This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header (dark green when in dark mode) appears under each daily section–it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide that a recent death is important enough to warrant a blurb instead.
All articles featured in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting items marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, post the item and change the header to (Posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
When consensus to post will not be reached, close the discussion section and change the header to (Closed). If the article's quality remains poor, leave a brief note explaining why to encourage and assist others in fixing it.
Voicing an opinion on an item
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.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Mention problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible or help is needed.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please explain yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is or is not related to a particular country. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with its significance. Discuss them here.
Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.
Suggesting updates
There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Structure
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Seems to be breaking news but the German Wikipedia already has posted it.Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Tagged for missing references: that needs to be fixed before we can think of posting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Not ready, largely unsourced paragraphs and tables. Will still oppose if someone decides to "fix" the unreferenced filmography by splitting it out, its cheap and devalues the process. orangesclub🍊 11:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Mexican politician and a leading figure in the country's left-wing politics during the last century. The article covers the major aspects of his life.Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 07:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Article quality is good enough. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
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.
Support Looks good to go to me. Wish we were back in the Yankee dynasty years, but I guess all things had to come to an end. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 10:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support Overall, it looks well fleshed out. However, the "Rating" table is mostly empty. Also, the single prose sentence in the "Summary" section feels underwhelming. I think those are minor issues that should not hold up posting. ~2026-52228-20 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Nielsen ratings are released a few days after, so we don't know them for the most recent games. I don't know about the Spanish-language and Japanese ratings. –Muboshgu(talk) 13:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Mada Masr shutdown
Article:Mada Masr (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Egypt forces the closure of Mada Masr, the last remaining independent news outlet in the country. (Post)
Nominator's comments: Last non-Sisi aligned news outlet is closed. Article requires a lot of work though quality-wise.Abcmaxx (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Looking at the Google News tab, this is definitely being covered in the news. Article quality could easily be fixed with all these new sources. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I think it's notable, but the update to the article is only three sentences long so I don't think it meets quality standards (yet) ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs 17:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support notability, wait quality - Article needs a lot of citation work, but I think this is a notable enough event and it's being reported on decently heavily. Gauze↵ 18:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality as update is currently two sentences. Undecided on notability but probably lean support. TheKip(contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
Comment One of the most influential figures in American labor and feminist history. I think a blurb would be appropriate. Estreyeria (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe that death blurbs have jumped the shark and will not support one. –Muboshgu(talk) 16:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: If you don't mind me asking, why do you say that, and what type of death blurb would you post? QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe that the bar has been lowered too far based on some of the past death blurb suggestions. Huerta is not nearly as egregious as some others, and may even be a valid case. Death blurbs should be reserved for the most rare cases of news-dominating deaths. –Muboshgu(talk) 17:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I would agree, this was where I noticed our standards had slipped and where we should've drawn a line. Failing that, we do have to draw a line somewhere. I agree that it's a bit of shame since Huerta seems to be significantly more influential (less egregious to suggest a blurb for) than Hamilton. Flyingfishee (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Support RD only No glaring issues with the article quality-wise and good length. While I agree she was rather influential, I disagree that she was transformative enough/Sui generis to warrant a potential blurb. ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb High profile activist in the labor rights movement. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Huerta was perhaps one of the most prominent Latina activists in her own right. --Oscar_. (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment A blurb was added at this point. ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Influential activist and definitely top of her field like Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson whom we blurbed. Article in good shape too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, reasonable support for blurb Quality is there, but a few things I'd like to see. First, having the stuff with Chavez does not feel right at an H2 level but probably should be an H3 under Personal Life. It’s not a major aspect of her life to be that predoninate on the page. Second between the Awards and the Representation sections likely can be combined to an overall Legacy or Impact section, and adding a paragraph or so sum up her legacy in a concise fashion. I dont doubt she has such a legacy (that is, she clearly fits being a major figure) but while all the implicit reasons are there in the article, we shpuld be providing that expansion of what's in the lede with sources there. Masem (t) 18:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb There are many very important and influential people in every country, but we know that Americans tend to stand out more in terms of global popularity. I think we should feature in our blurbs those figures who also enjoy international recognition, impact and influence. That is not the case here. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb, Huerta doesn't meet the high threshold required for posting in my opinion based on reading the article. Examples of non-American living activists that are also currently listed as level 5 vital articles include Wang Dan, Raoni Metuktire, Timoleón Jiménez, Chai Ling, Vandana Shiva, Benny Wenda, etc. I doubt any of them would be nominated if they died though. Sahaib (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support RD: good enough. "See also" section gives off coat-racking vibes. Deeply conflicted on blurb. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb - Highly prominent figure both years ago and today. Not to sound callous, but while I'm not sure her activism or the Chavez accusations alone would qualify her for a blurb, in combination I believe they do. TheKip(contribs) 20:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb per Alsor above. Yakikaki (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb per above. Wizardman 21:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blub - per above. Also note that almost all of the "important person" blurbs that aren't former heads of state are almost all Americans. The criteria is vague and open ended, thus leading to obvious geographic and linguistic bias in how it's implemented. You wouldn't see labor activists of similar regional importance being blurbed who lived in Nigeria, India, Philippines, or Indonesia, for example. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Your "almost all Americans" is over-states the issue.. So far this year, by my count, there have been 18 RD blurbs. Abut a third were Americans, about a third were former heads of state and about a third were non-American and not former heads of state. The proportions in 2025 were similar: 30 blurbs split about one third Americans, one third heads of state and one third other. The most recent example of a non-American activist was Bajrakitiyabha though it may have helped that she was a princess too. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Understand that my knowledge of them isn't the only reason to oppose a blurb. But largely only seems to be getting attention in the US, with a handful of international sources. I'm not in the US, and I tend to feel that if the only way I would know that someone has died is from the ITN candidates, they're probably not someone who needs to be blurbed. Blurbs should be people where their death is going to cause widespread international attention. Not localised coverage.PliskorCor (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Collapsing the off-topic thread I unintentionally sparked. Probably best to just focus on Huerta. TheKip(contribs) 06:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the English-language Wikipedia; it's a natural consequence of that that we give elevated attention to figures from the country with the largest English-speaking population in the world. I get concerns about systemic bias, but forced/false balance isn't the solution. TheKip(contribs) 04:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
India is the second largest English speaking country in the world, and its margin to the #1 country is the population of Canada or California... Howard the Duck (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Still, though, only between 10% and 19% of the population speaks it outright (see here) and only two-hundredths of a percent are first-language speakers. By comparison, Hindi is spoken by roughly 57% of the population and is the first language of 43%; as such, I'd expect most coverage of Indian historical figures on the same relative level of national notability as Huerta to be in Hindi rather than English, and that's not even factoring in the 12 other regional languages whose first-language users number in the tens of millions. TheKip(contribs) 04:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry. This is the English Wikipedia. Can you point me where the native English speaker Wikipedia is? Howard the Duck (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The native speaker numbers were just to illustrate the point. Again, roughly between 10% and 20% of the country speaks it outright (incorporating native speakers + second/third-language speakers), versus that figure being 95% in the United States. Ergo, coverage of historical figures with the same relative domestic notability as Huerta will more likely than not not be in English, because English isn't particularly close to being the primary language spoken there. TheKip(contribs) 04:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The hypothetical domestic coverage in English will be in the ratio of 299 million to 269 million, or about 1.1115:1. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, that's raw numbers, which are misleading. If we want to get back to the relevancy of the native speaker numbers, one can assume that even if they're also among the 10-19% that also speak English, the 57% native Hindi-speakers or 9% native Bengali-speakers are probably more likely to seek out media coverage in Hindi or Bengali. Similarly, we'd expect the 78% native English-speakers in the US to primarily seek out English-language media coverage.
I'm not sure why we're debating this in the first place; for comparison, I don't expect the German or Arabic-language Wikipedias to have as detailed articles of Huerta as the English-language wiki, because I don't expect there to be a lot of German or Arabic-language coverage of her. Wikiprojects are usually products of their users' backgrounds, with language and location being the biggest influences. TheKip(contribs) 05:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This is the English-language Wikipedia; it's a natural consequence of that that we give elevated attention to figures from the country with the largest English-speaking population in the world Yep — and this is a negative that we should work to remedy. What you call false balance is more accurately described as "correcting a bias". Loytra✨ 05:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Just as I don't necessarily expect enwiki to blurb a major domestic figure that has little English-language coverage, I don't expect the Slovak or Tagalog wikis to blurb Huerta given the likely lack of coverage of her life in those languages. It's the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia being a volunteer project influenced by those volunteers' backgrounds; I'd love the entire cross-wiki project to be more egalitarian in output, but it's an unrealistic standard to expect it. TheKip(contribs) 06:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Posted RD for now, blurb discussion to continue. – robertsky (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Seems like we're willing to try and blurb any random person these days. This is not what I think ITNRD blurbs are for. I'll note that I'm not the only one saying this, if you look at the archives for October every RD with a blurb discussion has someone comparing them to Hamilton rather than the usual Thatcher/Mandela. It's getting out of hand. Flyingfishee (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The number of RD blurbs so far this year is down on last year. The rates have been
I think the number of RD blurbs per year is interesting, I'll note that we're above 2024 levels so we would probably need to look further back if we wanted to see how this year sits comparatively. Either way choosing RD blurbs based on previous years probably isn't the best way to handle things. If someone is worthy of a blurb then we should blurb them (rather than choosing not too in order to not exceed previous years), if not then don't blurb them (rather than choosing to blurb them in order to match blurb counts of previous years).
In terms of women getting less blurbs I think it would be worth keeping in mind that we're not here to right great wrongs. (FYI I'm in agreement with blurbs for all the women you've just listed aside from Hamilton) Flyingfishee (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The point is that your rhetoric like "getting out of hand" is hyperbole. The overall situation is that ITN posts very little of anything compared to other main page sections and so its blurbs are routinely repetitive and stale. ITN needs more blurbs, not less. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with the general point that we don't have a "too many death blurbs" problem, but about the women, I feel like that's mostly because women only started holding major political office a few decades ago, and major political office is a source for a lot of blurbs. The important political women aren't as close to dying as many of the important political men are because their careers were more recent. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The Thatcher/Mandela standard is not the usual and never has been. The guidelines leave it to everyone to set their own threshold, but this is one held by a exceedingly small minority of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Spanish politician, died in the 2026 Toledo train collision. It was suggested in the discussion below to separately nominate her as an RD.~2026-57527-24 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article needs work. I’ll get round to it later this evening _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support merge with blurb as her death is part of the same story, so it's redundant to list her seperately. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but no. Nearly 70 people have died, and I don’t think it’s fair to focus the blurb on just one of them, without in any way detracting from her significance and career. we don’t do that in that way _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Featuring her in the blurb would in no way detract from the other individuals killed, nor her career since that career is the reason why she'd be listed up there. And we have done this in the past. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
close for now RS are reporting that she is still missing and have corrected their headlines. According to journalists, her relatives have gone to the hospital this evening; there is still no confirmation of her death. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Reopen" she is dead now ~2026-57633-26 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Per above, I've added a source confirming her death. TheKip(contribs) 06:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
El Periódico which previously said missing now confirms death Non-paywall from El País here . Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment the page uses a reference from ¡Hola!, the blueprint of Hello! (magazine), twelve times. I don't know anything about Hola's quality, but if I saw Hello cited, I would replace it immediately. The political things it is cited to will definitely be covered by better sources, and even her status as married with two children is generic enough to be in mainstream obituaries. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
¡Hola! is a RS used many times in wikipedia and the information about her marriage and children is relevant, however general it may be. It is not always necessary to identify husbands or wifes if that person has not been particularly in the public eye. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Article currently orange-tagged.~2026-57527-24 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose For all the usual reasons: Loads uncited, tables galore, more prose needed. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 15:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose due to orange tags, albeit prose seems adequate now. TheKip(contribs) 20:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Consensus was to renominate after the blurb rolled off.CREditzWiki (yap)
Support The coverage of these protests are widespread and continually updated, precisely what ongoing is meant for. Unknown-Tree🌲 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support as the previous nominator. ArionStar (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support, high quality article and is regularly being reported on and updated. Gauze↵ 18:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose but would support the French protest one to ongoing If you look at the individual protests, only the French one seems to be ongoing and properly updated. Others have clearly ended, and a couple where im not sure if they are going on lack updates. Only the French one as that. That's the problem with that article treating them as related events, they are only related due to geography and timing but not cause or reactions. Masem (t) 18:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support 2026 French unrest only; the European protests seem to be many different unrelated protests attempted to be strung together by that mess of an article. As Masem says, the French protests are the only ones really being updated regularly, and the article meets our quality standards, having only recently fallen off. And they are clearly continuing and in the news often: Al Jazeera, NYT, The Guardian. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 19:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I have no idea why we're still doing the "all the protests are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other"/WP:SYNTH allegations when this is still being covered as a general concept in popular and media discourse and in fact to a far greater extent now than when they were originally nominated. In fact, I'd wager only putting the French protests would be wrong since a lot of coverage of the French demonstrations are explicitly no longer covering it in a vacuum and covering it from a continental angle, largely over how its inspiring other movements in the continent or has similar causes to various other protests. Many of the movements were explicitly spillovers/inspired by the recent flare-up in France. The article needs to be restructured to give more general background, but it clearly has grounds for existing and IMO being put into ongoing. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
they are not related (only in a couple cases dud one influence another) but as the europe unrest article states, have a common thread of general concerns of cost of living, etc. If it were the case that one protest led to all of the other protests, then they would clearly be all connected in terms of successive events, but thats obviously not the case here. Masem (t) 20:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose this but support the French protests being added, per above. TheKip(contribs) 20:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see enough of a fil rouge here. Yakikaki (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose but Support the French protests per The Kip, Masem, and Chorchapu. Conflating all these protests together seems like a stretch to me. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 10:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Vice Premier of ChinaToadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Article seems well sourced and high quality enough. Gauze↵ 13:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support article has no outstanding issues from a quick readthrough. Well sourced. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Admin comment The day of birth is not mentioned in either of the three sources, only month and year are. Either the day goes, or a reliable source will have to be found. Schwede66 07:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Announced in last hour, scenario and page will change rapidly over the day.Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - major railway accident. Second involving high speed trains in Spain this year. High death toll. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong support A rare, terrible collision between two high-speed trains travelling in the same direction. Madrid–Seville is a popular train line and represents one of Spain's most used HSR corridors. Article quality is good so far with the details we have and I'll keep updating it as reliable sources trickle in with further detail on the scale of the collision/casualties. Oppius Brutus (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, Oppose on quality Will likely be updated over the next few hours, especially as more news comes out. But I support on notability, once quality of the page is fixed.PliskorCor (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@PliskorCor: What quality issues? Everything that needs to be referenced is referenced. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It read as if it has been translated from Spanish or written by someone for who English is not their first language. Refs may be fine, but reading it felt fairly unnatural, plus some grammatical errors. Sort of changes that will/should be changed relatively soon. But as it stood, it didn't feel suitable on quality.PliskorCor (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is less than two hours old, and is constantly being edited. Give it some time, this is excepted for current events. Fortek67 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Which is what I am saying. I feel it will change and be suitable. I just didnt think it was suitable at the time I saw it.PliskorCor (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Major incident and rising death toll. Fortek67 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - One of the worst rail crashes in Europe in recent years, and the article, though short, appears to be of sufficient quality. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support but wait The second deadly train accident in less than ten months. It’s unbearable. The article is fine, but I think we could wait a couple of hours for the content to be updated with any new information about the cause, the consequences (the news are reporting the probability of the death toll to rise a lot) and the reactions. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, Oppose on quality The article contradicts itself: we don't even know if this was a rear-end or a head-on collision. — Kpalion(talk) 11:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It was a derailment and head-on collision. The trains were on separate tracks. See the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, Source and I were wrong. Now confirmed as a rear-end collision. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The train IDs released by the authorities were both of trains travelling in the same direction. If you look near the end of the X video it appears that one has derailed across onto the other running line after the collision. ~2026-57487-74 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is much clearer now. — Kpalion(talk) 14:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support, though the Investigation section needs a source. Gauze↵ 13:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No, WP:BLUE applies to simple facts such as that. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No, it needs a source. I for one didn't find it obvious that the Autoridad Independiente para la Investigación Técnica de Accidentes e Incidentes (AIITAI) is responsible for investigating railway accidents in Spain. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 14:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Chorchapu: OK, I've added a source. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, that looks good now. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 15:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support once ready, As Gauze above mentioned, the investigation section is unreferenced. Otherwise, I think the article is ready as the article currently has no other outstanding issues from what I can see from a quick readthrough. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I support the main blurb. I feel Fátima Báñez should be nominated as a separate RD nom. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Certainly notable based on the scale of the accident, and this is progressing in terms of article clarity and quality, understanding there are some things that need to be resolved, like clarity around the type of collision as is currently being discussed on the talk page. Upjav (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Posted–Muboshgu(talk) 16:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Both Yashar and Likud have won 51 seats, leaving Israel without a clear winner in the election.Chorchapu (talk|edits) 00:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
for the love of everything wait, less than 10% reporting so far
Strong Oppose (current wording) and Wait Not only is this premature, this is simply not true. The 50-ish seat count refers to the bloc strengths of pro-Bibi and pro-Eisenkot parties, while the actual parties they lead are expected to hold a seat count closer to 20 seats. And we are a long while from knowing the final seat count. John Adams 362 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
My apologies, the news that I read made it seem like the parties each had 51 seats. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 01:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait until we can be more certain about the results, posting prematurely and having the results not match our projection could cause serious reputational issues. Also, I agree with John that the current blurb wording is problematic. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait, per above. On quality, the article seems okay, although it's understandably proseline. Neither proposed blurb works at the moment, I would suggest posting more alts before results are clearer would also be premature. CMD (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, please WP:AGF though. I just saw that the election results had (to my understanding at the time) come out, and saw it hadn't been nominated yet. I did so, and while it turns out I was in fact wrong, the rudeness of the opposes has been a bit upsetting. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 02:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait As reporting elsewhere has stated "There is therefore no outright winner and no simple path to power for either Eisenkot or Netanyahu, and this result is likely to set off weeks of jockeying over who can form a coalition government before a prime minister is declared or another round of elections is called."PliskorCor (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait until the picture becomes more clear. Strongly Oppose the current blurb, as neither the Netenyahu nor Eisenkot blocs will likely be able to return to power without the support of Arab parties, which is arguably the most significant known result at this time. Lamp moth (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait per all others, but strong oppose existing blurbs, especially alt1 per the two votes above me + the opposition bloc and Arab parties could both be described as anti-Netanyahu, which means the pro-Netanyahu bloc did not win the most seats. TheKip(contribs) 05:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support alt3, which I've made some technical edits to. Probably the best summarization we have at this point. TheKip(contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait results are still reporting. IDB.S (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait and oppose all current blurbs (two, at the time of this posting) as not reflecting the RS. This is a very complex election, and a full picture of the results and their implications has not yet emerged. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait The appropriate time to post this item is when a new Israeli government is formed, the composition of which is still very unclear. The results so far point to a deadlock which may take days or even weeks to resolve; no reliable source has indicated a majority of the Knesset has agreed on any majority or minority government arrangement yet. Noting this is ITN/R, I would also point out the article is decent quality for the most part but currently contains an orange tag dating back to August 2026 under the section 'Opinion polls'. Oppius Brutus (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait I'm not sure why we are even discussing this while the results remain so unclear. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure what exactly we are waiting for? 93% votes counted and no-one has won a majority, which isn't a surprise as this is what usually happens in multi-party democracies and so far no party has won an outright Knesset majority ever in its history. Coalition talk may take months (or on extreme cases years, e.g. what happened in Belgium) or a new election will be called (or in extreme cases elections plural e.g. in Bulgaria where there were elections called every few months the for several years due to deadlock). Abcmaxx (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Added altblurb3. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The significant number of military/foreign votes, which may change the outcome, be what we are waiting for, I believe. Once we see if the trend in these results is the same, then we should post. Thursday sometime I'd think. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Nfitz: those remaining votes won't change the overall outcome though; it's coalition building or new elections, Likud won the most seats. The remaining votes won't change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. It now seems clear that Likud won the most seats of any individual party, though his group of allies lost the majority. It does seem unlikely anyone will be able to form a government, and there may be another election, though that's an issue for another time. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb2 90% of the votes have been counted at this point. I doubt anything would change. That said, it's not 100% certain Nethayahu's bloc would stand by Likud and some could defect over to the anti-Nethayahu side.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 00:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think altblurb2 overstates the importance of Likud specifically. Likud being the largest party doesn't mean that Netenyahu will be able to form a government because of how coalition politics work in Israel, especially since there is very little likelihood of the Netenyahu bloc working with Arab parties. Lamp moth (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
+1 - IMO any blurb has to mention that no coalition (or at minimum, the incumbent government) won a majority. TheKip(contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Villa Vie Residences suspends operations of the Odyssey in Sihanoukville, Cambodia, after running out of money amid sharply higher fuel costs, forcing 203 passengers to disembark with seven hours' notice. (AFP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Leading South Sudanese independence figure during the First Sudanese Civil War.Chomik! (talk?) 17:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Long enough, fully cited, and neutral. Looks good. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 17:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Article has one uncited paragraph.Jiewei Xiong (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Death is announce on this dateWarm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Almost ready Just needs a bit more sourcing for the selected works section before he can be posted. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. The article is now of sufficient quality, so I am ready to support. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support I see one Citation needed tag, but that should be easy enough to remedy. Much improved with sourcing from when I checked it this morning, good work. A big loss. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Almost ready, I found an unsupported claim that I've marked in the Background section.Comment I think the same section could also benefit from being split into Career and Personal life (sub)sections, but I'm uncertain if the personal life section would be large enough. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I withdraw that part of my comment and change my !vote to support as there are no more outstanding issues with the article. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Marking as ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Syrian transitional government announces the closure of the Nasib Border Crossing with Jordan, suspending passenger and commercial traffic in both directions, after reporting that the airstrikes were not coordinated. (AA)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Mayor of Seville who oversaw several major urban projectsJon698 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
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: Balon d'Or winners announced with Harry Kane taking home football's biggest individual award.Heatrave (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment This is not WP:ITN/R but it has been posted twice: in 2013 and 2014. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 23:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality. In theory, I think the biggest individual award in the biggest sport in the world should be an easy pass for notability. That said, the issue with this article is the same as it's been seemingly for years now - the article is of poor quality for ITN in a general sense. Very low prose-to-tables ratio. I think there needs to be an overhaul to the yearly Ballon d'Or article structure before we can even think about posting 2026 Ballon d'Or or the like to the main page. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now per DarkSide830. Certainly notable, yet doesn't even have 10 sources and isn't sufficient quality. If it gets expanded, I will change my vote. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now - BdO is notable enough in my opinion, but article is wholly tables at the moment. TheKip(contribs) 05:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think an individual award in a team sport is notable enough. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Ballon D'Or is a suite of individual and team prizes; the blurb simply showcases the biggest two awards. However the article is nowhere near being suitable. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I know. But we're discussing individual awards here, and they're not notable in a team sport. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Ballon d'Or is the most notable individual award in the most popular sport on the planet. Why on earth would it not be notable? Team sports players are obviously not treated as simply cogs in a machine, individual excellence is regularly noted and highlighted on Wikipedia. Gauze↵ 20:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You are correct, every North American team sport championship is posted with a picture and link to the MVP, another award in a team sport. Not a picture of a whole victorious team. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm generally opposed to posting pictures of individual players in team sports, and I honestly believe it's done when there are no free images of the winning teams. If we ever allow posting sporting awards, my first pick would be the Laureus World Sports Awards, which are considered the most prestigious recognition across all sports. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Every team winner since 2019 played association football. The last team not to play any kind of football at all was the 2018 Mercedes F1 team... Howard the Duck (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't make a case for an individual award in the sport to be singled out. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I would agree an individual award for a team sport is odd, especially when we are comparing players from different leagues. The ranking here seems completely capricious and silly. Somehow Kane suddenly skyrockets up in the ranking for a ceremony they hold in England? Messi wins three straight, then moves to the MLS where suddenly he's not even in the top 30 for two years (despite winning two MVPs, a golden boot and three team trophies), then its a World Cup year so he's 5th again? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You are arguing based on emotions and that is not the right thing to do. Argue the article, the facts or according to Wikipedia guidelines. Every individual award stems from the performance of the individual in a team environment. Whether rapper, actor or footballer. Everything they achieved singularly was as a result of the team they had behind them. So you cannot discredit the award because it is a team sport. Heatrave (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Nonsense. I've explicitly provided the factual basis for my argument; declaring it "emotional" doesn't make it so. Significant sporting achievement is found in competition. There have been many failed attempts at handing out awards based on a popularity vote, but they are rarely sticky because it says more about the voter than the athlete. This year's award is getting trashed more than usual because is is especially egregious, but it has always been viewed as fairly arbitrary. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I know this isn't a forum, but there's nothing remotely "egregious" about this award. The fact that the ceremony was held in England doesn't mean that there's an English panel of judges. It's the same international voting system regardless of venue. Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Biggest individual award in the biggest sport in the world, surprised this isn't ITNR to be honest. This one is also significant for multiple reasons; first for Harry Kane, first English player to win it in a while, Alexia Putellas equalling the record for women's Ballon d'ors, and the first Ballon d'or to be hosted in England. I don't think it matters at all that the article for the actual award itself isn't great, anyone interested in this news is more likely to read the articles for the respective players, both of which are in very good condition (Kane's article is a listed good article). Flyingfishee (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose commentary on the merits of the award can wait - the page is 1,503 characters, three characters over the stub threshold for DYK (I know this isn't DYK but still), and that's even when including keys for the tables. Oscars, Grammys etc. when just a list of tables have been rejected on ITN. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Just a collection of tables. How about a paragraph of prose above each one explaining exactly what it's rewarding/recognizing? Moscow Mule (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. I have added context for Kane's win in the lead paragraph so that the article is no longer just a collection of tables. I believe the article is of sufficient quality to support the higher quality articles of association football, Harry Kane and Alexia Putellas. I don't know enough about women's football to add a section about Alexia but if someone could do that, I believe the article would be more than ready. Gauze↵ 09:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per greatcaesarsghost. These are individual awards in a team sport with many players on the field. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Most prestigious and well recognised individual award in the by far most played, popular, watched, followed, financed, spread out (and any other metric) sport in the world by a large margin. The prize is widely covered in mainstream media. The winners aren't exactly niche players who are singled out randomly, they are world-renowned best of the best among the globe in the most competitive sporting field, who are recognised even by those who are indifferent to the sport. The "it's a team sport" argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the sport and bit of a nonsensical reason to oppose: by that metric, we shouldn't post any acting award for actors as films are a team endeavour requiring multiple teams of varying roles, book authors as without publishers they would not be able to win any prizes, any musician not singing solely acapella, presidents winning elections as without the electorate and their parties they would not be able to win the office, Nobel Prize winners as without funding and laboratories they would not be able to conduct their research etc. etc.. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
We don’t post acting awards; we generally highlight the best film/picture awards. The other examples you provide (writing, singing, research) are all individual or small group endeavors with support staff. The sports analogy to your examples would be a tennis player or golfer and his/her support team. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Death announced on this day. Needs source work.Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah article needs a lot of work as it lacks citations but given that a bunch of articles just came out about him following his death, it should hopefully be easy to fix. Gauze↵ 21:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Along with sourcing issues/under sourced, the article's layout is not the best, this is a biography of a gamer not a television series. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It appears that the tournaments of his game are titled "Season N", like League of Legends: Season 1 World Championship, so headers like "Season 1" are the same as "2024-25 season" in ball sports. But the layout, citations, and accessibility to the uninformed are far from standard. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Currect soircing is very weak to support notability, none of those sources would meet reliable. I would take to AFD but let's see if this can be improved for ITNRD. If not, then AFD would be appropriate. Masem (t) 21:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Barely any sources. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose article is nowhere near ITN material (Camilo Escalona was in way better shape and wasn't posted as a reference) --Bedivere (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support in my controversial take that might flame the fucking opinion Sorry for swearing if you arent fond. Anyways, he was one of the youngest champion, but some doings need to be done with the article. FlamingMingo 🦩 22:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
All articles about recent deaths of humans and even animals and plants are posted at ITN if the page is well written - whether he was the youngest champion or oldest, or tallest or shortest. To support this nomination if the writing is improved is not a "controversial take that might flame the fucking opinion", whatever that was supposed to mean. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Per the RD nom box:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Actor most notable as Chekov from Star Trek. News just broke, but article also needs major sourcing fixes.Masem (t) 16:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait for the "citation needed" tags, especially in the later work section, to be dealt with. Then it's an obvious support. Renerpho (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Fixed up sourcing issues. Article looks good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support, everything now looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Very grim news to hear this way. Article is almost ready as the article looks decent, at least from a glance. However, when verifying a reference in a sparsely referenced paragraph in the Star Trek section, I spotted two claims that were not supported by the reference which I've marked. It might be prudent to check the references so that everything is properly sourced. In addition, there is a "By whom" tag in the fourth paragraph of the same section that might be a problem.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Sadly, this page (and its separate timeline article) have not been updated since October 18.Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support removal It appears that Ethiopia has a fairly firm grip on Tigray now and the rebel offensive is over. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose removal it is notable and was updated ~2026-57085-60 (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support removal: Having tried to add some content to these articles, it is obvious that international coverage has almost entirely dried up. I do not think there are enough quality sources to maintain the level of updates expected of an Ongoing item. --Leviavery (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support removal very little happening recently, and even less reliably sourced. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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 Added shorter, alternative blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support as his victory has been confirmed by the electoral court. Procrastineur(talk) 00:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Resolve CN tags first, also add results prose, update header prose and the aftermath section accordingly. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Looking at quality, there are a few CN tags and uncited bits that need fixing. There also needs to be prose added to resuts section; right now it's just tables. I'm also concerned about LLM use in the Campaign section by Victor R de Oliveira. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 00:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Chorchapu I suspect that Victor uses DeepL.com to reate this article, not chatgpt.com or claude.ai VitorFriboquen:] (Talk) 00:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Is better fixing article, and add more sources. VitorFriboquen:] (Talk) 00:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support article's in good shape. Rather unlikely victory for Lula --Bedivere (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Not yet ready Map in infobox is missing second-round election results by state. It's currently an empty map. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The counting isn’t still complete. but the map could already be done with simplemaps for example GustaPapp (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Info The opponent just requested the annulment of the election. ArionStar (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
He announced he will request. formally in the working hours of TSE or STF. GustaPapp (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment It is important to mention the parliamentary results too. ArionStar (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
parliamentary results are stale _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Big story, upset victory, but article is not up to snuff (yet): table-heavy, lacking prose. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Altblurb2 is short and sweet but the article isn't getting the flurry of furious edits that elections normally receive in the first 24 hours after they're called and that this article needs so I think the question is academic. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Obvious support, with a preference for altblurb2 if posted. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Jeez "obvious suppport" without explaining if the article is up to snuff is not a valid !vote. Do people read the two banners above (LOL)? Howard the Duck (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, I think in this case, it's fairly obvious why I'd support featuring the outcome of a presidential election, but that's my bad. Qwerty took the words out of my mouth. Lazesusdasiru (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, it's not just you. Even Qwerty supported a blurb on article he admitted to have a "lack of some citations". I trust the admins would be able to read through these kinds of arguments. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
No, of course people don't read those banners -- see banner blindness. The {{not a ballot}} banner is especially bloated and useless. Everyone continues to post support/oppose votes regardless and so that's the pattern which newcomers follow. And the {{ITN discussion quality notice}} is a silly innovation as it mainly repeats what's already in the nomination banner. ITN has huge amounts of boilerplate -- see all the enormous orange banners at the top of this page. No-one is going to read through all that and adding to the banner bloat just makes matters worse. So, to address the issue, I've added a {{banner holder}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
And now Stephen has removed all those superfluous templates and more besides. That's fine by me. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm well aware of these discussions prioritizing consensus. I simply kinda wanted to join in and forgot that I had to give an argument to back it up Lazesusdasiru (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Elections are always significant events and this one was discussed widely by the international media because of a shift to the right-wing in Latin America which Brazil seems to have been immune to, meaning this is a very notable result since the opposite result was predicted. I am however concerned about the lack of some citations. I support alternative blurb 2 when it comes time to post this event. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support This is quite a significant result so we should post it quickly but the article will still need work. For example, the 2 hour extension of the polling, which got lots of coverage, doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The 2 hour extension of the polling is not mentioned at all, the 2nd round campaign is not described at all, the campaign section is orange-tagged, most sections such as the candidates and results sections are just a sea of tables, akin to frequent quality issues on sports articles. Article is also incredibly long and difficult to navigate and probably could do with further splits per WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:FORK and I would expect there be enough content to have a 2026 Brazilian second round presidential election article. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak support alt2. – Obviously very significant news making headlines, but article not quite there yet, needs to and should be able to be fixed soon. Jiewei Xiong (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb2 pending the LLM orange tag being addressed and a few missing refs. I added some prose in the Aftermath section which mentions the voting hours extension and Bolsonaro's refusal to concede. Davey2116 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Not ready, LLM tag in the Campaign section and sparse sourcing issues in the article overall. I suggest we wait until both issues are fixed, as well as see what the article looks like after the split discussion has been decided. I think alt2 has the best wording. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support with the caveat that the blurb or altblurb1 should read 2026 Brazilian presidential election, which is a redirect to the general election article. "General election" is broader and in many places specifically refers to legislative elections while "presidential election" is likely to be clearer on this. See a discussion on splitting out presidential election which looks to have consensus for splitting, so the blurb will need to be changed anyways when that is closed. From a quick read of the campaign section, I don't think the LLM content is particularly egregious nor do I think it damages the quality of the article, I don't think it breaks WP:ITNQUALITY. In its current state it seems quite well cited so I'm not too worried about that. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2, but there are two sections currently flagged for possible LLM content. I don't have time to look into those in detail, but the issue should be resolved (one way or another) before posting. The rest of the article looks to be updated and sufficiently referenced. Modest Geniustalk 14:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2. Although this discussion is not relevant for publication purposes, there are no valid grounds to annul the election due to the two-hour extension; the number of people who voted after 5:00 PM was fewer than 40,000, whereas the margin of votes between the two candidates exceeded 3 million. Therefore, even if the votes cast after 5:00 PM were annulled, the result would remain unchanged. A.WagnerC✍ (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support obviously Yacàwotçã (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong support Article is in good shape Kampolama (user) 04:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty important topic, I mean its one of the biggest countries in this world... Zuniwang (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This is ITNR. It means it is important. Articles do not get posted here solely because "it is important". Howard the Duck (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
IDK what that means, I'm pretty much new in commmenting "In the news" sections and editing wikipedia in general, so sry for being unprofessional... Zuniwang (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now as one section is orange-tagged for possible LLM use. Once it's fixed, consider my vote a support. TheKip(contribs) 05:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Orange tag has been resolved. TheKip(contribs) 07:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - No orange or cn tags. It’s ready for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Admin comment I checked the article whether it's ready as the latest contributions suggested that much. After a couple of citation needed tags (not necessarily a big problem), I came across a section that I had to orange-tag for ref improvements. That's a showstopper; this needs to be addressed. Schwede66 09:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Schwede66 already solved. Did you check the sources? Apparently they were there, but only in the table. Yacàwotçã (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, you’ve got it. The references were only in the table. The prose underneath the table was unreferenced. And that was the problem. Schwede66 15:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Please mark ready if taken care of, I can post. Tone 17:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Info Opponent Flávio Bolsonaro has apparently left the country. ArionStar (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Metrópoles confirmed. ArionStar (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I've done a search on the Flavio Bolsonaro leaving the country situation, and from what I can see, all sources are saying it's a rumor.In solidarity, shane(talk to me if you want!) 17:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm following the news here in the country minute by minute; two newspapers have already confirmed the departure (Metrópoles and Folha de S.Paulo, according to close people). ArionStar (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Many international outlets (The Guardian, CNN, Euronews) seem to be confirming this as well. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 18:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Unless Flavio himself or a primary source (the Liberal Party itself) confirms it, it is just a rumor, and should not be state In solidarity, shane(talk to me if you want!) 18:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia need primary sources? ArionStar (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't support it appearing here - it's a level of detail we wouldn't normally give, apart from anything else. But since when have we preferred primary sources to secondary? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose altblurb4, rumors of Flávio fleeing the country are not yet confirmed. ~2026-57387-86 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb 2 or 3 - This is a huge and internationally-reported story, and is ITNR. The copy-editing issues appear to be fixed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Posting. Please upload the photo. --Tone 20:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What about Flávio Bolsonaro going to the United States? ArionStar (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
There was no consensus to include this in the blurb. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 15:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb4 His defection is being largely covered by national and international newspapers and channels. ArionStar (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Soviet weightlifter who won a gold medal at the 1976 Summer Olympics.Mellk (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Personal records section lacks references. SpencerT•C 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Current voice artist for Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck for last few decades. Article has the typical sourcing issues for actors (lack of sources in the filmography and other similar lists)Masem (t) 03:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
2020 was not a few decades ago, I hope. Celjski Grad (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
support he's been active as a voice actor in the animation scene for years. not sure about general notability to the average person but most people will know him by voice. astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 13:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
All recently deceased people with Wikipedia biographies are presumed to be significant enough to be posted at Recent Deaths. These items should be reviewed only on quality. @AstralAlley: please re-evaluate your !vote. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 15:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
noted for future:] thanks. i'm still a support, citation issues are, as nominator says, typical of these actor articles, might be able to fix lightly but everything else is good to go. astral ▪️ he/him ▪️ >:3 15:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now as there is multiple citations missing, however, support once issues are fixed. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Sources added, article looks good TheFellaVB (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Looks ready to post. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not ready Prose is fine but Filmography still has plenty of holes in referencing. ~2026-57527-24 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I added as much sources as I could. For the remaining unsourced roles, I placed them at the bottom of each table as hidden text. Harushiga(talk) 05:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Will probably update the blurb once full results are confirmed this evening though the Student List has most likely won.Jalapeño(user / talk / guestbook) 20:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
As the results come in, expect improvements in article quality, specifically relating to results prose, the aftermath section, and the header. Vucic actually conceding the election to the Student List is a very significant thing. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Not to WP:CRYSTAL too much but I'm skeptical of such a quick resignation. We should probably let it play out, and see what happens in the end. With the official results Jalapeño(user / talk / guestbook) 20:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, Vucic has already resigned, hasn’t he? He was gambling on his party winning and him becoming PM, but that hasn’t turned out as he planned. For the past few weeks the de facto leader of Serbia has been a private citizen, and now with the election results we don’t know his future plans. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 20:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong support The header prose, results prose, and aftermath section were updated accordingly and are now present. The Serbia election is now in a better position to be posted within a day or two later after the election, pending further result updates. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support once updated This is breaking news so I can’t expect a detailed update yet, but aside from that it is plenty comprehensive and fully sourced. Great quality for an election article. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 20:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
very strong support orban level developement in serbia ~2026-57076-69 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Strong support once issues resolved.... Sorry, I know ITN/R I should look at quality only, but just came back from celebrations... byteflushTalk 00:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Has conceded defeat in parliamentary elections. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb This is ITNR, so pending expected improvements to the article, and the full preliminary result coming in, it should be posted. However, I prefer reversing the blurb to have the subject of the sentence be the winner of the election. Hence I have proposed an alternative blurb that rephrases things.Gust Justice (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb, I'm not sure why you wouldn't directly say who won. KhokcheHendi (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait 60% of the vote has been counted. When we get to 90%, then sources should be able to call it. In solidarity, shane(talk to me if you want!) 03:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@EditorShane3456 Actually, it's 90% . And sources have called it a long time ago. byteflushTalk 04:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb. – Both significance and quality are there. Jiewei Xiong (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Posting, looks complete. --Tone 17:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Pull Until the prime minister's appointment. ArionStar (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That may not be for a while. I think it's best to post the results of the election now, while they're fresh. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 21:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't pull - After the Republic Electoral Commission (RIK) announces the final results, the parliament has 30 days to hold an inaugural session. After that, it has another 90 days to elect the new gov't (including the PM). We can't actually wait for that to happen. byteflushTalk 22:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't pull The election result is more important than the PM, more so than usual in this case. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Nonsense, and you know that full well. Elections are ITNR, and appointments of new PMs can be posted in exceptional cases. It’s been done this way many times… and you know it _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The main story here is that the Student List defeated an authoritarian party that was in power for 14 years. Considering that they won a majority of seats, the next PM will definitely come from the Student List-which won't be the main story in the news, as it is already known that this will happen. Vacant0(talk•contribs) 11:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose pull - What are you talking about? There's no rule to say we should wait for a potentially protracted appointment process. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That was delayed due to quality. Someone actually did suggest holding for the PM, and they were similarly keelhauled for it. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
If we don't post election results for quality reasons, we sometimes post the resulting appointment if it happens separately. That's not a reason to pull a good-quality election story, whether or not there is a government-forming process after it. (In this case, we might post both, I think, because the election result doesn't lead to an obvious individual being identified as leader. Something similar may happen in the Israeli case.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Bulgarian politician who was a former MEP. There are some sourcing issues within the article, which I'm trying to fixTNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 18:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Sourcing issues appear to be fixed, article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 12:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Support No major issues spotted. Yakikaki (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
An 18-storey building under construction collapses in Eastleigh, Nairobi, Kenya, leaving seven people missing and at least one injured. Rescue teams establish contact with some people trapped beneath the rubble. (AFP via The Australian)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American soprano who excelled at the Met and at great opera houses of the world in the "light" roles (Adina, Susanna). The article was substantially expanded by 4meter4 (adding 110 refs, to give you an idea, - I brought only one); I feel only like a copy-editor, but as it's long, that's also work;) - We waited for another obit so far. The only one giving her day of death is BR (in German, and I have no idea where they got it from). It's certainly the day her death was in the news.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Article of good quality.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Significant unsourced content. Did the article change after you nominated @Abcmaxx:?--Launchballer 07:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer: just the production section needs a few more citations and one or two other sentences but other than that the article is in overall good shape. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I have added lots and lots of references, article should be in good shape now. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
ITN requires 'ographies to be sourced though.--Launchballer 20:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, there is one sentence that doesn't have a source, but it's his death date and that's referenced in the lead, so I'm happy to support this.--Launchballer 14:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Article:2026 West Bank lockdown (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Israel orders a "full lockdown" of the West Bank after an attack by two Palestinians that leaves the attackers and two Israeli soldiers dead. Thousands of Palestinians have been displaced. (Post) Alternative blurb:Israel orders a "full lockdown" of the West Bank after an attack by two Palestinians on an IDF checkpoint, resulting in thousands being displaced.
Agree, I've added the notice to the top TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 14:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Support An escalation of the Middle Eastern crisis. ArionStar (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is yet a detail in the ongoing saga for which we already have 2 ongoings. Also this is too detailed. No prejudice about adding an "Ethnic Cleansing by Israel" or combining the Iran/Yemen theatres of this war and this, into a single Ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
It's all part of the former. That should be the ongoing - not just the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and/or the genocide in Gaza. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Part of a broader Middle Eastern crisis that has engulfed the world's attention for a long time. Particularly significant development as it is in the run-up to an election in Israel. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support This is having large-scale effects across the West Bank, with houses being demolished and mobility severely restricted. It isn't covered directly under any of the Ongoings. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 18:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I'm not really seeing how this is making things that much materially different than the average day-to-day treatment of the West Bank. TheKip(contribs) 05:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose With everything going on in the middle-east, this doesn't seem important enough for a blurb. It is not rare for such events to occur in the West bank. Tradediatalk 09:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Important events don't have to be rare. ArionStar (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Major escalation, especially as it's clear that it won't end soon. To be blunt I find the constant use of "just a typical day in Palestine" whenever major news happens there to be uninformative and trite, and is increasingly clear that it's used as an excuse to avoid discussing it at all. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 16:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Polish footballer. Article needs expansion and better referencing. Article created from Polish Wikipedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Not yet ready Article has multiple CN tags. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: A rare mass shooting at a house of worship in Jordan. Currently in the news.Militant.Insurgency (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait Article is too short right now, and it's not yet clear who is responsible for the attack TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 15:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Article has been expanded significantly, and there is now a possible link to ISIS/ISIL, therefore support. TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 14:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Seven fatalities, targeting a church and covered internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, since I wrote that comment, two more people have died, I believe three days of national mourning were announced and the government carried out deadly strikes on Syria. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Jordan is in the Middle East but it is not a country home to terrorism. ArionStar (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Support. Article has enough depht and looks well-written to me (only one minor cleanup tag currently). The level of international coverage is significant enough for ITN as well. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per above. Terrorist incidents are comparatively rare in Jordan and this has received large coverage. TheKip(contribs) 05:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm in the process of posting this. However, a situation has arisen that I haven't come across before. The ITN image currently belongs to the bottom item. So a new one will have to be posted. This article has an image, but it's of poor quality. Either way, this article isn't in top spot, but the 2026 Serbian parliamentary election is. The winner of that election, the Student List, deliberately does not have a leader. They have someone who is heading their list, but that person isn't named in the blurb. Who is instead named in that blurb is the person who lost the election: Aleksandar Vučić. Hence, I'll be posting a photo of a person who has lost an election. That will no doubt cause some discussion and I'm not wedded to that decision. But in order to get things moving, that's what I've done. If it does need a discussion, please move that to the talk page and ping me. Any admin is welcome to post a different image without me commenting first. Schwede66 08:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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: Canadian professional ice hockey player and coach.ItsShandog (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait, Junior career section needs citations, and there are a couple citation needed tags that need good sourcing. Support if those are added in a good manner. Gauze↵ 12:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
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: Racehorse that won the 2012 Japanese Derby, that passed away today . Article is long enough and sourced.RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Seems well-sourced, and I have referenced the date of birth TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 16:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
France reports the first human case of the livestock Shamonda virus in a patient who died after being hospitalized with an unrelated condition. (Reuters)
A Guatemalancourt sentences seven former police officers to prison terms of up to 60 years for offenses related to the 2024 torture and killing of a gay couple at a police station. (AFP via France 24)
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake in Tibet, 16 dead and 76 injured. Article is long enough and in fully sourced.Chorchapu (talk|edits) 20:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose article is good quality, but we have posted all 5 of the deadlier quakes this year, so I think have reached the cutoff for lesser impact of frequently occurring events. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality good, 7.0 earthquake is a rare and deadly event. Given the strict information censorship is particularly stringent in Tibet, the real death toll is likely much higher, but regardless of that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not very convincing. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - Article is good quality, the story is very much in the news (allowing for reporting restrictions, as noted), and so I think we should post it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
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: Dutch composer and academic teacher, both for decades, on the silent side. The so far only obit appeared on 22 October, therefore I placed it here. It relies heavily on our article. That was created 2 decades ago by Jerome Kohl, solid work, especially musical analysis and the lists of publications and works. In gratitude--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support 3618 characters (542 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 17:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 16:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
Not ready Sakharov Prize needs an update. Grimes2 14:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Done by Placeholderer Grimes2 19:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Support don’t see any glaring issues with either article. TheKip(contribs) 06:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Currently Sakharov Prize appears to be missing from the ICC article (doesn't appear in the search bar). Weird. Brandmeistertalk 10:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Not ready ICC article has faulty and duplicate refs. Grimes2 10:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Duplicate refs in-article should be all set—were mostly from a template Placeholderer (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Admin comment This isn't ready. WP:ITNUPDATE states: The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update in the body of an established article (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. I note that the update in the ICC article is a single sentence. Schwede66 08:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Schwede66 'tis now four sentences—I'm not sure that much more is worth adding, since a recurring prize isn't as much of a developing event as, like, a military offensive Placeholderer (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. That will do. However, I see that there's an orange tag as well (Criticism section). That needs to go before this can be posted. Schwede66 21:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah... that'll probably take a bigger rewrite than can be done in 1.5 days. The "State reactions and criticism" section has the same problems I think Placeholderer (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
References
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:
.jpg)
