agreed to by the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In the Iran war, a two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan is agreed to by the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ A two-week ceasefire to the Iran war is agreed upon by Iran, Israel and the United States, while a longer peace agreement is finalized.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 Very positive developments. Temporary for now, but still notable enough to be posted despite the Ongoing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious support on notability, but the article still needs a little more fleshing out. Natg 19 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is probably significant enough to post, but given how much this whole thing has going back and forth on what the US is actually doing, in addition to Israel's own independent actions, we should be cautious here. Keep in mind we have the war in the ongoing so it may be better to wait to post this for at least a day to see how things fall. Masem (t) 23:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, looking at the article, it needs a lot of improvement. There are things in the reaction sction that actually should be in a type of history or background section (specifically, the deadline that had been set + the truth from this morning were major drivers here, and are not just simply "reactions".) Masem (t) 23:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just started a discussion on the talk page about this, but someone can just BOLDly fix this also. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
wait let's see if the lebanon firing stops as it was part of the deal.Psephguru (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has claimed its actions in Lebanon are not covered by this. Masem (t) 04:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure THEY have, not both sides. agreements have two sides [5]. Also seems Iran won if they get to keep taxes on shipping. israeli source.Psephguru (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Psephguru: About that second sentence, please refrain from violating NOTFORUM. Let's keep commentary focused on whether this should be posted, not which side of the war "won". Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - does this count as nothing ever happens bros winning or losing? Either way, the article needs expansion? — Knightoftheswords 03:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what broses you are talking about @Knightoftheswords281. What does the American's commitment to ethnic cleansing have to do with this? What does this have to do with porridge? Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See [6]. Essentially were the people who thought that the "whole civilization will die" thing was bluster right since no mass strikes happened or wrong since a ceasefire happened (which would count arguably as something happening)? — Knightoftheswords 19:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more concerned that those abhorrent comments were made by Trump and find no mention in the ceasefire article than what anonymous extremist social media trolls are having a discourse on. Gotitbro (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is likely the incorrect hook. I visited the article hoping to learn something about the ceasefire, most of it is outdated and incongruent with paras within the article itself. "Islamabad Accord is a proposed 45-day two-phased ceasefire framework ... On 7 April, U.S President Donald Trump agreed to the proposal and announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran." How we came to 2 weeks from 45 days (or if this is a prelude to it) is unexplained. The background section contains none of the previously rejected ceasefires (including one by Pakistan/China) of the past 2 weeks. The reactions are also unrelated to the current ceasefire. The conclusion I draw is that the "Islamabad Accord" is the ultimate [45 day] proposal not yet accepted and this is a temporary truce in order to maybe reach it. The correct hook then would be 2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations or the 2026 Iran war but none of them contain any details about this either. So opposing entirely for now. Gotitbro (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as per the two weeks vs 45 days confusion mentioned by Gotitbro. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb is misleading - the Islamabad Accord is a proposed 45-day phased ceasefire/end of the war as the article states. What's been actually agreed to, for now, is a two-week ceasefire with the hopes that they'll negotiate and ratify the 45-day one during it. The Kip (contribs) 05:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article is not right, starting with its title which refers to peace talks in Islamabad which haven't happened yet. Coverage of recent events should include:
  1. Trump's F-bomb and threat to destroy Iranian civilisation
  2. Reactions describing such US actions as war crimes and genocide
  3. Other market and diplomatic reactions such as the Pope's censure
  4. The vetoes in the UN security council
  5. The human chains around the threatened targets
  6. China's involvement in pressing Iran to come to terms
  7. The actual 14-day ceasefire rather than the 45-day counter-factual
These are what I've been seeing in the extensive coverage and the suggested target article doesn't come close. The other, more general, articles seem far from adequate too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like there's a two week cease fire while they discuss the peace agreement. So should it say something along the lines of;
"A two-week ceasefire to the 2026 Iran war is agreed upon by Iran and the United States, while a longer peace agreement is finalized." Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please add it as an altblurb! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"finalized" is incorrect or should I say OR. It suggests that there have been discussions on the proposed accord which are just to be stamped. The fact of the matter rather being the two sides merely agreeing to meet with no talks yet on the accord [the incorrect/misleading hook here]. The linked article still says this "On 7 April, the U.S. and Iran agreed to a proposal and announced a two-week ceasefire." Which proposal or how/why is it related to the accord is left up to the reader's imagination. Unless the quality of any of these articles improves, this is DOA. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds that this topic is very important, since it is a war, and I would support alternative blurb 3, since it has the most info and points out that it's until a longer agreement is reached, but I do believe in the points that some Oppose voters have given, that the page on the Islamabad Accord Proposal states 45-days, while DJT stated on Truth Social that it would only be 2-weeks, though the blurbs do reference that. GingerMan (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait on notability: Iran seems to still be firing missiles and drones all over the place, so this "ceasefire" might not hold. Oppose on quality. The target article is mostly about a proposed (permanent) ceasefire, not the actual (two-week) ceasefire. I don't know if there is any information in reliable sources to build an article out of, but the article here does not match my knowledge of what happened (which is, unfortunately, based on a lot of synth and OR), nor does it describe the current geopolitical situation. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality The article has some issues as it's not properly distinguishing between the two week ceasefire which is taking place and the proposed accord. I would support when this is resolved.
Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks better now and is more in line with the blurb and whats actually happening. However it's been three days and the ceasefire is shaky, therefore might not be worth posting. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Needs change It is 45 days, i oppose on quality a little. Squalwer (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait preferably at least a day to see if the firing will actually cease. The agreement is looking very fragile right now with both Israel and Iran reportedly continuing their attacks.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Israel is attacking Lebanon, claiming it wasn't covered in the ceasefire, and as a result iranis blocking the strait, though haven't seen signs of attacks from since. Masem (t) 17:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - what ceasefire? Israel is still attacking the Iranian-controlled Hizballah militia in Iran, and now Iran has retaliated by again closing the Straight of Hormuz, according to the media here. This is 100% ongoing. We didn't post all the Gaza War "ceasefires" as they happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I commented in the nom for the latest Israeli Lebanon attack, the Lebanon war being an inseverable part of the conflict and now going full throttle severely renders all of the blurbs/hooks here misleading and/or very selective. Severly weakening the case for any of the proposed blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that despite the operative agreement teetering on collapse due to the massive bombing on Lebanon, this is not mentioned in the lead at all (is somewhat covered in the body but not proportionately). So those quality issues are yet there. Gotitbro (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's my understanding that the Islamabad accord has so far been rejected, so the target should be the generically named ceasefire article. Departure– (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unclear if ceasefire is even still holding. Post when war is officially over. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only things that actually happened should be on ITN TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like the ceasefire was already broken Gaismagorm (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose/wait The ceasefire is shaky and fragile at this time. Wait for further clarity from the negotiations in Pakistan and the events in Lebanon before proceeding. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mircea Lucescu

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a standalone 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: Romanian football manager and former international footballer. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is an exceptional article, it looks close to GA status. However, it is conspicuous that the managerial statistics chart is not sourced at all - surely somebody didn't count 45 years of records manually? It would be a shame if that is the reason why this page isn't posted. I will leave a note to User talk:Sebi1990TheSecond who wrote 60% of the text on the page and surely must get some sort of recognition for that alone. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is a succesfull football manager and the article is good. Guz13 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1348779906"