Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Novaya Gazeta

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

RD: Jan Byś

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

RD: Andrés Mendoza (serial killer)

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

Support - No issues and decent quality. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: June Jones

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

(Blurb ready) RD/Blurb: Patrick Stewart

Article: Patrick Stewart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British thespian and actor Patrick Stewart dies at 86. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British actor Patrick Stewart dies at the age of 86.

News source(s): THR

Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (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 reported so article needs updates. Aryicle is close, and I feel his cross media career and details covered by his honors section nake a blurb reasonable (though shpuld expand with legacy asoects) Masem (t) 19:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb, leading actor and thespian. Edit conflicts on article left-and-right, but it looks to be in a decent state. RIP. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Just really famous, not transformational in any way. Yes, he played Professor X and Picard, and won lots of awards. No, I don't believe this is what a death blurb is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  Some citations are needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb A major loss, RIP. A larger update will probably be necessary though. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not around here that often; if he were to get a blurb (not weighing in one way or the other), should it mention one or two things he actually did (and his status as a knight)? Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

we could add Sir, but generally thats the extent of additional recognition. The article shpuld properly cover the highlights in the lead. Masem (t) 20:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb, household name, top of his field. Sahaib (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb - His latter-day fame in Star Trek and X-Men was considerable, but let's not let it obscure that he was also one of the leading Shakespearean actors of his generation. I also remember him as Sejanus in I, Claudius; he really was in a tremendous range of things, and was certainly influential in the field of stage acting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  added the thespian aspect to blurb, as thats often forgotten. Masem (t) 20:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  ”Thespian” is redundant; it’s just another word for “actor”. Ham II (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb - Make it so. Fdfexoex (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb Notable enough to warrant one CY223 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support Blurb once ready - Some additional sourcing needed for it to be ready to post, but absolutely deserving of a blurb, one of the most well known and prolific actors of his generation, & the fact he’s remained famous and transformational up until the end of his life shows his impact on the industry. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb He played very memorable characters, but I don't see him as globally transformational. His manner of death does not rise to great notoriety, either. rawmustard (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose both on quality CN needs to be fixed. Oppose blurb popularity≠notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose blurb Great actor who I saw on stage a few times, but not transformational. If the blurb does get voted in by trekkie and Xmen fans, then for the love of all that is holy, not the current and awful version of "thespian and actor": just "actor" will suffice, but I hope level heads prevail and we don't get yet another 'Carrie Fisher moment'. Oppose RD at present on quality grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  the Carrie Fisher issue was that she was famous for a recurring character in a popular movie series, but had little else impact full about her career. Stewart was a highly respected stage actor (he was knighted for his stage performances) before he became the huge TV/film star, and even after semi retirement, remained an advocate for gay rights among other aspects. He was also recieved nuneeous top awards indicating how he stood out from others in the field. We are going to have to deal with nerd-famous/pop culture !voting, but we need to look at the sum of the career and if the article properly shows which he meets the najor figure criteria, which as i noted needs inprovement but its not absent nor a long ways off. Masem (t) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  I saw him on stage several times (and multiple times on film in X-Men and a Marvel), read his autobiography and liked him a lot, but he wasn’t transformational, nor does he reach the level for a blurb IMO. This really is looking more and more like a ‘Carrie Fisher moment’, and the sooner ITN takes steps to stop the fan-voting on film stars, the better it will be. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support once ready First Walter Koenig and now him? This is truly sad. RIP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreaderick (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb Outstanding in his field of theatre and TV, resurrected a sci fi series that lives to this day, article well written. Make it so Number One. Engage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb The honours section makes a sufficient case that he had a transformational career. He had major impacts in both theatre and Sci Fi film. The bar should not be set so high that only the Mandelas of the world get a blurb (and it has never been that high) Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support Patrick Stewart is getting a blurb, folks. (agree with removing "thespian"). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment It's pretty clear there's not a settled consensus on RD blurbability for household names, which will 1) naturally attract a lot of !votes and votes, and 2) conflate fan voting with reasoned argument. There also appears to be a kind of assumed consensus that cannot possibly gel with these "household names" circumstances, and part of the point of these discussions is to reconcile the two. This is difficult if a consensus for blurbability is already assumed because, again, these are different circumstances (cf Carrie Fisher incident, whatever that is (I can guess)). Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC) fwiw I'm not a star trek fan, and I loathe the MCU. I love I Claudius?

The "Carrie Fisher" incident just refers to the fact that many think she should not have been posted as an RD Blurb when she passed away in 2016, but there was broad consensus for posting her. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb when ready. Stewart was more than just the sum of his two most famous film roles, as the man maintained widely recognised legacy in film, TV, theatre as well as with philanthropy, which all of these have been lauded and awarded for. By all accounts, he is deserving of a blurb here. CaptainGalaxy 20:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb - In my view, an obvious blurb per above. Jusdafax (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Highly influential theatre and pop culture actor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Transformative, infinitely versatile, spectacularly talented stage and screen actor. Ouro (blah blah) 20:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per GenevieveDEon. Significant impact on the acting profession and popular culture. Davey2116 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb He lent the gravitas of Shakespear to Sci-Fi; allowing it to be taken seriously. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a great fan of his work, but if the blurb requisites for the death of a person is that they be sui generis, I fail to see that substantiated by anyone who has written "support blurb" above. He was good, he was certainly popular...was he in a class all his own, though, in terms of acting? -- Veggies (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality at the moment; there are two entire paragraphs without citations and a few cn tags. Oppose blurb in any case, I agree that he was a good actor but as some others have pointed out hardly transformational. Yakikaki (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb He was a central character of two well known franchises. Could be argued the central figure of one of them. Known for his Shakespearean work as well. Knighted. Known for his philanthropy. An immense, outspoken, positive influence and role model for millions of people. And a household name. †dismas†|^(talk) 21:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb an actual Mandela/Thatcher level individual. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb 100%. He was one of the most influential people in the Star Trek franchise. Incredibly notable. Sumde2 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  If this were a Star Trek wiki, it would be appropriate, but it simply is not. rawmustard (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  And Star Trek is also one of the most influential media franchises of all time. Not to mention his acting career in several other films, all of them which are definitely notable enough. sumde2 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  100% agree. Being a recognizable character in a fictional series or movie doesn't make someone transformative. -- Veggies (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb I'm always a little hesitant when we get actors who are famous for "Wikipedia editor friendly" activities such as Star Trek, lest we end up with another fiasco like Carrie Fisher, but Stewart is on a different level, not least for his legendary stage acting, and I suspect some of those !voting Oppose above are only aware of him for such parts (which sort of balances it out, but whatever). Article isn't quite up to scratch yet, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Very sad news to hear. I oppose blurb per Muboshgu. Despite being a massive fan of TNG, I do not think he was transformative enough to warrant a blurb. We can't blurb every major actor that dies. ~2026-57643-21 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb probably futilely. This is going to be a repeat of the Carrie Fisher tidal wave of WP:FAN !votes. But no he does not meet our customary criteria for a death blurb. Very sad news though. I was a fan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb per Muboshgu, and others. Haven't looked closely enough to assess quality. Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb Per above. Star Trek is an undeniably transformative work in the realm of Science Fiction, and he is possibly one of the most easily recognized actors in the world for his role in that alone. Rockview13 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb - Although I am not a fan of the Star Trek franchise (yet), I understand that he is easily one of the most well-known actors in his field. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Strong support blurb He inspired several other actors, such as Hugh Jackman. ArionStar (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support why is this not on the main page? Actually someone everyone has heard of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Support An ENORMOUS name that everyone has heard of. It this isn't what ITN is for, I don't know what is... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb, an iconic stage and film actor. Nsk92 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above. Even beyond Star Trek he's got an outsized impact on his field internationally. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 23:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blub, a generationally important actor who also did fine work in 2 long-lasting screen roles. The article looked well developed and well supported to me, but lemme see if I can ref anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Major cultural figure. Had Wikipedia been around in the 17th century, some of you would have opposed blurbing the death of William Shakespeare. The Vital One (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Multiple iconic roles, has had a major influence on other actors, and was considered a leading figure in stage acting. Undoubtedly blurb-worthy. The article has also received enough improvements to where it is of sufficient quality to post. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 00:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb I think Stewart was probably at, or near, the top of his field as a stage actor, but I would argue he wasn't at the top of his field as a screen actor; he was usually an ensemble player in film and television. Even on the stage, there are a few obvious British names still living who have surely been more transformative and prominent over their careers. I think the amount of awards Stewart has received backs this up; he was never nominated for an Oscar or a BAFTA and never won an Emmy, Golden Globe or a Tony. Stewart is often associated with Ian McKellen but he's more on the level of Derek Jacobi when you look at his career and awards. I don't think many would support blurbing Jacobi when the day comes, but then it isn't actually the field Stewart was at the top of that is getting him all of these votes; what is doing the heavy-lifting for Stewart in this discussion is Star Trek. When we're talking about cultural prominence, Picard is arguably his only major leading role. For that reason, I think we need to be very wary indeed about the Carrie Fisher effect. I think, also, that comments about how we must blurb him because "everyone has heard of" him are a bit inappropriate; there are a lot of "household name" elderly actors from Western film and TV alive right now and if that argument held water, we'd be blurbing them willy nilly. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your oppose, but Star Trek is not the only leading role that Stewart was prominent for. He also starred as Charles Xavier in the Fox X-Men series. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that I haven't watched Star Trek, so didn't vote for the blurb because of that. Sahaib (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb He is the sort of household name that his death will and has led to widespread coverage. Altblurb supported without thespian. Arguably transformative in science fiction, as he took to it as if it was a Shakespearean role and elevated it from just "science fiction" to something more.PliskorCor (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Would also add that another blurb is up for consideration. A Mexican politician. I'm not going to argue for or against them being blurbed, and so far consensus seems to be that they will. I will say that if they are blurbed and Stewart is not. Then it will be just another chapter in the book of wiki editors finding any excuse not to include popular events of blurbs, in favour of events of blurbs that will have little public appeal. I'm sure someone will post a policy etc. But sometimes we have to think "What will people coming to wiki who aren't editors actually care about".PliskorCor (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb If he can't make it onto the blurb section then what actor could? Jon698 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Support blurb. Was transformative in the field of sci-fi. BilboBeggins (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb Highly acclaimed classical Shakespearean actor of stage and screen, a well deserved blurb. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment As nominator, I don't feel the article is just ready yet for a blurb. As I mentioned, we need to better expand why he was considered a great figure. There's a limited basis in "Acting credits and accolades" to support this but it really needs to be strengthened to support the "major figure" aspect of RD Blurbs. From the few obits I've seen, this should be really easy to expand with those. Otherwise, as many opposes point out, this is just being supported because he was nerd-famous, and that is NOT a reason to post a blurb. Masem (t) 02:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  See Patrick Stewart on stage and screen. ArionStar (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Highly famous, yes, although we should keep in mind that actors have an edge by default over other professions in terms of being recognizable to the public eye. However, that level of recognition alone is far from reaching the threshold of "transformative" in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 03:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Being "transformative" is not a death blurb criterion, "major figure" is. ArionStar (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support any option: "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY." The article had only one citation needed tag, for a sentence that the article currently can do without and can be restored if a suitable source can be found. (Which might be the credits for the program itself? Not sure here. Moving on, though.) If there is anything deficient, it would be Patrick Stewart on stage and screen, which is not being linked to. I will say that I am surprised by those opposed. Stewart did work in films over six separate decades, television work over seven decades, and stage work over six decades. His death is on the front page of the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Australian Broadcasting Company, BBC, and CNN. That despite the US election season that is less than a week away for the AP and CNN. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Goku, please state if you support RD, which do not need arguments on importance, just if the article is up to snuff, or for a blurb, where WP:ITNRDBLURB has to be satisfied. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  I am supportive of any option, which is why I specifically did not say just the blurb, but I will correct that. (Though I would not be surprised if someone posts to ERRORS over the usage of thespian.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb per Humbledaisy. Love the guy, but not quite significant enough. The next ten years and more are going to see a considerable rise in celebrity deaths, given the boomer boom in the entertainment industry (Mick Jagger, Dustin Hoffman, Diana Ross, etc), and we must prepared to set the bar pretty high in anticipation of this. Ericoides (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Elke Sommer

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)
• Oppose Far from ready; swathes of unreferenced content. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

(Blurb ready) RD/Blurb: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas

Article: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Mexican politician Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (pictured) dies at the age of 92. (Post)

News source(s): New York Times

Credits:

• Nominated by Tbhotch (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Mexican politician and a leading figure in the country's left-wing politics during the last century. The article covers the major aspects of his life. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Article quality is good enough. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support Article looks good. Wouldn't be opposed to a blurb given how is death is receiving international coverage, with many referring to him as an instrumental figure in Mexico's democratic transformation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Dare I suggest a blurb? I'm undecided on it myself right now but from reading the article he seems to have had a pivotal role in Mexican democracy. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. After reading the obits (Spanish and English/international sources), Cardenas was an instrumental figure in the country's democratic transformation. His role in the 1988 election (which was actually rigged against him) alone I'd argue would warrant him to be blurb worthy. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Chorchapu: Expanded the article and his legacy section shows how his leftist politics didn't just impact Mexico but Latin America. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• I would support a blurb. Cardenas was fundamental to the democratic transformation of Mexico, not only in 1988, but also in 1994. A towering figure for the Mexican left, Latin America, and a loss for the world. River10000 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Article quality is sufficient, and according to his article, he played a major role in Mexico transforming from a one-party state to a proper democracy. His major impact on a major country is blurb-worthy. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Here is where a proposed blurb was added to the template. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Article quality looks good, legacy section establishes why considered a major figure. Masem (t) 20:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Per TDKR and QuicoleJR. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb Per TDKR and QuicoleJR. CaptainGalaxy 20:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per Masem. Transformational effect on Mexico's democracy and the end of one-party PRI rule. Davey2116 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb considering his role in the 1988 Mexican general election and the movement beyond the two-party system between the PAN and the PRI, as well as his role within Mexico, I'd say it justifies a blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Alvin Hellerstein

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

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

(Posted) 2026 World Series

Article: 2026 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Milwaukee Brewers defeat the Tampa Bay Rays to win the World Series (MVP William Contreras pictured). (Post)

News source(s):

Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DeMarcusCousinsCousin (talk · give credit) and Allen2 (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.

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

• Support life is pain (I chose to be a Cubs fan) CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 03:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hey, unless you're somehow <9 years old you've got a World Series win in your lifetime. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  There are only 7 teams that have won more recently! GreatCaesarsGhost 11:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support Don't see any glaring issues. Congrats to the Brew Crew! The Kip ^(contribs) 04:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support Well put together. 57 years in the brewing to get to this pinnacle. CoatCheck (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I always have a chuckle on how people would react when they see "MVP" on the Main Page... Howard the Duck (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's linked, so they can click it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Although this does bring up a problem of WP:SEAOFBLUE. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

True, but that hasn't stopped us before. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Does this have a "alternative" or dirty meaning? As a sports fan, the only interpretation of MVP that I have is Most Valuable Player. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe it is a USA-centric term that other countries don't have any meaning for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Nah, most other sports have "Man/Woman of the match/series/tournament", they just didn't invent a rather odd TLA for it. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out this original comment: I always have a chuckle on how people would react when they see "MVP" on the Main Page. Must be a meme or something I am missing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:11, 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)

• Support And tagging ready Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Let’s post it. Jusdafax (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Mada Masr shutdown

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_gigs ^talk_contribs 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Article: Dolores Huerta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American labor activist Dolores Huerta (pictured) dies at the age of 96 (Post)

News source(s):

Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (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) 16:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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. The Kip ^(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)

Support blurb. For reasons states by @TDKR Chicago 101 and @Oscar . Comecoquito (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb as per Masem, TDKR Chicago 101, and The Kip. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
• 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" 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)

Oppose Blurb per alsor Rockview13 (talk) 21:09, 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

  • 2024 17 in 365 days = one every 21 days
  • 2025 30 in 365 days = one every 12 days
  • 2026 18 in 302 days = one every 17 days

  Another issue is that few women get RD blurbs. Only 5 so far this year (Bajrakitiyabha, Dolly Parton, Yayoi Kusama, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Hamilton (software engineer)).

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• Support blurb as per Masem, TDKR, and The Kip. Significant evidence that she was a transformational figure in the realm of labour activism. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above, especially in light of the fact that she retroactively received long-overdue celebration and historical recognition earlier this year after the allegations against Cesar Chavez. By the way, she coined the phrase "Sí se puede" in 1972, a precursor of Obama's "Yes we can". Davey2116 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  Support Blurb per this argument. There were shameful reasons her legacy wasn’t celebrated as heavily until now, and we ought to reflect that. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb - One of the most influential labour leaders and workers' rights activists of the 20th century, who remained active into the 21st. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb As mentioned by several others, not to mention just as influential as Gloria Eteinem. Erick (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb per Alsor and others. Agree with Muboshgu and others that there are way too many RD blurb nominations recently. Many of these RD blurb nominations have failed, but my personal opinion is that someone should be "Mandela/Thatcher" level to qualify for an RD blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  "Mandela/Thatcher" level is a highly questionable argument. ArionStar (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Fátima Báñez

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. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hold the breath she is still missing as 29/10/2026 per RS: https://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20261029/fatima-banez-desaparecida-accidente-trenes-toledo-135872242 _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Support been working on the article, might be ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Japan Series

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. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

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

• Sam and Ben must be disappointed. Wait (AKA Oppose) on quality per above, although it's gotten quite a bit better since the last reply already. --SpectralIon 22:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 European unrest (ongoing)

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. The Kip ^(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)

(Ready) RD: Liu Yandong

Nominator's comments: Vice Premier of China Toadboy123 (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)

  There is now a new footnote linking to a 2013 news article reporting that she disclosed her birthday in a speech. Good enough? Do politicians really lie all the time? Is she a reliable source? :-) --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 Toledo train collision

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)

Israeli legislative election

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion.

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

Gaismagorm (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)
• Wait. You don't get points for being first. Premature nom. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:05, 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. The Kip ^(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. The Kip ^(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 per above TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀)(Tuff edits for 🥶LE SIGMAS🥶) 14:59, 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment It appears likely that Netanyahu will be leading a caretaker government for a period of 3 months or so while coalition talks happen. (Reuters) This government will have full powers but is expected to use them with restraint. But this still means that they might attack Iran again, for example. The article ought to explain these arrangements but doesn't seem to yet -- perhaps it needs to wait on a decision by Herzog. When this is decided, the blurb should explain who will be in charge pending any coalition agreement. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Suggestion The blurb nomination is becoming stale; what about posting after a formation of new government? ArionStar (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Stale? It's not been two days. And it's looking likely that a government will not be formed, so now is the time to post it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Patrick Stewart and Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas's death blurbs will be posted as soon as possible. ArionStar (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Joseph Lagu

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)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Kovacevich

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

(Posted) RD: Tetsuya Chiba

Nominator's comments: Death is announce on this date Warm 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)

  @QuicoleJR: done Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 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)

  @CantBelieveINeedAnAccount: done Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:41, 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)
• Posted – Schwede66 01:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Alfredo Sánchez Monteseirín

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

RD: Donnie Iris

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

• Support Article is of sufficient quality. RIP. Kampolama (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready due to severely deficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready, significant improvements needed. CMD (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Ballon d'Or

Article: 2026 Ballon d'Or (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Harry Kane wins the Men's Ballon d'Or and Alexia Putellas wins the Women's Ballon d'Or. (Post)

News source(s): [Ballon d’Or 2026 live updates: Kane and Putellas win top prizes, full list of results - The Athletic]

Credits:

• Nominated by Heatrave (talk · give credit)

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. The Kip ^(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)

FWIW, more people know what the Ballon d'Or is than who Mondo Duplantis is... Howard the Duck (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  Absolutely not how football works though. When you have a player of such stature as to be a Ballon d'Or nominee, the other players are support and play to that star's strengths akin to a lead musician and his band. This happens in basketball and other team sports too. How many people who don't follow the sport can name Messi's or Cristiano Ronaldo's current club? Not too many, but nearly everyone knows who they are even if they never even kicked a ball in their lives. By your reasoning Al Nassr and Inter Miami would be far more notable and recognisable than those two players. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Cyanide (gamer)

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.

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

(Posted) RD: Walter Koenig

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)

  @Renerpho: Sourcing issues addressed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 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)

  @CantBelieveINeedAnAccount: Fixed. Had to reword a paragraph to exclude unfounded material with sourced material. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written and sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Posted – Schwede66 08:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2026 Ethiopian offensive

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)
• Support removal per above. IDB.S (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2026 Brazilian general election

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

News source(s): Bloomberg News

Credits:

• Nominated by Skyshifter (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Davey2116 (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.

 Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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 His victory has been confirmed, see here. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support bold linking the word reelected would make it shorter. GustaPapp (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  Done OrdinariusFingius (talk) 02:09, 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)

• Support but LLM tag OrdinariusFingius (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

tag the sections not the article GustaPapp (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The map is also gray OrdinariusFingius (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support, and prefer altblurb2 if this is posted. CatPerson⁹⁸⁷ 03:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support for any of the blurbs.

Pondering my orb (talk) 04:00, 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)

  Also oppose altblurb3, the general election is stale. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:14, 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 Genius ^talk 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Orange tag has been resolved. The Kip ^(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)

  Unconfirmed. In solidarity, shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:42, 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)

CNN Brasil now. ArionStar (talk) 18:07, 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)

  He declared himself "leader of the country" in a letter. ArionStar (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  If anything happens off of this like in 2023, we can post then. Right now it is merely rhetoric. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  exactly. His fleeing is the type of political story we need to avoid posting unless much more significant happens. ITN needs to stay with barebone blurbs. Masem (t) 15:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: David Rigert

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. Spencer^T•C 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

RD: Eric Bauza

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)

@Bloxzge 025: some sources now added. Sahaib (talk) 18:35, 27 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)

(Posted) 2026 Serbian parliamentary election

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... byteflush _Talk 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. byteflush _Talk 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. byteflush _Talk 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)

  The 2026 Moroccan general election was posted after the prime minister's appointment. ArionStar (talk) 22:45, 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)

(Posted) RD: Slavcho Binev

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

• 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)
• Posted – robertsky (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Judith Blegen

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)

• Support 14663 characters (2380 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Good work 4meter4. Grimes2 15:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, long enough and fully sourced. Great work on the article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Dónal Lunny

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)

@Launchballer: sourced now too. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:45, 29 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)

also fixed now. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support, article seems fine in terms of quality now. Sahaib (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support article looks good to post now Otto (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• @Admins willing to post ITN: Consensus looks to have been reached. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 West Bank lockdown

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion.