Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here – discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles 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]
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Structure
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.
To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
February 11
[edit]|
February 11, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
El Paso
[edit]Blurb: The airspace around El Paso is closed for unspecified "Special Security Reasons". (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Teswino (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Such a shutdown seems unprecedented so something strange is going on. Did an alien escape from Area 51 or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's certainly not unprecedented, and until we know the reason, I don't think this can reasonably be said to be front page news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Until it is confirmed that it was due to the escape of an alien or something extremely serious. For now, trivial. Airports are usually closed for extraordinary reasons (weather, security, etc.). _-_Alsor (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Usually, a sensible explanation is provided. In this case, the reporting says,
an El Paso city representive, said that while there was no reason to believe the city is in any “kind of imminent safety threat,” the lack of clarity from the F.A.A. was fueling fear and misinformation. “What’s especially troubling is that there appears to have been no advance notice to local government, airport leadership, or even local Air Traffic Control or local military leadership,”
Don't Panic! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Usually, a sensible explanation is provided. In this case, the reporting says,
- Oppose ITN is not for wild speculation. It is very unusual but nowhere at a point we can reliably cover it in an encyclopedic manner. Masem (t) 12:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITN, ITN started with the WTC attack which was posted on Wikipedia's main page within minutes. It was not clear what was happening initially and it was first supposed to be an air crash but editors pitched in to make sense of the developing news and this was generally thought to be a good thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- There was a clear obvious immediate impact, including who did it, within a few hours on 9/11. Nothing yet outside a eerie warning has happened here. WP is responsive to news, not proactive. Masem (t) 14:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was immediately clear with 9/11 that it was going to have a worldwide impact; this is just the closure of an airport. the entire United States was a TFR on that day. EF5 14:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't immediately clear as the initial impression was that it was an accidental crash. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per WP:ITN, ITN started with the WTC attack which was posted on Wikipedia's main page within minutes. It was not clear what was happening initially and it was first supposed to be an air crash but editors pitched in to make sense of the developing news and this was generally thought to be a good thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, lean oppose Feels best to wait for more developments before deciding. For now, I lean oppose on notability based on trivia concerns, per Alsor. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Change to strong oppose and SNOW close Now that there are further developments, I see no further reason to keep this nomination open. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait. We don't know enough to have anything concrete to post. Best to not close it prematurely in case of unexpected developments, but I'm not counting on it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait to see if it closed for anything super serious Elisecars727 (talk)☺ 13:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - TFRs happen exceedingly often; this is just a very large version of one. Anything mentioning what might be happening is speculation. EF5 13:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose are we being serious here? Are we going to report one very single instance of air travel being disrupted? Scuba 14:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. So far this is just a minor inconvenience for travellers, which is likely to be lifted long before the 10 day upper limit. We can't post every time an airport closes for a day and cancels those flights. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy close FAA has lifted the restriction, end of story. Masem (t) 14:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd say that was the biggest waste of time at ITN this week, but sadly it's not that long since Andrew nominated the CIA World Factbook closure. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- CIA World Factbook is notable, they just nominated it stale. JaxsonR (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and close--classic case of ITN jumping the gun (to be fair, I think I'm guilty of this too). According to the NYT source cited, El Paso was closed because of anti-drone warfare tests at Fort Bliss. Departure– (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- A test is successful if it finds a bug and so it sounds like this one went well! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update AP now reports that the closure was to "address a cartel drone incursion". So, the full story has yet to emerge. Why don't we wait to get all the details, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Given there was no apparent damage or deaths, it's absolutely a non story, not even appropriate to document for an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper, this is a prime example why we take time to determine if there's anything encyclopedic to write about. Masem (t) 15:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Why don't we wait to get all the details
, if only you'd taken your own advice! Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)- If I'd held back we'd only have the Barbadian election to talk about today and that's the non-story as the incumbent just got another term. I reckon our readers are much more interested in this one. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Probably differing from others here, I think it's good you propose unconventional noms to challenge ITN's conventions etc., but this should've waited until we knew what the story was. We sometimes have days where there are no blurb noms, which is fine, more time people can spend writing articles etc., community time isn't there to be used up. Proposing types of news stories we don't usually post (like that plastics one a while back) would be most constructive imo, still too many disasters, elections, and sports. But need to look outside US and UK news Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- And now someone has rushed to close the election nomination too. See WP:WHENCLOSE which indicates that discussions should not be closed too soon and may not need closing at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- WHENCLOSE is also a precedent page and holds little weight. EF5 15:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- FYI, there's a current proposal to raise the level of that page. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- WHENCLOSE is also a precedent page and holds little weight. EF5 15:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- If I'd held back we'd only have the Barbadian election to talk about today and that's the non-story as the incumbent just got another term. I reckon our readers are much more interested in this one. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose until we get a specific reason, its an oppose from me TheHiddenCity (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- We've had multiple reasons. The NYT now reports that "Officials on Wednesday offered conflicting explanations..." This confusion will itself be part of the story now. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) 2026 Barbadian general election
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: In the Barbadian general election, the Barbados Labour Party wins the most seats, as leader Mia Mottley (pictured) becomes Prime Minister for a third consecutive term. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
- Comment Elections in Barbados have been previously opposed on quality in ITN nominations back in 2013 and 2022. The quality of the article needs to step up if editors desire the election should get posted on ITN. Examples include adding a campaign section, results prose, results by constituency, and a reaction section. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Article needs a lot of work and general update: nothing about the campaign and political proposals, nor about the reactions/aftermath; the results section is empty. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- hey hey, the general election is taking place today, it is still underway. The blurb is incorrect. Let's wait and see what's going to happen. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Premature the election hasn't even happened yet, 0 votes are in, wait until the results of the election come in and are reported on. Scuba 14:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Can I ask how and why Abcmaxx, who I think of as an experienced editor, came to nominate an election, with outcome, when it had not yet been held? GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- not to mention "results have come in".Psephguru (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
February 10
[edit]|
February 10, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Jim Robson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Global News, CTV News
Credits:
- Nominated by TheSandDoctor (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Just nominating for an RD listing, not a blurb. "Legendary" broadcaster in British Columbia who died at the age of 91. Death announced February 10th. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Several unsourced claims. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Six paragraphs unsourced, very short lede. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
[Ready] 2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting
[edit]Blurb: Shootings at a school and a residence in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, leaves 10 people dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Canada, a school shooting at a school in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, leaves 10 dead and 27 injured.
News source(s): Global News
Credits:
- Nominated by Hsnkn (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Hauntbug (talk · give credit) and Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Death toll could possibly rise. Hsnkn (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. It is the second deadliest shooting in Canada during the 21st century. It is also the deadliest school shooting in the country since the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989 and the first major school shooting since La Loche. Mass shootings are somewhat rare in Canada so this makes the one today highly uncommon. Also, 37 victims total from a shooting is highly notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait Article is too thin as of this comment. However, once expanded I will support based on the obvious notability. This sort of thing is extremely rare in Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It has all the details that have been released. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then we need to wait until we have more information. We are not a news ticker. I suspect that we will have much better quality article tomorrow and we can post it then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Article is undergoing rapid changes - while this has seen headlines globally - until there is enough to substantiate an article with it is slightly premature Tawker (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then we need to wait until we have more information. We are not a news ticker. I suspect that we will have much better quality article tomorrow and we can post it then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- It has all the details that have been released. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine, and mass shootings of any kind are highly, highly unusual for Canada. The Kip (contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Horrific tragedy. Second deadliest Canadian school shooting in history. TwistedAxe [contact] 05:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Worst school shooting in Canada in over 30 years, unusual event in Canada. I'd like to note though that "school shooting at a school" is redundant Koiramainen (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support This is the second worst school shooting in Canadian history at this point. Notable and worth a mention for sure, though I respect the thoughts of Ad Orientem and will concede that this can wait a little if necessary. Just lodging support now in case that point happens while I am otherwise indisposed. I would just couch that perhaps we should say "at least 10 people dead" as, tragically, that figure might change given those in critical condition. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The Tumbler Ridge Secondary School article is a stub. Greedycell (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do wih it.The bold article is what matters.Psephguru (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Absolute tragedy and a historic one at that, being the second deadliest school shooting in Canada and the third deadliest mass shooting overall in Canada. If required, I can acquiesce to waiting, though much information has come out, but I do understand that neither the shooter's identity nor the motives have been released, however, that will most likely take much longer, and that's if the motives are discovered. I think the injuries part in the altblurb should be merged into the main blurb as the main blurb is worded much better, but the injuries part is very much notable. DRWiki1102 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support This is international news in a way that that the Artsakh story isn't, with coverage in all the major media. There seems to be some mystery about the shooter; currently described as female, which seems unusual, as about 97% of such massacres are committed by men, it says here. This may make it more than the usual news event. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- comment there is an IP and another editor saying the shooter was trans to a very likely non-RS. S/he was reverted by multiple editors (including me). I dont want to put a dispute tag as it's current and headed to ITN, but something to watch out for. I've opened discussions in talk.Psephguru (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed - I am having great difficulty following the discussion there, but there's a strong flavour of 'not touching you' about the non-IP participant's behaviour on that talk page. I feel that some sort of official intervention may be warranted, but I'm not sure where to begin. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I added support for semi protection [1].Psephguru (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed - I am having great difficulty following the discussion there, but there's a strong flavour of 'not touching you' about the non-IP participant's behaviour on that talk page. I feel that some sort of official intervention may be warranted, but I'm not sure where to begin. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Per Bloxzge and The Kip. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 12:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment the "Attack and shooting" needs expansion. Support once fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- comment added investigation and brief on the pre school shooting and removed the tag.Psephguru (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support One of the worst tragedies in Canada in recent years. Obvious significance. Article is fine enough for posting. Bremps... 13:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Clearly notable and significant because this is the worst school shooting in Canada in over 30 years. Quality of the article is sufficient enough for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment alt is wrong, corrected original.Psephguru (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Philippe Gaulier
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: French clown. The teacher of a long list of famous performers. Death announced 10 February. Thriley (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Fine article, sourced. Grimes2 20:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I AGREE LashikaBhartiya (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Jose de Venecia Jr.
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 1
Credits:
- Nominated by AdobongPogi (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives and long-time political leader in national government. AdobongPogi 06:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The Early Life and Speaker of the House sections are largely unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Walk for Peace
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: A group of Buddhist monks completed their Walk for Peace, a 2,300-mile (3,700 km) pilgrimage on foot from Fort Worth, Texas to Washington, DC promoting peace, compassion, and nonviolence. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Theodore Kloba (talk · give credit)
- Support - Well sourced article and pretty interesting. JaxsonR (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- oppose as mere trivia.Psephguru (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose--unclear importance, article is oddly written and sounds a little too promotional for me to be comfortable with an ITN feature. Seems like nothing more than a publicity stunt (which it was literally intended to be), and besides a few million social media followers this seems unimportant and unimpactful overall. Note that the event started last December. Departure– (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, not significant.Wi1-ch (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and I question whether this even qualifies for an article under WP:NEVENT. Most of the references are to social media or the group's own press releases; many of the rest are minor local news. Modest Genius talk 19:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability Good faith nom, but I feel like this would qualify more for a 'Did You Know' rather than the 'In the news'. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- DYK is not "just" for interesting articles. It requires either the article to be brand new or expanded 5x within the last seven days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose aside from some TikTok videos and news coverage here and there, this event haven't achieve much otherwise. NotKringe (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
February 9
[edit]|
February 9, 2026 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Fazail Agamali
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Looks passable. Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
February 8
[edit]|
February 8, 2026 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) Super Bowl LX
[edit]Blurb: The Seattle Seahawks (MVP Kenneth Walker III pictured) defeat the New England Patriots at Super Bowl LX. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Seattle Seahawks defeat the New England Patriots at Super Bowl LX.
Alternative blurb II: The Seattle Seahawks defeat the New England Patriots at Super Bowl LX, with Kenneth Walker III named MVP.
Alternative blurb III: In American football, the Seattle Seahawks defeat the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl.
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Psephguru (talk · give credit) and Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
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: Needs a recap which I assume will come soon enough. Masem (t) 03:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when recap added Per Masem, I will support the nomination when a recap is added. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I support it !!! It's a very big subject,basically the world cup but the america version Pandas planes (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- You mean the soccer World Cup that is an international event that the US participates in? Whereas this is a national event that only US teams are in? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- im just saying,its just like the world cup for other people Pandas planes (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- (before ec) Yes, I appreciate that. What I'm telling you is that this is not like the World Cup. It is like the FA Cup, or the Coppa Italia. You can't have a 'the worldwide thing, but America', because the USA is just one nation. America isn't distinct from the world. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- excitement and emotional wise,not wold competition wise Pandas planes (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- (after ec) Americans are free to watch and get excited about actual worldwide competitions. (Calling a national event the 'World Series' doesn't count.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- i saidddd,not world wise Pandas planes (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- just like it a American thing.people who don't know what football is still watch it,like me Pandas planes (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- i saidddd,not world wise Pandas planes (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- (after ec) Americans are free to watch and get excited about actual worldwide competitions. (Calling a national event the 'World Series' doesn't count.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- im just saying,its just like the world cup for other people Pandas planes (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- You mean the soccer World Cup that is an international event that the US participates in? Whereas this is a national event that only US teams are in? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support once the match summary is expanded. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 03:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. One of the most watched sporting events in the world. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- You don't get out of the US that often, do you? ~2026-88411-0 (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Don't oppose posting it if quality concerns are addressed but for clarity it's not even in the top five. AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The only picture we have for Walker is a back shot from him in his college days, and thus right now totally unhelpful. I've put Alt blurb to remove the picture mention, unless we can get a better free image. Masem (t) 03:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that the picture isn't main-page worthy; it's a break from past practice, but could we mention Walker winning MVP in the blurb without a picture to accompany? DecafPotato (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added Alt2 for that. I did just do a quick google and flickr scan and came up empty w/ free images outside college play which doesn't help. Masem (t) 04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The most important sporting event in the US, and also previous games have been featured in ITN as well, though I believe that we can find a better picture because it is very out of date. EvanTech10 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that the picture isn't main-page worthy; it's a break from past practice, but could we mention Walker winning MVP in the blurb without a picture to accompany? DecafPotato (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when game summary is updated and fully referenced. Another Superb Owl that was a defensive masterpiece is in the books; Sam Darnold finally has some success away from the long suffering Jets, and the post Brady/Belichek Patriots don’t manage to pull one off. Agreed that the Walker picture we have isn’t the best, hopefully another option can be found. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Clarification that I am supporting alt2 now that Masem has added it, since we have no good photo of Walker. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support initial blurb. All linked articles in good shape. –DMartin (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Besides the recap, the section on the alternative All-Amercian Half Time show is unsourced. Masem (t) 04:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support with question. Standard Super Bowl blurb. Is it possible to get a better picture of Walker up? KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is that we can only use freely-licensed photos, or fair-use. Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fair-use not allowed for ITN (WP:ITNIMAGE). —Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is that we can only use freely-licensed photos, or fair-use. Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support posting ASAP article is fine as is. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support either alt, breaking the blurb is a bit weird. We can wait on the picture. One will be available before long. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Fails WP:ITNQUALITY with orange tags at Super Bowl LX § International (sourcing)
and Super Bowl LX § Game summary (no prose summary)—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)- At Super Bowl LX § Game summary, the paragraph that starts "In the third quarter" is unsourced. I'm also not a fan of game recaps from WP:OR cherry-picked moments sourced from primary source play-by-play transcripts instead of sourcing from secondary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt2 on significance, oppose on quality until there is acceptable prose for the game summary. The international broadcast bit is less important. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- support Updated with prose. Psephguru (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not updated; someone has removed the empty 'First Half' and 'Second Half' sections from 'Game Summary', along with their attendant orange tags. But this means that there is no prose narrative for the gameplay at all, which is clearly unacceptable. (I also find it ludicrous that there is more space dedicated to Turning Point USA's 'alternative' half-time show than to the actual half-time show. That seems undue, to put it mildly.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The gameplay never had prose sourced. Tennis, cricket, soccer.
- Agree with the TPUSA stuff, but its sourced so can't do anything about it.Psephguru (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- No. The WP:VNOT policy states:
Otherwise, we'd be stuck with WP:COATRACKs. —Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included
- No. The WP:VNOT policy states:
- Agree with the TPUSA stuff, but its sourced so can't do anything about it.Psephguru (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The gameplay never had prose sourced. Tennis, cricket, soccer.
- Not updated; someone has removed the empty 'First Half' and 'Second Half' sections from 'Game Summary', along with their attendant orange tags. But this means that there is no prose narrative for the gameplay at all, which is clearly unacceptable. (I also find it ludicrous that there is more space dedicated to Turning Point USA's 'alternative' half-time show than to the actual half-time show. That seems undue, to put it mildly.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not Ready. Super_Bowl_LX#International is mostly unsourced. The second part of Super_Bowl_LX#Halftime is completely unsourced (actually, is this bit of political posturing even notable?). And there is no prose game summary, which is required. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just gonna work on tht first part. How game prose gonna be sourced? To the commentary from the game that is not in online text?
- Have a look at last year's. Super_Bowl_LIX#Game_summary. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just gonna work on tht first part. How game prose gonna be sourced? To the commentary from the game that is not in online text?
- Needs work Strange prose with lots of past future tense such as
The game was a defensive battle as the Seahawks would take advantage of a struggling Patriots offensive line by kicking four unanswered field goals throughout the first three quarters. In the fourth, the game would see its only touchdowns...
. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Will work on it.Psephguru (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If you need it, WP:INTOTHEWOULDS has good advice on when it works/doesn't work. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Will work on it.Psephguru (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I suppose someone may copyedit but mostly done.Psephguru (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - The game summary is fairly rudimentary, but it's there and it's sourced. I removed the bit about the alternative half-time show on the basis of WP:UNDUE; it's highly relevant, and not undue, in the article about the main half-time show, and it appears correctly there. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Removing that about the alternate show I think is not appropriate here, it needs to be included, or at least some mention. It's been covered for a long time that this alt show was going to happen, and definitely can be sourced, just that we don't need a lot of details in the game article, a more thorough summary can be at the half time show article and the standalone article covering it tells the rest. Masem (t) 14:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. Don't have to agree or disagree with what is not notable.Psephguru (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added a brief summary with source for it. Masem (t) 15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The shorter summary is a definite improvement. I'll let those with more investment in the Owl as a whole decide whether it needs to be in its own subsection or not. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added a brief summary with source for it. Masem (t) 15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. Don't have to agree or disagree with what is not notable.Psephguru (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Weaksupportalt1alt3. The article is mostly good, and has a game summary.However the summary says very little, largely ignores the first half, and has only a single reference - it seems out of place with what is otherwise a comprehensive article. The summary should really be improved, but I don't think it's bad enough to hold up posting.I also don't mind the orange tag on the list of international broadcasters, that's not important information. Modest Genius talk 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)- The game summary has been substantially improved, switching to full support. Alt3 is the blurb to use. Modest Genius talk 20:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It wsa an extrmeley defensive game until the 4th (most boring, but i played D in team sports, so loving it ;)). Not much more to add, just it was hard to find a source and it' s a live one, so can use a better one but i doubt it can be found.Psephguru (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I know it was defensive, I watched it. That doesn't mean nothing happened, or that there's nothing to say. There should still be more than two sentences describing it. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
... don't mind the orange tag on the list of international broadcasters, that's not important information
: Then instead of the sourcing tag, slap on an orange {{undue}} (or just stop including such sections, if trivial). —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It wsa an extrmeley defensive game until the 4th (most boring, but i played D in team sports, so loving it ;)). Not much more to add, just it was hard to find a source and it' s a live one, so can use a better one but i doubt it can be found.Psephguru (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support initial blurb. Article looks ready. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Include score in blurb The blurb should at least have the score. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- We never include scores in sporting items, for good reasons. Modest Genius talk 16:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added alt3, which is the standard format for this blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- oppose MVP is not thre.Psephguru (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- If we cannot find a suitable picture of Walker, then we do not normally list the MVP. If we do find one, the MVP will be listed in parentheses (Super Bowl MVP Kenneth Walker III pictured). Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Suitable image up. @Stephen Bremps... 18:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- If we cannot find a suitable picture of Walker, then we do not normally list the MVP. If we do find one, the MVP will be listed in parentheses (Super Bowl MVP Kenneth Walker III pictured). Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not sure why there's any discussion of a different half-time show in the article. It wasn't part of any North American broadcasts as far as I know. Was this shown internationally? And it doesn't appear to be from the stadium either - but something that was prerecorded and shown by other broadcasters. Should we discuss what all the other networks were counter-programming the Super Bowl with? Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with a brief mention of it. It was notable counterprogramming by the right-wing and the few sentences that are in the article is appropriate weight. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Brief, perhaps. But it had a section with the same weight as the real halftime show. However that's now been fixed. So Support. Nfitz (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with a brief mention of it. It was notable counterprogramming by the right-wing and the few sentences that are in the article is appropriate weight. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: made a new crop of the image at File:Kenneth Walker III being interviewed by Time2Football 2026 (cropped 2).png. In my opinion it's better because it is rotated so that he is more upright and it's a closer crop. Stephen? Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
(Ready) Portuguese presidential election
[edit]Blurb: António José Seguro (pictured) is elected as the president of Portugal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: António José Seguro (pictured) of the Socialist Party wins the 2026 runoff election for president of Portugal.
Alternative blurb II: António José Seguro (pictured) of the Socialist Party wins the 2026 Portuguese presidential election despite a strong challenge from the Chega candidate.
News source(s): PR '26, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tuesp1985 (talk · give credit) and H3nrique Bregie (talk · give credit)
Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support ITN/R. Scuba 21:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- As ITNR votes should focus on quality. Just being ITNR doesn't mean it's automatically postable. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not ITNR, per List of current heads of state and government. Portugal is a semi-presidential country in constitutional terms, but in practice and by custom it is purely parliamentary. Results sections needs update and an Aftermath/Reaction section is needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support once updated Per Alsor above, the results prose needs to be updated for the second round and a reaction section is also needed. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose ITN is election inundated as is. I am already wary of non-ITNR election items and when that extends to "The President of Portugal has a largely ceremonial role, with no executive power, but can veto new laws and dissolve Parliament" the case is even harder to make. Gotitbro (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, a similar one is made under sports nominations from persons who claim we post too many sports and subjectively claim they are unimportant. The President has some executive power and the function is not purely ceremonial either, but rather than focusing on the technicalities, this was fundamentally an important election in Portuguese politics and covered worldwide, therefore I don't see how this is any less relevant than any other recent election. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, rationalizing an oppose on the substantive reason of us not posting ceremonial elections is not an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. The onus is on those advocating for a posting to show "this was fundamentally an important election in Portuguese politics" and I have seen absolutely no rationale to substantiate that for this nom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, a similar one is made under sports nominations from persons who claim we post too many sports and subjectively claim they are unimportant. The President has some executive power and the function is not purely ceremonial either, but rather than focusing on the technicalities, this was fundamentally an important election in Portuguese politics and covered worldwide, therefore I don't see how this is any less relevant than any other recent election. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Describing this as a ceremonial election is misleading. I disagree that the post is purely ceremonial, but the election is a regular political election by universal suffrage. A ceremonial election would be something like the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which serves only to confirm a decision that has already been made by a committee. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Describing this as a ceremonial election is misleading." I quoted that exactly from what the lede of the article says.
- I also opposed the Irish presidential election for the same reason but even then there rationale was provided to show significance of that election beyond suffrage or head of state changes (that election also not being ITNR); I ams still waiting for that here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Come on; the words 'ceremonial' and 'election' both appear in the lead of the article, but the adjective is not used there to qualify the noun. And I think the article about the presidency is probably a better source for the nature of the presidency than the one about the election. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The contention against this stems from the fact that the post is ceremonial in the first place. It can easily be argued ergo that the election is as well, unless of course contentions can be sustained otherwise (still waiting). Gotitbro (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Come on; the words 'ceremonial' and 'election' both appear in the lead of the article, but the adjective is not used there to qualify the noun. And I think the article about the presidency is probably a better source for the nature of the presidency than the one about the election. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Describing this as a ceremonial election is misleading. I disagree that the post is purely ceremonial, but the election is a regular political election by universal suffrage. A ceremonial election would be something like the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which serves only to confirm a decision that has already been made by a committee. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when properly updated. While not ITNR, I feel this is an election that is notable enough to feature. People were previously complaining when ITN was static for most of last month and now others are saying we now have too many elections stories for turnover? We cannot make news happen after all. Luck of the timing. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Changes of head of state are generally signficant, and this election has been in the news nationally and internationally. As our article President of Portugal indicates, the presidency is a hybrid role that doesn't fall neatly into any one category, but includes a legislative veto power. (I'd be interested to know when that was last used, though.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems like he last used it as recently as December 2025. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle The change in a head of state is sufficiently notable for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support change in head of state; politically significant in a semi-presidential system and makes snap legislative elections more likely in the short term This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. The President of Portugal has very few powers and is "a largely ceremonial role, with no executive power" (quoting from the election article itself). The important office is Prime Minister of Portugal. Although Ventura did better than expected, he didn't win. We post elections to the most powerful political position in each country, not the ceremonial figurehead. I don't see any reason to make an exception here. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- We post US congressional elections, as well as Irish presidential elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I would have opposed the Irish president if I had seen that nomination. US Congress isn't relevant, that's a legislative assembly not a ceremonial president. Note we did post the Portuguese legislative assembly elections last year. Modest Genius talk 16:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- We post US congressional elections, as well as Irish presidential elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – Not covered by ITN/R, and no other editor has made a compelling case as to why this presidential election was significant this time around. Perhaps if Chega won, I would support a blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Because it's in the news and ITN/R doesn't mean we cannot post other elections. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Historic election. ArionStar (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- In what way was this "historic"? Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- As the article reads: "This was only the second time that a direct Portuguese presidential election went to a second round, after the 1986 election". ArionStar (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- In what way was this "historic"? Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support per AusLondonder and Arionstar. Khuft (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Still seeing no rationale for significance and lots of handwaving. Gotitbro (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, explaining significance The incumbent Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa was set to retire after two terms in power, and the election went to a second round for the first time since 1986. The results section of the article describes that António José Seguro captured nearly 67% of the vote in a landslide victory, winning 303 out of 305 municipalities, 3,095 out of 3,239 civil parishes, and all 20 districts of Portugal. Also while the President of Portugal is a mostly ceremonial role, the president acts as a mediator between the three branches, has veto power, and has the power to dissolve parliament. Clearly significant and historic. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- What you describe are merely procedure hiccups. I am still not seeing WP:ITNSIGNIF here. To repeat, though I opposed the Irish prez elections, even then a rationale for the party/candidate which had won was provided including how it was substantial for the then Irish political scene. Gotitbro (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support I just browsed the coverage. It's reported by the heavyweight international mainstream sources and the main theme seems to be the challenge of the surging right-wing protest party Chega, which got about a third of the vote in a high turnout and so joins AfD, National Rally, Reform and the like. So, it was not just a formality but was significant as a bellwether. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Gotitbro - this seems to be a mostly ceremonial role with little real power. The Kip (contribs) 01:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough to go. Although it is not an ITNR and the Portuguese presidency is ceremonial, these elections have received special coverage and relevance due to the historic support that Chega received. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Thai general election
[edit]Blurb: Incumbent prime minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured) and his Bhumjaithai Party win the 2026 Thai general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the Thai general election, the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured), wins the most seats.
Alternative blurb II: In the Thai general election, the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured), wins the most seats, along with voters approving a referendum to rewrite the current constitution.
News source(s): [10] [11] [12]
Credits:
- Nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Preime TH (talk · give credit) and CastleFort1 (talk · give credit)
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: Thai election is ITN/R. The results have come in and media around the world is reporting on it, but the article needs to be updated. Scuba 17:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until the PM is officially appointed Even though Anutin is most likely to lead a coalition, he is not holding absolute majority yet (as his party's seat counts is not over 50%), so I think we should wait until he was named official PM just in case the messy situation like the 2023 Thai general election happens again. NotKringe (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The blurbs back then were:
- (May 2023) In the Thai general election, an anti-military-junta coalition led by the Move Forward Party (leader Pita Limjaroenrat pictured) wins a majority in the House of Representatives.[13]
- (Aug 23) Srettha Thavisin (pictured) becomes prime minister of Thailand.[14]
- —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Even if for whatever reason Antuin isn't named the new PM, he is still the leader of Bhumjaithai and should be listed as such. Scuba 21:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment There's no need to wait for a PM appointment. A blurb on the election result can be posted once the header of the article is updated. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. If a new Prime Minister other than the election winner is appointed, then there could indeed be a second blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, could be a while with coalition negotiations before PM is nominatedQueensanditsCrazy (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support I updated the article by adding the election result to the header and by expanding the results prose. The article appears good to go for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Should the constitutional referendum also be mentioned? –DMartin (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added an altblurb mentioning it. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per CastleFort1 and Alsor97; we can post the results, if someone else winds up becoming Prime Minister due to shenanigans involving courts or the Thai Monarchy, that can be another blurb as per precedent. Article seems ok for posting update and referencing wise. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The Constitutional Court seem to be picking PMs out of a hat as of late. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 06:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The article is in a very solid shape, and I really don't think we have to wait for approval of a PM, the result is significant enough on its own, and bucking it would be worthy of an entry seperate the election. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Ready to go. Suggestions to wait until they are appointed seem bizarre to me; do we report US presidential results until they are appointed in late January - or is this just a "rule" for other countries. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Added House of Representatives to the blurb, like in 2023's, to be clearer on what was won. Needs more explicit affirmation to add alt2's portion on the referendum.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: David J. Farber
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:
- Nominated by Schoen (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Bell Labs researcher, "Grandfather of the Internet" engineering professor and academic computer scientist who taught several Internet technical pioneers throughout the infancy of the Internet. Created SNOBOL language and served on many Internet organizations' boards. Schoen (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article is orange tagged. Scuba 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Japanese general election
[edit]Blurb: Incumbent prime minister Sanae Takaichi (pictured) and her Liberal Democratic Party win a supermajority in the 2026 Japanese general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: Incumbent Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi (pictured) and her Liberal Democratic Party is re-elected with a landslide majority.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, AP, NBC, Reuters (sources which use the term 'supermajority')
Credits:
- Nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Japanese election is ITN/R Scuba 15:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article would benefit by including reliable sources that use the term
"supermajority"
, as there are varying definitions. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)- hi yes this Reuters live articlehas an entry titled: Japan: Ruling coalition has now officially won a supermajority, as does this Al Jazeera article Scuba 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- These sources should be added to the article then; currently the use of "supermajority" is unsourced. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- hi yes this Reuters live articlehas an entry titled: Japan: Ruling coalition has now officially won a supermajority, as does this Al Jazeera article Scuba 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I missed this nom by perhaps 30 seconds, oh well. But it is not ready to post yet. It needs information on the results. (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment From someone who is actively working on this article - it may be prudent to wait a bit until the vote counting is mostly done. The ruling coalition currently has a supermajority (two-thirds), however the LDP is very close to outright winning a supermajority on its own. If we wait a bit longer we can accurately specify in the blurb that it is the LDP itself that won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: It is now confirmed that the LDP has won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Second update: It is now also confirmed that the total LDP-JIP coalition won three-fourths of the House of Representatives. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: It is now confirmed that the LDP has won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when results expanded This nomination will receive my automatic support as soon as the results prose and tables are expanded and clarified upon. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Change to support The results prose and tables are now there. I now support this nomination. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Historic victory for the LDP. Election is being covered in global news. Results tables in article are good to go. MidnightMayhem (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. NHK also reported a 2/3 majority.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape now. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Edit requested There is a typo in the blurb: "lead" -> "led".Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fixed (not by me) Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 06:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Edit requested There is a typo in the blurb: "lead" -> "led".Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Should we add that this was a snap election? ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(Removed) Iranian protests (remove from ongoing)
[edit]Nominator's comments: According to the article the last significant protest was in mid-January, it is misleading to have this article remain in the "ongoing" section - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The protests are effectively over after the crackdown/massacres. What we have now is the aftermath of them and Trump threats to attack Iran not the protests. Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support – The protests have long been suppressed and over. Keeping it in ongoing is an obvious POV decision. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Iran is still a hotbed with the potential Israel/US attacks that have been abuzz. Even if the protests were the catalysts for these attacks as a way to threaten the current leadership, I would now expect that if the attacks were to happen, that would be a wholly separate article now, and as others have said, whatever protests have happened appeared to have been quelled. Masem (t) 13:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- support the hat-trick of events are put down.Psephguru (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal for the same reasons as when this was discussed last week. Protests have been suppressed since mid-January. Yes, Iran is still making headlines, but due to uranium negotiations, not these protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Remove. Agreed, the events have moved on. Modest Genius talk 15:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support As I mentioned in the last removal nom, the protests themselves effectively ended mid-January, and what's currently ongoing is the Reactions to the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. FallingGravity 16:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support protests have been over for weeks, current content is just reactions to them being crushed. Scuba 16:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal as per the last 2 times this was proposed. Protests are over. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal—I think we can now say that this story has become stale. If protests reignite (which, you never know, they may), then we can always re-add it to the main page as necessary. For now, it's run its course. Kurtis (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support They are no longer Ongoing and therefore should not be listed as such. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Removed Stephen 20:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Post-Removal Strong Support This is the third nomination and I was the nominator of the first one. Based on the reception of the first and second ones there will 100% be people who come back to try and get this back up. I agree with all of the above points and will put this here to secure the removal. --SpectralIon 03:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Winter Olympics (temporary Ongoing removal)
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The Ongoing section is currently extremely crowded, and it doesn't really make sense to have it there at the same time as a blurb for the opening ceremony. We can add it back once the opening blurb rolls off. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It shouldn't been added until the Olympics blurb rolls off. Masem (t) 03:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Question/weak oppose Has it been our precedent to add the olympics to ongoing only after the blurb rolls off? These winter olympics only last for two more weeks. Depending on how slow the next two news weeks are, it might not roll off at all. Unless there is a clear rule to the contrary, in these special circumstances, I might lean towards having the blurb and ongoing entry simultaneously. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, precedent for ongoing in general is to not have them when a related blurb is up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- There’s some kind of a precedent from the last few Olympic Games. In the past, it was posted to ongoing alongside the blurb (this was a common practice even before ongoing had been introduced). However, the recent precedent isn’t a strict rule and can be safely disregarded for the good of our readers (even if it’s a rule, we have WP:IAR). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, precedent for ongoing in general is to not have them when a related blurb is up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Sometimes we don’t post enough stories, so blurbs don’t roll off in a two-week span. Furthermore, it’s a very unwise decision to post it to ongoing at a random time because our readers aren’t aware at all that we have to wait until the blurb rolls off. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Readers would be looking for the word "Olympics", and adding the ongoing once the blurb rolls off would just be a standard practice by the admin that pushes the blurb off, so the word would still be there. This doesn't hamper the reader's ability to find it. Masem (t) 13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- As a reader, not an editor, I prefer getting to Chronological summary of the 2026 Winter Olympics with a single click. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Readers would be looking for the word "Olympics", and adding the ongoing once the blurb rolls off would just be a standard practice by the admin that pushes the blurb off, so the word would still be there. This doesn't hamper the reader's ability to find it. Masem (t) 13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The winter Olympics is getting a lot more attention than anything else at ITN but it's the very first link in ITN and so repeating it further down too seems redundant. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - The solution is to remove Iran protests and Russo-Ukraine war, but that would mean the Europeans here have to suppress their chauvinism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- hey buddy the war in Ukraine is still going on. Scuba 16:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- there are many ongoing wars. surely that is not the criteria. there is a genocide and war that is ongoing in Palestine --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- ? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- hey buddy the war in Ukraine is still going on. Scuba 16:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Off-topic, closing before this gets out of hand
|
|---|
|
- Wait The Olympics blurb will easily be pushed downwards due to election blurbs. There are three national elections on 8 February, which may be posted within the next one or two days. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- We also have the ITNR Super Bowl today Masem (t) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose that makes four incoming blurbs, which will push the Olympics blurb off ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- We also have the ITNR Super Bowl today Masem (t) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Andrew. FallingGravity 16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb should roll off soon and ongoing can be cleaned up with removal of stale items. Linking to the timeline in ongoing is more useful to readers following the games than the link to opening ceremony. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose having both a blurb and an ongoing is fine and more helpful to the reader. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait and keep imminent posting of election ITN/r blurbs would push opening ceremony blurb anyways.
- Omnifalcon (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per Omnifalcon. ITN/R and other backlogged blurbs will be pushing the ceremony blurb off soon. If we want to free up space, "Iranian protests" can (finally) be removed from Ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - seems a bit unnecessary and bureaucratic (though I don't know what policy supports this). Ongoing "blurbs" should be briefer thougy. Support simply changing this to "Olympics" and remove the timeline. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose/Keep - It makes sense now to keep it, because the opening blurb is going to fall off quickly with the Japanese & Thai elections and very likely the Super Bowl blurbs. 20:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Normally, I would vote to Remove because the Opening Ceremony blurb is still in ITN and precedent has been to only add the Olympics to Ongoing when that blurb rolls off. However, because of the number of elections and Superb Owl blurbs soon to be posted, I will IAR vote Oppose/keep because it makes no sense for us to have to put it back up again in less than a day when the Opening Ceremony blurb rolls off due to the aforementioned imminent turnover. Also keep the chronological summary/timeline link in the Ongoing item. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 04:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm personally opposed to the idea of removing an ongoing event from ongoing just because there's many other ongoing events. --SpectralIon 22:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - and now everyone is worried about the length of ongoing? Make the "blurbs" shorter then. And get rid of that stale MSP one. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
February 7
[edit]|
February 7, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Sander Severino
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.spin.ph/multisport/para-sports/fide-master-bemedalled-para-athlete-sander-severino-dies-at-40-a793-20260208
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ravaramanuj (talk · give credit) and Hariboneagle927 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Filipino chess player. Article seems to be good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Good enough article. Bremps... 18:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Haitian presidential transition council fails
[edit]Article: Transitional Presidential Council (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti dissolves without a successor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti dissolves, transferring executive power to prime minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé.
News source(s): https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260207-haiti-s-transitional-council-disbands-with-nothing-to-replace-it
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CastleFort1 (talk · give credit), Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit), Durranistan (talk · give credit) and Bremps (talk · give credit)
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: Haiti's been struggling for a while now. The council was intended to facilitate a popular election for a president though that's not in the cards right now. Bremps... 00:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Lean support Could count as ITN/R on a technicality. While the actual office of the presidency is vacant, the Transitional Presidential Council acted with the executive powers of Haiti, and then transferred to the Prime Minister. Only a lean support since there are some duplicate citations that need to be resolved first. Quality of the article looks sufficient for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle – ITN/R and good quality, but the article's body should also be updated, not just the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, body is updated Kowal2701 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jeane Freeman
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Herald Scotland
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
- Created by Zcbeaton (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Member of the Scottish Parliament who was Minister for Social Security 2016–2018 then Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport 2018–2021. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added three Cn tags. The article might be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. Sourcing issues appear to be fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The birth date seems to be cited only to the month, not the day. The Instagram link I cannot access, but it would likely not be RS anyways. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu: On closer inspection, I agree- The STV and Times obituaries both only list birth month. The source in the article is Companies House which lists a month and year for people registered as directors etc. I've update the birth dates listed accordingly. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That should work now. Support, ready, @Admins willing to post ITN: 22:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 09:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Brad Arnold
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today TMZ Rolling Stone
Credits:
- Created and nominated by thrashbandicoot01 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Lead singer of the American rock band 3 Doors Down thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not Quite Ready Discography needs citations. Otherwise, while a bit short, the article is not in dreadful shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose just deleting the discography is one way of solving the problem. But I think it is suboptimal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Issues fixed. Article is still a bit short, but isn't a stub. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Highly notable musician and article is well referenced and comprehensive. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article is still orange tagged. Scuba 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Where..? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was removed in this diff. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Where..? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
February 6
[edit]|
February 6, 2026 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Terrance Gore
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [16]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DarkSide830 (talk · give credit) and Bagumba (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks well-cited. RIP. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Three-time world series champion. Article is decently long and has no citation needed tags or issues. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The birth date does not seem to be referenced. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's listed in the baseball-reference.com link. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, should be good to go now. @Admins willing to post ITN: Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's listed in the baseball-reference.com link. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article seems well cited. RIP. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 01:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Sufficient sourcing and breadth.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Shaea al-Zindani
[edit]Blurb: Shaea al-Zindani is inaugurated as prime minister of Yemen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yemeni prime minister Shaea al-Zindani assumes office with his cabinet.
News source(s): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/6/new-yemen-government-formed-with-shaya-mohsin-al-zindani-as-prime-minister
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Yemen is split in twain but he's of the internationally recognized faction; hence no qualifiers. Bremps... 01:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Article is kind of short and in need of more refs. Bremps... 01:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality for now Article is a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Yemen is actually split in three with Iran backing the Houthis, UAE backing the STC and the Saudis backing this new cabinet. The blurb doesn't explain any of this and the target article is feeble. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- The STC controls no territory at the moment, so it's hard to say it also splits Yemen. AustrianEarlyOne (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Recent events demonstrate that control of South Yemen is volatile and that the issue of separatism is still live. The similar case of Somaliland indicates that such aspirations do not settle easily. Anyway, the point is that the blurb doesn't indicate how riven Yemen is and the article doesn't either. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Though this issue of separatism is still alive, AustrianEarlyOne is correct: the STC no longer controls parts of Yemen. At it stands, Yemen is split between the Saudi-backed government and the Houthis. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Recent events demonstrate that control of South Yemen is volatile and that the issue of separatism is still live. The similar case of Somaliland indicates that such aspirations do not settle easily. Anyway, the point is that the blurb doesn't indicate how riven Yemen is and the article doesn't either. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Would including the fact that he's the prime minister of the internationally-recognized government properly indicate this point in the blurb? As for his article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and I've added a better image for the nom. Hsnkn (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The STC controls no territory at the moment, so it's hard to say it also splits Yemen. AustrianEarlyOne (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support I wouldn't say his article is a stub, but it is definitely start class. Scuba 15:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- How's it look now? Hsnkn (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose current blurbs per Andrew, not neutral and misleading Kowal2701 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ah yes we must maintain our neutrality and pretend the Houthis are a legitimate government. Scuba 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- We say not that the Houthis are legitimate but that there are other threats/claimants to the internationally recognised government's power and control. Presenting it as the government of Yemen is misleading and omits important nuance. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because it is a government. JaxsonR (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are also governments but we don't omit changes in Moldovan or Georgian leadership because of that. Scuba 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That would be very different, the Houthis dont claim to be a seperate country. JaxsonR (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- so what's your point? the existence of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic doesn't exclude Lukashenko making an appearances in ITN every time he rigs an election. Scuba 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well actually, we did note the... irregularities in the 2025 blurb and the 2020 blurb. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- so what's your point? the existence of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic doesn't exclude Lukashenko making an appearances in ITN every time he rigs an election. Scuba 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That would be very different, the Houthis dont claim to be a seperate country. JaxsonR (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are also governments but we don't omit changes in Moldovan or Georgian leadership because of that. Scuba 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- "legitimate" is a value judgement, we're better off going with the de facto situation than pushing propaganda Kowal2701 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ah yes we must maintain our neutrality and pretend the Houthis are a legitimate government. Scuba 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Less than a month ago we posted the government capture of Aden and collapse of the STC. This is just the political follow-up to that event; Zindani's predecessor fled during the STC offensive. No election has been held. Modest Genius talk 16:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, it is an indirect consequence of the STC collapse, but it is a distinct turn of events, as his predecessor Salem Saleh bin Braik only resigned after the STC was already out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. I would also capitalize Prime Minister of Yemen. Hsnkn (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Shouldnt this be listed at ITN/R? JaxsonR (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. WP:ITNELECTIONS states:
"Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government [...] as listed at List of current heads of state and government."
According to that list, its the president of Yemen, not the prime minister, which holds executive power. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. WP:ITNELECTIONS states:
(Posted) RD: Sonny Jurgensen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Created by GABaker (talk · give credit)
- Updated by BradyBunchFan (talk · give credit) and TheInevitables (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Looks good, but would prefer if other refs can be found for the early life section and the college section - they only have 1 ref supporting all those statements. Natg 19 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality looks good for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - article looks good. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Trial of former Republic of Artsakh leaders
[edit]Blurb: Former members of the military-political leadership of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, including three former presidents and one acting president, have been sentenced by an Azerbaijan court, five of them are sentenced to life imprisonment. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An Azerbaijani court convicts former military and political leaders of the former unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, including four former presidents.
Alternative blurb II: An Azerbaijani court convicts former military and political leaders of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, including three Artsakhi presidents (Arayik Harutyunyan pictured).
News source(s): [17]
Credits:
- Nominated by Wi1-ch (talk · give credit)
- Created by Fixer88 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Greensminded24 (talk · give credit)
Wi1-ch (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support though it should be a little more clear than Artsakh no longer exists. Could be worded like "Leadership of the former Republic of Artsakh were sentenced" Ion.want.uu (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't the point that it never existed? 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Former unrecognized Republic of Artsakh" seems to convey the point neutrally enough. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't the point that it never existed? 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added altblurb. Undecided on notability, but quality looks fine. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Large & high quality recent update in response to current events trumps the iffy significance for me. Can't verify the sources, but will AGF for long time editor with 100K edits. Removing the ITNR tag, as I think that was done by mistake. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality of update, its only one sentence in the lede about this trial, there should be much much more if that's the topic framing. Masem (t) 21:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article was created on February 5th, so the update is the entire article. Should assessment of the "quality of the update" be only for that portion that relates to the current event? WP:ITNUPDATE does not suggest this to me. And from a 20,000 foot/IAR perspective, a current event that triggers a substantial update of non-current information still fits our purpose here (improving the mainspace). GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality per Masem. Neutral on notability; would reassess once article is further updated. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Closed military trial (court martial) of political leadership of now absorbed state without substantial coverage beyond Azerbaijan. It should also be nited that none of the trialed BLPs have been updated, Arkadi Ghukasyan directly states in the lead "currently facing criminal charges in Azerbaijan". Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability though I don't believe it needs to be specified that the Republic of Artsakh was
"unrecognized"
. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- Well, if we don't we could run into problems of making it sound like it was a full, recognised, nation, when in fact it was not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would be implied nor would it be relevant. If anything, using
"breakaway"
(as the article uses) or"separatist"
would be more relevant and provide appropriate context to an unfamiliar reader."Unrecognized"
isn't that helpful because this blurb isn't about Artsakh's diplomatic relations / international status. - Suggesting altblurb2 that doesn't use the word "former" three times. Also note that three presidents were convicted; the fourth was only acting president. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would be implied nor would it be relevant. If anything, using
- Well, if we don't we could run into problems of making it sound like it was a full, recognised, nation, when in fact it was not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Artsakh and other unrecognized countries aren't ITN material, we never included any of these presidents in ITN when they where elected, so why should we include them now that they've been sentenced? Scuba 15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ITNATA:
"Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type ... do not often generate agreement from the community."
I wouldn't agree that"unrecognized countries aren't ITN material"
considering that they are posted from time to time, such as Northern Cyprus recently. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- Northern Cyprus was a special case because the new president was pro-unification. as said in the discussion. Scuba 18:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ITNATA:
- Support it should be there Meow3323 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- support notable decimation of a nations.Psephguru (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, quality is good, everything cited at least, though the Verdict section could be expanded, and possibly an Aftermath/Reactions section created. Prefer ALT 2 Kowal2701 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support article looks excellent. The condemnation of the high-ranking civil and military authorities of a former semi-sovereign nation is, I believe, ITN-worthy, especially when it is for war. In fact, I would even consider it to be a non-independent region. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this is close, but from a quality standpoint would benefit from some of the reactions to the sentencing. At present, all the most recent section has is a list of names and years of time sentenced. Examples of possible information to include: [18], [19], ARF statement in response, etc. SpencerT•C 06:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Reactions appear to have been expanded. SpencerT•C 07:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be in the news in any mainstream news source. You can tell that it's not getting coverage because the readership of the article is tiny -- just 109 views yesterday and ITN editors alone will have been a significant fraction of that. And with multiple opposes, I'm not seeing much of a consensus either. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- But it's not WP:NOTTRUMP.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be in the news in any mainstream news source. You can tell that it's not getting coverage because the readership of the article is tiny -- just 109 views yesterday and ITN editors alone will have been a significant fraction of that. And with multiple opposes, I'm not seeing much of a consensus either. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Winter Olympics
[edit]Blurb: The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano/Cortina starts (Post)
Alternative blurb: The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano/Cortina opens
Alternative blurb II: The 2026 Winter Olympics, held in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy, opens
Alternative blurb III: The Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy.
News source(s): [20]
Credits:
- Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
- Created by Abhiramakella (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Several sports are already two days into competition. BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Full Support; it's about time we have something positive here. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait a bit As previously stated in the ongoing suggestion and per ITNR, we post the opening ceremony and that needs to happen first, which is not until about 3 hrs from when I'm writing this, so we're talking at least 6 hrs from now. Then we can post. We know some events are ongoing but the ceremony is the event that we have always used. Masem (t) 15:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem. As mentioned below, the Olympics is not officially open until the Opening Ceremony. Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Currently our Opening Ceremony article is very subpar so it needs to be substantially improved in the next few hours if we want to post it. Natg 19 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Opening Ceremony article still needs a lot of improvement. Support Winter Olympics to Ongoing for now. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Could support the current blurbs, which do not bold the opening ceremony. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Support the opening ceremony article is now ready. Good work Rushtheeditor! Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony. This is already nominated in the 4 Feb section below, let's not duplicate the same discussion. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- That is a different nomination about the timeline of the sports. JaxsonR (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony as all above. We post the Opening Ceremony (when it has happened and the article is ready), then if it scrolls off, it goes to Ongoing (with a Timeline or Medal Count article linked as well), then we post the Closing Ceremonies. That's how it's been on ITN since I started contributing to Wikipedia. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Opening ceremony procession is over now. Scuba 22:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The opening ceremony is over, the Winter Olympics for 2026 have officially begun. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unless I am missing something, this article just looks like a list. If I am wrong please correct me. JaxsonR (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Opening ceremony article updated with proceedings and aftermath. Rushtheeditor (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle The Olympics have begun. Maybe it could also be in ongoing. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The opening ceremony concluded several hours ago, and the articles for both the games and the ceremony look fine. I also support a move to ongoing should this slide off the front page while the games are in progress. PolarManne (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Alt III I think the opening ceremony article is of adequate quality and it should be published as soon as possible. LiamKorda 06:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Alt3 on conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 18:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

- Comment A photo of the actual opening ceremony (such as the one on the right) could be added. FallingGravity 05:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Image added —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Islamabad suicide bombing
[edit]Blurb: A suicide attack at a mosque during Friday prayers killed at least 31 people and more than 150 were injured in Islamabad, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, France 24, ABC News, CBS News, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Probably should not mention injuries though. JaxsonR (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Moderate Support; let's wait for more information about preperators and if the BLA was behind it, although the IS and Taliban paper to be behind it. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Major attack with dozens of fatalities, hundreds of injuries and has been covered internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose tragic, but this kind of attacks are sadly too common in Pakistan. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per 2026 in Pakistan, this seems to be second-deadliest attack this year. Most such bombings have fatalities in the single digits. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was also the deadliest attack targeting a religious place in Pakistan since 2023. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- We posted the 2025 Islamabad suicide bombing that had a smaller death toll. This is the capital of Pakistan, not a small town with no security. JaxsonR (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per 2026 in Pakistan, this seems to be second-deadliest attack this year. Most such bombings have fatalities in the single digits. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support recentism is a factor, but with a death toll like this it shouldn't be the defining factor. Scuba 00:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Major attack in a capital city. Hsnkn (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above. Note the 2025 precedent. Bremps... 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted without the injuries for a more concise blurb. Schwede66 08:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
February 5
[edit]|
February 5, 2026 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Tamás Vásáry
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: At his peak, a leading pianist of the works by Chopin and Liszt, later also a conductor, leading the Berlin Philharmonic from the piano in a recording of Mozart Concertos, and his own orchestra in Chopin's two concertos. Superlative reviews. - The article, however was short and mostly unreferenced, and turned out to have been copied from the Hungarian Music Onformation Center. Took some time to fix that, especially on vacation. The best obit - in German - appeared only today. More detail possible - there's a complete list of recordings in Hungarian - but other tasks waiting. As always, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Weak opposeOne of my favourite pianists, his Liszt recordings are brilliant. You've done a good job improving the article but there are still two sentences in the Recordings section that unsourced, relating to awards. Once that is resolved I will support.Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)- Couldn't find them, think that Grimes2 referenced - added to updaters. There's more in the Hungarian obit, - many more awards for example. Past midnight here ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, in this case I now support. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- Couldn't find them, think that Grimes2 referenced - added to updaters. There's more in the Hungarian obit, - many more awards for example. Past midnight here ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Vladimir Kuroyedov
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ria.ru/20260205/rossiya-2072556019.html
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Aside from needing to cite the awards section the article seems good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough. Scuba 17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Vladimir_Kuroyedov#Honours_and_awards is mostly unsourced. SpencerT•C 06:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) New START
[edit]Blurb: The expiry of the New START makes Russia–United States relations without any nuclear arms reduction treaties for the first time since 1972. (Post)
Alternative blurb: New START, the last active nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, expires.
News source(s): CNN, The Associated Press, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by UCinternational (talk · give credit)
- Created by Lesswealth (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Theunion2030 (talk · give credit) and AlexeyKhrulev (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
UCinternational (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added ALT1, which is more direct and relies less on the whole "first time since YYYY" thing that gets significant pushback at ITN (nevermind that the Russian Federation didn't exist in 1972, so all sources declare this to be the first time, period). Departure– (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose We are in a new era in which neither Putin nor Trump can be relied on to observe any treaty, and Trump in particular, has been tearing up lots of them lately. Because of their actions, other powers such as Germany are now contemplating getting nuclear weapons. So, this particular expiry seems a small detail compared to the overall assessment of the scientists who set the Doomsday Clock to its most advanced setting recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose A treaty expires is not really a news, only what happened afterwards that is noteworthy enough is. NotKringe (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is not a random treaty randomly expiring and plentiful top-tier WP:RS coverage tells something very different. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – AlexeyKhrulev did a nice job expanding the article, but it doesn't feel quite quality enough yet. Doing a quick Google News search, it looks like ITNSIGNIF is easily met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- More specifically, there's four citation-neededs, one clarify, and one 'unreliable source?'. I just changed a whole section to past tense, but that section probably requires some updates based on new information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Is this the start of new nuclear arms race (Nuclear arms race#Post–Cold War)? Perhaps. But while a treaty expiring is news, it is isn't significant in and of itself. As the significance here entirely relies on WP:CRYSTAL what nows. If the treaty was violated or otherwise terminated out of process, its termination then would be significant news itself but that is not the case here. Gotitbro (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to object to opposes based on WP:CRYSTAL. It is policy, but only regarding article contents. If the world media is into some inane feeding frenzy over what proves to be a nothingburger, and we share the FACT up front that they are into silly speculation, there is no WP policy violation. The only embarrassment on our end is that we encouraged clickbait trash. ~2026-81816-3 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when properly updated, the expiration of a treaty can be just as fitting to be posted on ITN as the signing of the treaty itself. I see no CRYSTAL in saying that the treaty has ceased. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support – definitely ITN worthy and the article is in good enough shape. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this is now featured in German Wikipedia's ITN and made it there very quickly as many editors understood the notability. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb for conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb - Definitely significant and notable enough to be ITN. Also agree with GhostStalker that there is no WP:CRYSTAL in saying that this treaty has expired. ***Eliza*** (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hotline I'm still not convinced that this treaty is a big deal as Russia already suspended participation in 2023. But I see that, in other fresh news from the Ukraine peace talks, the US and Russian military have re-established their hotline which may help in resolving incidents. Our article about that needs work though: Moscow–Washington hotline. Recall also Dr Strangelove and wonder how those calls between Putin and Trump compare. In that movie, the crisis was triggered by fluoridation and now, RFK plan's are advancing. "Truth is stranger than fiction"! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fluoridation was just a cover story, a rationalization for irrational behavior. More specifically, it was triggered by a rogue general whose simultaneous hatred of communism and impotence in his love-life drove him to the ultimate form of compensation. In fact, his character was very likely based on Curtis LeMay, who apart from dutifully drawing up strategic bombing plans for annihilating Russia, apparently had repeatedly sought to nuke North Korea into oblivion during the Korean War so much so that new security protocols were set in place to prevent unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
- If the latter is indeed true, then I would hesitate to draw parallels between now and the past, particularly to Dr. Strangelove, since the Cold War was a much different time both strategically and technologically. That said, I tend to agree that the reestablishment of the hotline (which is actually not a red phone, as commonly believed) is a bigger deal. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report links the hotline with START:
This marks a significant rapprochement between the world's two largest nuclear powers and comes after President Donald Trump repeatedly voiced his desire to normalise relations between both countries.
The announcement also came amid reports the US and Russia were negotiating a deal to extend a nuclear arms reduction treaty due to expire on Thursday. - It seems that Russia and the US are actively negotiating and so this is a work-in-progress. We should perhaps await a conclusion.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems I've been subject to a bout of word blindness[sarcasm]; nowhere in that quote does it mention the hotline. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the BBC doesn't work for you, try Euronews,
The US and Russia have agreed to resume military communications hotlines following talks...
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- In the Euronews article, it has the opposite problem - not mentioning the nuclear deal. This nomination isn't about the hotline, it's about the nuclear deal (or newly-lack-thereof). Thus this entire thread, is really pointless. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is breaking news about ongoing negotiations and so different sources present the emerging details in different ways. See Axios for coverage of both these aspects and more including extensions to and modifications of New Start. These matters are all related aspects of Russian-US military relations which are now evolving. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- In the Euronews article, it has the opposite problem - not mentioning the nuclear deal. This nomination isn't about the hotline, it's about the nuclear deal (or newly-lack-thereof). Thus this entire thread, is really pointless. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the BBC doesn't work for you, try Euronews,
- It seems I've been subject to a bout of word blindness[sarcasm]; nowhere in that quote does it mention the hotline. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report links the hotline with START:
- Support - Blurb-worthy news that could well affect all life on Earth. Jusdafax (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support given the global importance of New START, not WP:CRYSTAL as we're not speculating on a new arms race but only pointing out that the treaty expired. The specifics of its renegotiation and how it connects to the reopening of the hotline are all a bit murky, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping our options open for updating the blurb in that regards. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - global importance. Article looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, altblurb looks good. The lack of any nuclear arms protections has immediate effect, not just speculation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt per Chaotic Enby. Prefer the alt per Departure. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's orange-tagged. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Took about twenty seconds fixing the issue you added the orange tag for :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't fix it. For example, there's a deadlines section which lists a bunch of things to be done in the future. But that's all history now. Did they happen? The article doesn't say. This is essentially the proseline problem of isolated updates being made as things happen. The treaty now has a long history and it needs consolidating in a retrospective way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a diary. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- For the record, note that the item has scrolled off now. Following the recent editing, I went back to the article and renewed the orange tags as the article still needed updating. No-one is rushing to do this and so the quality issues remain. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't fix it. For example, there's a deadlines section which lists a bunch of things to be done in the future. But that's all history now. Did they happen? The article doesn't say. This is essentially the proseline problem of isolated updates being made as things happen. The treaty now has a long history and it needs consolidating in a retrospective way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a diary. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Took about twenty seconds fixing the issue you added the orange tag for :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's orange-tagged. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 21:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Masalit genocide
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Pencilceaser123 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose only two edits this year. Greedycell (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for several reasons. The topic is not receiving coverage in the news and the article has no substantial updates in almost 2 months so fails WP:ITNSIGNIF. The "Masalit genocide" also does not have scholarly recognition, and has so far not been added to List of genocides. The article is currently orange tagged although that could be easily fixed. Finally, the Gaza genocide is still ongoing but was removed from ITN, so that comparison doesn't work. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose – The Gaza genocide article wasn't added to ongoing because
any ongoing genocide should be on the front page
, it was because it was frequently updated. I anticipate a WP:SNOW close. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
February 4
[edit]|
February 4, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) CIA World Factbook
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The C.I.A. World Factbook is abruptly terminated. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, AP, The Atlantic, CNN, Indian Express, NPR, NYT,
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by GA-RT-22 (talk · give credit) and Lucy576 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Weak oppose – Crucially, ITN, and the main page as a whole, should highlight issues of note for readers, not Wikipedia editors. Besides, "abruptly" might unwillingly carry some POV. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The word "abruptly" indicates that no notice was given. The reporting states that this has been disruptive for users who have relied on this source. This is not a POV; it's a relevant fact. As for the other issue, the point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People who read encyclopedias are likely to be interested in other such reference works too, whether they edit or just read them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wrong date - Regardless of the merits, this is news from 4 February, not today. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, it should probably be closed as stale, as New START expired on 5 February. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - To be blunt, this nomination is a prime example of Andrew's unwillingness to distinguish between things internal to Wikipedia - what our perennial sources are, how many views our pages receive, and so on - and things external, which are the principal topic of our work here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- The nomination cites mainstream sources across three continents and so the topic is in the news. Journalists have a special interest in such reliable reference works too but this doesn't mean that they don't matter; quite the contrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support This is comparable to the discontinuation of the Encyclopædia Britannica in 2012, which was posted. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note that Britannica is reporting this news, as they only went online. In the case of the Factbook, it's their web pages which have gone, which is more remarkable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose As stale as they come. Gotitbro (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Lee Hamilton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Goosedukeee (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: US Representative, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. Article has orange tag. Goosedukeee (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Three paragraphs for 34 years in Congress is not "minimally comprehensive". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose multiple orange tags. Scuba 17:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Mickey Lolich
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [21]
Credits:
- Nominated by Greedycell (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Greedycell (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I can spot one uncited statement, however, of more concern to me is the WP:TRIVIA section at the end. If kept it needs more refs, but it should more likely be reorganised into the rest of the article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- These unsourced trivia lists run the risk of turning into WP:CITOGENESIS if sourced from obituaries (that often are just lifting from Wikipedia). —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support besides the sports trivia, the actual biographical information in the article looks good. Scuba 17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The Mickey Lolich § Lolich's other records and accomplishments section is too reliant on primary source stats databases. Looks too much like WP:OR without more secondary sources.08:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Elizabeth Kelly
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [22]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Omelettemaker (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English actress Omelettemaker (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. A few parts of the filmography are unsourced, but it's a small enough portion to not prevent posting. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say from my standpoint that that is a showstopper for posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - unsourced filmography - and a deprecated source used too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose no citations in the Filmography. Scuba 16:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Time for re-review? Good enough footnotes for the filmography tables? Would 294 words be long enough? --PFHLai (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Virgo
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by HurricaneHiggins (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English snooker commentator and professional snooker player. ItsShandog (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Well written and I have added a few extra cites to the article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support absolute hero of mine. Absolutely distraught. Will hopefully get some more work done on it over the next couple of days in addition Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The article is in good shape and has been updated. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: John_Virgo#Career_finals needs references. SpencerT•C 12:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Spencer: I've just added cites for them. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. 14:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talk • contribs)
(Posted) Ongoing: Olympics
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Curling starts inside 12 hours, although the official opening is friday for the blurb. Psephguru (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose (for now) — Let's post a blurb for the opening ceremony. If that blurb rolls off before the Games end, then I think an ongoing entry would be warranted, but for now I don't see a need. DecafPotato (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait The Olympics are typically an ongoing item and it is listed at ITN/R (
The Olympics, as the world's leading multi-day multi-sport event, is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry.
), but we should wait until after the opening ceremony, as that is the official start of the Games. Additionally the ongoing item should just be 2026 Winter Olympics, not this other article. Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose It's better to have 2026 Winter Olympics as the target article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Chronology has the updates.Psephguru (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @MtPenguinMonster Another way to do it is to link the Olympics main page and then this summary in parentheses Thedevilif (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. How was it during the paris games? Psephguru (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @MtPenguinMonster Another way to do it is to link the Olympics main page and then this summary in parentheses Thedevilif (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Chronology has the updates.Psephguru (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Proposed article does not look to be of appropriate quality for an Ongoing feature right now. 2026 Winter Olympics does look like it would work, but I guess it's fine to wait for the blurb on Friday anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'd stick to the normal practice of blurb the opening, then once over, the closing with whoever has the most medals. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- comment certainly not this article. Main 2026 Winter Olympic article maybe, but not this one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony, and I agree this is the wrong target article. Modest Genius talk 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment it appears that for the 2024 Olympics, we actually linked both the main article and the "timeline" article. We typically post the opening ceremony and the closing ceremony, but only if the articles meet quality standards. Natg 19 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did we only do that because all of the other ongoings also had a timeline article? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait - Lets wait until the opening ceremony blurb rolls off. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support adding 2026 Winter Olympics (timeline) to ongoing consistent with 2024 Summer Olympics per Natg. I don't see any reason to wait for the official opening ceremonies as the competition has already started. Blurbs for opening and closing ceremonies can be considered separately. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but officially no. The Games begin at the opening ceremony, though for scheduling reasons there are events earlier than that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's already been major events, such as yesterday's Canada-Czechia curling match. I'm not sure why waiting 24 hours for an ongoing makes much difference, unless we think the Olympics may be cancelled or something. It's all over the news right now. It's front pages of major papers here today, and at least one of them yesterday. Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but officially no. The Games begin at the opening ceremony, though for scheduling reasons there are events earlier than that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support propsal of EvansHallBear. The main article looks good enough to be added as ongoing, given that it will plenty of updates as the games go on. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait per ModestGenius. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the Opening Ceremony as per our usual MO. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 02:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I think ongoing should be added when games begin, before the Opening Ceremony. I know that is a minority opinion but there are events happening now.
- Omnifalcon (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony per our usual precedent. The Kip (contribs) 19:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support add to ongoing now. There's massive world-wide coverage now. We are in the news - and the news has already opened. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait As I stated under the #2026 Winter Olympics section, we should post the opening ceremony to ITN first, then move it to ongoing if and when that falls off. PolarManne (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support posting to ongoing now. I don't get the point of posting a blurb first, wait until it rolls off and then post this to ongoing. This is a terrible practice from the last few Olympic Games. What if we don't have enough stories to post in the next two weeks and it doesn't roll off? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 18:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment there is a proposal to withdrawl this ongoing item at the subheader Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Winter Olympics (temporary Ongoing removal). Departure– (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: