Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2026

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

July 4

edit

(Posted) RD: Lothar Voigtländer

edit
Article: Lothar Voigtländer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): neue musikzeitung
Credits:

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: Composer from East Germany, electroacoustic music Grimes2 12:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 250th anniversary of American independence celebration

edit
Consensus is against posting. No need to extend this discussion any further. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: United States Semiquincentennial (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Celebrations begin across the United States for the United States Semiquincentennial. (Post)Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sure, it's the fourth every year, but this particular year has a Wikipedia article and for good reason. It's qualitatively different from last year. 🦅 Bremps... 20:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Liberty Bell... Khuft (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this is Americentric to just post our anniversary. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, maybe even Neutral. Good faith, and in the nom's defense, this isn't an unreasonable blurb idea - there is an appropriate target article that's not too stubby, it's something being talked about in the news not just in the US but globally, and readers are likely to be interested in it. That's honestly all I really think any blurb should need to pass, so I have a hard time opposing this. It's not an unimportant milestone by any means, it's one of the most noteworthy ones of our lifetimes. Many of us won't live to see the next major anniversary of US independence in 2076 (and we can only hope Wikipedia will still be around then, and as free and independent as it is today). But this is arguably just a milestone, just a number more than an event; the thing being talked about around the world is that the United States turned 250, not any specific event that took place during the celebrations. I don't think this should be rapidly closed, though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to strong Support after recalling that we posted the Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II. We do post milestone celebrations at ITN. And when she passed, one hundred percent of sections on the main page were dedicated to her, and when I suggested it was a bit much, I received a lot of pushback saying that each section of the main page acts independently and what they do or do not post should not be affected by what anyone else is doing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    With the significant difference that, in the case of Queen Elizabeth, the supports of the nomination—though not on my part—were based on the exceptional achievement of a monarch reaching 70 years on the throne. A country celebrating 250 years is so common that there are countries that double or triple that figure...BTW, the mistakes of the past should not be taken as precedents. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporters of blurbing Elizabeth II's jubilee, even though it was just a celebration for an impressive number (no different from this), largely pointed to the fact that it would likely be the only such blurb they would ever get to post in their lifetime. This is no different, it's possible that we/ITN/Wikipedia won't be around for the 300th US anniversary, it's a once in a lifetime blurb. And if any other country has a major anniversary like this, then as long as it's "in the news" and we've got a nice article then I say we post theirs too. I don't want to permanently shut the door on them by enabling a precedent like "we didn't post America, why should we post country x?" also, less importantly, we posted the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II too  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See you next year, when the 251st anniversary is celebrated, also a once-in-a-lifetime event. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I immediately thought of the Centenary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918, attended by 72 heads of state and marking a global occasion. That wasn't even nominated. Though a negative proves nothing. I struggle to imagine how recent bicentennials of Latin American independence would ever be posted, or 50-75th anniversaries in Africa or Asia. But somebody will probably reply with a reason why this one is much better. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I would like to see us post blurbs of this variety for anniversaries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. One reason why I didn't want to strongly oppose this is, because this is probably the first last and only blurb discussion for a major US anniversary ITN will ever get to vote on, an immediate snow close of this would de facto set a lifelong precedent that no other countries' anniversaries are worth posting, when I'd much rather we post more, not less.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site for celebrating anniversaries. Why should we celebrate or post about India's or Canada's independence? They'll also be celebrating their 250th anniversary. That's not the point of all this. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DYK, TFA, and OTD can do the heavy lifting of acknowledging major country founding milestones, but unless something significant happens with any events, it would be improper to do this at ITN. Masem (t) 22:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, some have wondered if we are out of sync with the other parts of the MP, and so this would make us in sync if we posted this. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We celebrated April 1 and had discussions about International Women’s Day, so I don’t see why we can’t sync up with the MP here. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are extremely agnostic of any national ties. Masem (t) 01:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a Yank myself, this anniversary dominates three of the five sections of the main page and is present in one of the others. We don't need it in ITN. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course, and surprised there is opposition. This nationwide celebration marks a key anniversary of the formation of the nation that, among other things, created enough freedom for its citizens to become the birthplace of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This nom concerns the specific anniversary, not the formation of the US itself. Departure– (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are bills of rights and debates about civil liberties that predate the United States by a long time. So... _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask "So"? American independence remains an unprecedented ongoing experiment in human history, and its successes have shaped the human race into something much different than it was in 1776. The force and direction of the concept of liberty that American independence events magnified continue even to the point of every edit on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a distinctly American-centered view of history. The idea of liberty was shaped by centuries of developments across Europe (Magna Carta, medieval Christian political thought, Protestant Reformation, Valladolid debate) and beyond, not by a single revolution, and the United States' historical legacy includes both major advances (Virginia Declaration of Rights) and serious injustices (Condor Operation, slavery...). I don't think that belongs in Wikipedia's voice. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it was, and American took the past and present concepts of liberty and ran them down the field. Others had the ideas and preknowledge that someday, somewhere, those ideas would be expanded and tested. America then created the experiment, and well-earned cheers that they've held it together for 250 years. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This reply chain seems to be getting off-topic into WP:SOAP territory. Departure– (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose American exceptionalism rears its ugly head again. 250 years isn't significant, it's an arbitrary number and most of the world's existing nation-states predate this by a long way, even though national identity has not always been a key feature of governance in human history. In fact, statistically the average global citizen can probably easily find a building that is much older than the US in their nearest town without much trouble. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the point, look where civilization was 250 years ago and where it is now because of the freedoms brought forward in America's founding documents. This may be one of those either you know or you don't situations. Maybe look around you right now and check out how many things you can see or touch in real-time that wouldn't have existed if the American experiment in human freedom had gone another way. That might give just a small portion of the barriers removed and the amount of human progress encouraged by those documents drafted and agreed to 250 years ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is denying the influence of the American founding documents, but it is an overstatement to attribute modern “civilization” or broad social progress primarily to them. The development of rights, science, and constitutional government was already well underway across Europe and other parts of the world long before 1776, and later constitutions and human rights frameworks draw on multiple, interconnected and not-only-American traditions. The current international system for the protection of rights and freedoms was also largely shaped and institutionalised through European legal and political developments, and European jurists and courts. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to second what Departure said, this is WP:SOAP / WP:NOTFORUM and it really isn't helping our chances at seeing this posted, which I also support. Few will be persuaded by rationales along the lines of "we earned this blurb by being the best most important country ever & changing the course of world history by inventing freedom", that exceptionalist rationale is the total opposite of why I support. I want us to do this for everyone equally. I support because there's precedent for posting significant numerical anniversaries, because we consistently posted birthday blurbs for the same monarch every ten years, ITN surely won't be overwhelmed with too many blurbs if we post major national celebrations around the world at a rate of once or twice per century.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree. Irrespective of our opinions on these arguments in of themselves, this argument is not going to fly amongst a section of Wikipedia already subject to longstanding accusations from folks of anti-American bias. Similar to arguments of the US being somehow unimportant. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all above. Btw, no one has said US is "somehow unimportant" _-_Alsor (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Should have added this to be in line with the main page in general, but alas, there’s less then ten minutes left in UTC time 😔. Ah, that’s British time anyway, so we could extend this to end when the day ends here in the states. Anyway, on a serious note, good anniversary receiving coverage, and Kryn is correct that it’s why we’re here on Wikipedia rn, but there are also OTD concerns. Weak Support since the rest of the main page already celebrated, but obviously it’s going to be posted out of sync. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 23:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom (and encyclopaedias) already existed long before 1776. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary freedom is an Anglo-American (and slightly French) creation, and America’s capitalist, can-do spirit and right to freedom expression is the reason why we have the largest repository of free knowledge on the planet. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I digress. My main reason for supporting has to do with the other MP parts doing it at the time. Also, for any other major national anniversary that received this level of special coverage, I would also consider supporting. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And actually switch to strong support, upon remembering the QE2 jubilees that we posted. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't you intend to bold your support? Wiki markup doesn't bold Right single quotation mark which is included on some keyboards. Departure– (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, I’m writing on my phone. — Knightoftheswords 🇺🇸 🦅 🗽 2️⃣5️⃣0️⃣ 🎉 00:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a notable and significant event, but the arguments of "America invented freedom so its anniversary deserves a blurb" are beyond ridiculous. So much for countering Wikipedia's Americentrism, huh? Loytra✨ 01:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very Americentric. I don't like comparisons, but the 150th anniversary of Canada was not posted, same with the 100th anniversary of the CCP. I do not see how this is any different. I would have not supported any of these nor the (completely unrelated) platinum jubilee. hungry (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I'm not convinced the celebrations and thereabouts themselves are notable. We can argue and bicker about whether or not the US is important for days on end, but at the end of the day, what makes 250 any more notable than 249, or for that matter, 256?
The specific America 250 celebrations and observances are the only thing I can think of being viable to blurb. As others have pointed out, it's not just some arbitrary milestone, inasmuch as it may seem to be. There are tangible things changing in the US to celebrate this specific day that they don't do every year. I'd say, to that end, the most apt comparisons are to the Diamond and Platinum Jubilees of the Queen. Looking at the archived discussion of the latter, my general understanding is that the consensus built was shaky, the posting itself controversial, and much of the sway being the specific recognition of the British monarch in places all over the world, not just within the United Kingdom, and, in particular for the Platinum, the fact that the Queen was one of history's oldest monarchs, being one of only a handful to even reign long enough to celebrate that Jubilee.
To that end, I think it's worth noting that a significant amount of coverage on this event has been on its blatant politicization in favor of the incumbent Republican government of the US. Is it, then, worth noting in the blurb that the celebrations for this milestone have been scaled down? I personally don't think there's any one altblurb that can adequately cover the level of context necessary to include it while also being short and concise enough to gain consensus over any other blurb. To that end, I'd feel uncomfortable leaving out such context in any blurb that does end up being posted. I don't necessarily believe that the concerns over America-centrism are bonafide to the level that this should be shot down based solely on that and this being a milestone. On the other hand, to say this event is not controversial within the United States, at this very moment in my nation's political climate, would be dishonest.
The way I see it, as an American, is that this Independence Day has been about average. Every effort to celebrate this year in particular over any other has been met by others withdrawing or otherwise reigning in their otherwise perennial celebrations. That is to say, the politicization of the Semiquincentennial has led to it not being of the scope or scale it would be otherwise. Thus, I can't support this as a feature. On the grounds, I've seen very little actually extraordinary about the celebrations and events today. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say a lot of them would nevertheless be occurring had the country been founded in 1775 or 1777. Dare I say, the politicization of this event has made it, in reality, more of a nationalistic advertising campaign than a genuine celebration of an otherwise arbitrary milestone.
While I disagree with their position and rationale, I think User:Vanilla Wizard summed it up best. A lot of the support !votes here really do read like we earned this blurb by being the best most important country ever & changing the course of world history by inventing freedom. Let me refine my thoughts on this blurb into as concise a way possible. This milestone, however arbitrary, is notable due to the celebrations taking place, however it's been politicized overtly and thus suffered the fate of feeling more like a marketing campaign than an wholehearted anniversary celebration. Seeing as anniversaries themselves are inconsistently handled, as per User:Unknown Temptation's rationale, including my own read of the Platinum Jubilee blurbs posted in 2022 as controversial and not necessarily sound, I think it's fair to say posting this after our platform already celebrated the semiquincentennial UTC 4 July would be tantamount to participating in publicizing an already heavily-publicized event with little actual importance in the world. It's all ceremonies at the end of the day. While ceremonies can be notable in some instances, I don't believe that these ceremonies meet that bar. Departure– (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And you say that I was the one into WP:SOAP territory. Your essay here is well thought out but misses the point of what the 'Support' editors are talking about, described, at least for me personally, above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not that deep hungry (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 3

edit

(Closed) Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce

edit
Not a tabloid/WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce get married at Madison Square Garden. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Wedding of American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift and American football player Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce takes place at Madison Square Garden.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Comedian Adam Sandler officiates the wedding of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden.
News source(s):
Credits:
Nominator's comments: As suggested by Launchballer at the article talk. Thank you! M. Billoo 09:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note how the "royal wedding" is put in quotation, since it's just a mere comparison the US media used to describe it. I doubt we're even gonna need a blurb a celebrity wedding, even if that said figure is on the calibre of, say, Michael Jackson. NotKringe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've blurbed Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, Albert and Charlene, and Harry and Meghan.--Launchballer 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how 3/4 of these blurbs involves British royals, and 3 of them were more than 15 years ago, back when the blurb standard were much lower. Harry and Meghan got a blurb mainly due to the sheer drama and controversies surrounding it. NotKringe (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspect that none of those would have been blurbed these days. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Calling it zero notable is baseless. International media is quoting it as "royal wedding" . I have added another blurb. Otherwise, I may consider DYK. M. Billoo 10:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per @~2026-33354-92 Karteno (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that it is being compared to a royal wedding in the press doesn't mean that it is one, especially as it doesn't have all the implications for dynastic succession, etc. "Just" two major celebrities getting married. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not a fan or very interested in the event myself but it has clearly been getting huge coverage as I've been hearing regular bulletins here in the UK. As a popular spectacle, it's just as significant as all the sport that ITN promotes and the article looks to be top quality with lots of content and over a hundred citations so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, we don't blurb "popular spectacle" if it ends up amounted to nothing. We have a bunch of big events here and there like state funeral or wedding, yet none of these are getting blurb for simple fact that it doesn't change anything. NotKringe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close This can't be true. A singer and a sportsman are getting married... well, fine, congratulations to them. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. We're not going to reach a (serious) consensus, so we should close the nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Victoria Cruz

edit
Article: Victoria Cruz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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: Puerto Rican trans activist. Died June 25, death announced in reliable source today (July 3). Funcrunch (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good article, consider nominating.--Launchballer 09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: Bremps... 23:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Khamenei's funeral

edit
WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Ali Khamenei days before his death
Article: State funeral of Ali Khamenei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ali Khamenei's weeklong funeral ceremonies begin across Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The state funeral of Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran assassinated during the Iran war, is held, expecting millions of attendees. Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Iranians take this funeral stuff very seriously; 30 million (about a third of Iran) is expected to be in attendance. Technically also the funeral of his family members too. Bremps... 19:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Roger Vangheluwe

edit
Article: Roger Vangheluwe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VRTNWS, De Standaard
Credits:

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: Belgian former bishop, highest ranked Belgian clergy member accused of child sex abuse --Rolluik (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He died on 1 July, was burried in secret and it was only known today publically. Rolluik (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article is of a sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 Peru general election

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

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

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

Support per before. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushtheeditor where is the reference that indicate that ONPE declared her winner? The references cited here were from last week! – robertsky (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Rushtheeditor (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted without consensus? ArionStar (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
itn/r Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushtheeditor thanks. that's the announcement of the winner of the election from last week. I thought we were waiting for an official proclamation from ONPE?
@ArionStar the consensus to post, albeit delayed, was already achieved at Special:Permalinl/1362285441#(URGENT)_2026_Peru_general_election. it seems that admins were waiting for the official proclamation to be made first anyway. – robertsky (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb 2 is better, in my opinion. ArionStar (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Dina Boluarte was the actual first female president of Peru (succeeding Castillo when he was impeached); being the first elected female president is less of an achievement. Also, the "is declared the winner" phrasing is one we usually use for dodgy elections. We shouldn't be implicitly saying the Peruvian election was not kosher. Khuft (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first woman elected is far more commendable than becoming president through a presidential succession. Boluarte was indeed the first—undoubtedly a historic achievement—but this time, the Peruvian people have, for the first time, freely chosen a woman to lead the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is commendable, but every election can lay claim to a "first" of some kind. Donald Trump was the first reality TV personality elected US president, for instance. First female head of state overall is usually considered the milestone worth highlighting. Khuft (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not fair to compare the first TV personality elected president of the U.S. with a woman elected president of a country for the first time. We’ve always highlighted the latter on this portal because, as is the case in Peru, there are many countries that still have a significant gender gap in their top leadership positions. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was posted slightly early, but it is finally official now: CNN Natg 19 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think we posted it almost a week too late. The sources have been calling it for her with varying levels of surety for almost 2 weeks, and the election authority in Peru had reported her having a winning margin at least by the 30th of June. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support I don't think we need to mention that she was the first woman 'elected' in the blurb. Boluarte was already President of Peru; the alt is technically true but could cause confusion for that reason. In addition, most of the RS are not mentioning her being the "first elected woman" in their article titles, so correspondingly we should not emphasize it in our blurb. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The opponent did not recognize her victory. ArionStar (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To this day, Donald Trump refuses to recognise Joe Biden's victory, so that fact alone doesn't invalidate posting Fujimori's win. Khuft (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Political opponents not acknowledging their defeat/making fraud claims/quite frankly being sore losers is becoming an increasingly common thing in general elections worldwide. If we make this a reason not to post an election because the other side is having a hard time admitting defeat/making unsustainable claims/conspiracy theories, nothing will get posted.
    We’d be feeding into their narrative of wanting to undermine their respective democratic process. Plus it goes without saying in most cases, these claims get tossed out in court or independent observers despite said claims. We should never oppose an election result getting posted to INT if the opposition refuses to concede or makes conspiracy theories about their defeat. The only instance would be if a higher court actively investigates the results or does find irregularities which then the election would be nulled (which that itself would be an ITN story). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to post, but I agree with the fact that the opponent's refusal to concede defeat makes the term "declared" more impartial. ArionStar (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we reserve "declared" language for Mr. Putin and his ilk. Bremps... 19:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were heavily litigated (a la the 2000 US presidential election in Florida), giving that context would fit in the blurb (it predated Wikipedia, much less ITN, so we can only speculate what blurb would have been chosen; probably something along the lines of "George Bush wins the US presidential election as the Supreme Court orders a stop to vote recounts"). Here it is just "the normal electoral process played out and the loser is claiming it is invalid", which is annoyingly common in the west (and not limited to one side or the other). ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

edit

RD: Lam Wing-kee

edit
Article: Lam Wing-kee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HKFP
Credits:

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.

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

Not ready – Missing citations on the paragraph beginning with Three days later, on the day he was due to return.... Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What have verified, that paragraph is supported by the source at the end of the paragraph. I have added additional references, but they are all of the same information. – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, I'll change my !vote to support. Article looks good to go. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Anna Dawson

edit
Article: Anna Dawson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

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

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

  • Comment The references need some improvement work. Author names are missing for some sources (such as the BBC one), one of them has "Guide, British Comedy" as the author's name, and the last two references include the "by" in the author name. Also, Plex is used as a source in the article, but I'm a bit unsure about whether that's a good idea - does Plex gather the list of acting credits themselves, or is it just pulling them from something like IMDB? – numbermaniac 11:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Plex derives its credits from IMDb and TMDb, I would not consider it to be a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Roman Catholic / SSPX schism

edit
Article: 2026 Écône consecrations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, after all bishops from the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated for their involvement in an unauthorized consecration. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pope Leo XIV excommunicates all bishops and followers of the Society of Saint Pius X over a consecration dispute.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicates all priests in the Lefebvrist Society of Saint Pius X as the Society's leaders leave the Catholic Church by consecrating bishops without the approval of Pope Leo XIV.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Pope Leo XIV declares the Society of Saint Pius X to be schismatic and excomunicates its clergy and followers following unauthorized episcopal consecrations.
News source(s): Vatican News, NYT
Credits:

Article updated

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

Support Per nom. It is a major schism that has led to direct conflict with the Pope; it has received extensive and ongoing international coverage, and nearly 17,000 followers and clergy of the FSSPX are directly affected. The article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The passive voice in this blurb feels a bit weasel-ly and unnecessarily indirect. Perhaps something like: Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as the Vatican excommunicates members of the Society of Saint Pius X for consecrating bishops without the Pope's consent ? (I also wonder if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate"? I'm not familiar enough with Catholicism to know if e.g. "appointing bishops" would work.) Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went with passive voice because, as a matter of Catholic canon law, the bishops were all excommunicated latae sententiae the moment they performed the consecration. So technically the Vatican didn't excommunicate them, but merely confirmed that the factual pattern had arisen that led to them excommunicating themselves. If there's a way to reword to something more active-voice, no objections, but I think you'd have to find an alternative to "... as the Vatican excommunicates ...". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a slightly longer/wordier blurb that clarifies who the active agent is in each part of this story. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe "all clergy" is correct (nor is "and followers" in ALT1). Specifically it's the six bishops. The Times article says The decree against the Society of St. Pius X excommunicated at least 750 priests but links to , which says priests and followers will become excommunicated latae sententiae if they "adhere to the schism" (I assume meaning go to SSPX services), but technically doesn't say they're excommunicated yet. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my source was Vatican News , but it's possible I'm misinterpreting it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see where you're getting that from The excommunication newly separates the bishops and priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X from the Church of Rome. As for the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Fraternity are to be considered excommunicated, although it's carefully imprecise wording. I imagine sources aren't being too picky about this because, in practical terms, any priest who stayed with SSPX as it did something excommunicatable is unlikely to change their mind all of a sudden, so they probably are all excommunicated already, or will be shortly. Still, I think the best course is to mention the bishops' excommunication while being silent on whether anyone else is excommunicated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this NPR article explicitly says "all priests of the SSPX [...] were now in schism and excommunicated". I agree the exact state of things is confusing though. Thanks for explaining the logic behind the passive voice; I think your approach makes sense. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and the Associated Press also explicitly say the priests are excommunicated. The AP even emphasizes the number of priests affected: 750.
I think with three high quality sources, we shouldn't be afraid to say this in Wikivoice. The difference between 6 people and 756 people being affected is huge, and gives important context to why this is the largest schism in a while. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure if there's a less jargony word than "consecrate", but one potential issue with my blurb is that "consecration" means several things in Catholicism. But the more specific "consecration of bishops" would be repetitive, and really both blurbs run into the problem of how do we succinctly say that all six people excommunicated were bishops, but two are the bishops who consecrated the other four. (And yes, the new four are still considered bishops by the Vatican despite having been immediately excommunicated for it.) Maybe... Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, after the participants in the Society of Saint Pius X's unauthorized consecration of bishops are excommunicated.? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism undergoes its largest schism in at least 156 years, as members of the Society of Saint Pius X are excommunicated for appointing bishops without Pope Leo XIV's consent? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For consecrating bishops. Canon law is clear on this, and it's what brought the excommunications forth. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support beat me to the nom. Significant, current, and news. Bremps... 21:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability The past tension between the Holy See and SSPX, which started in 1988 after the Écône consecrations, was only limited to the excommunication of six bishops that was later lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. This time around, with the 2026 Écône consecrations, it is clearly an escalation because the issued excommunication extends itself to all the clergy and the laity of SSPX. The schism has also reignited/continued tensions between Roman Catholics under the Holy See and Traditionalist Catholics under SSPX. I don't have a position on the article quality. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The last couple of paragraphs under Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans#History summarise the current situation. GAFCON insists they're the real Anglican Communion and everyone else is out of step, but they flinched from appointing a rival head of the Communion after Archbishop Mullally was appointed last year. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, its my first ITN, Thanks. This is the largest schism in centuries and is the most major event since the Second Vatican Council. Maybe add that Pope Leo XIV was the one who authorized the excommunication. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alts that include a vague "largest excommunication in 150 years" in the blurb. Even minus that, the matter-of-fact "The Society of St. Pius X is excommunicated" is more concise and demonstrates notability given the context in the article. Support on notability. Departure– (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

edit

Bosnia High Representative resignation

edit
Proposed image
Article: High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christian Schmidt resigns as the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Principal Deputy Louis Crishock (pictured) being appointed as acting High Representative. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

CommentI think it’s ITNR. In any case, I think the sensible thing to do is to wait for Crishock’s article to be created or for the formal appointment of the new High Representative. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that only applies to the constitutional executive office, not the de facto one, so it's not ITNR. But it might be within the spirit of ITNR. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good point. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle because, as Feeglgeef notes, a change in the de facto head of government is in the spirit of ITNR, although not the letter. Given the circumstances, I would want the target article to be in very good condition. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Louis Crishock's article has been created by @BeanieFan11, and is of pretty good quality. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the OHR article and went more in depth on Schmidt's. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality of the bolded High Representative article is fine, along with Crishock's article. Schmidt's article has multiple unsourced paragraphs in the 'Member of Parliament' and 'Parliamentary State Secretary' sections. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Wait While I agree that this should be posted eventually, I think at this point the nomination is slightly premature. Louis Crishock is only the acting High Representative and the Peace Implementation Council aims to make a final appointment by 14 July (see here), which is relatively soon. As such, I think it would be reasonable to wait until Schmidt’s permanent successor is named and then post the change in the High Representative. John Adams 362 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the Starmer blurb, where he didn't even leave yet. Schmidt has left the building. Bremps... 19:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Julio Revuelta

edit
Article: Julio Revuelta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): EFE (in Spanish)
Credits:

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

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

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

Ongoing removal: Russo-Ukrainian war timeline

edit
Article: Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian war (1 June 2026 – present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

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

  • Remove the entry entirely – The main article receives sporadic updates – 'events' ends in May 2026 – with most editing being gnoming, so the timeline article is the only one that's really relevant for ITN. En.wiki hasn't historically maintained years-long entries in 'ongoing', the Gaza war and Russo-Ukrainian war were aberrations from that norm. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Gaza and the Russo-Ukraine war are continually covered in the news at a good volume (compared to the Sudanese civil war), so satisfies that prong for ongoing. The timeline articles are regularly updated (eg it doesn't take an ITN removal to prod editors to fix), so some part of that article grouping is being properly updated as ongoing expected. Its this really nuanced thing that some editors expect that the updated article (the timelines) be presented in the ITN box. I've said this on other recent ongoing: as long as the timeline is very clearly given in the infobox on the main target article, and working that WP:SS is the standard approach for writing about large topics, then ongoing is satisified as long as the timeline article is regularly updaed but we don't need to keep the timeline presentin in the ITN box to save space. Masem (t) 23:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The war in Ukraine is still a extremely significant and talked about conflict, and the timeline page is consistently updated with daily developments, the fact that the idea of removing the conflict from ongoing is being talked about at all is absurd. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally stated in the nomination that this does not remove the main conflict entry from ongoing, just the timeline. Stephen 00:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Trepang2 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided, sometimes I think the war has reached a point where it's not being discussed and then there will be a flare up in the news. For example it's currently on the front page of the BBC, the front page of RTÉ, the first story on France24 and on the front page of CNN. However the reason I am undecided is, the removal of (only) the timeline may still be justified. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that this is the article that is actually receiving constant updates. It would make more sense to me to delete the main subject article, and make the timeline the sole item featured in ongoing. I'd be happy to see both finally removed, though; Ongoing items shouldn't last this long. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean remove the article, not delete it, right? Feeglgeef (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, yeah, remove it from Ongoing :p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the entry entirely but failing that, remove the timeline. We are not serving any of the stated purposes of ITN by featuring a stalemate war for its entire duration. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why if we were to have ongoing, why such a massive war, that remains not only in the news, but in the headlines, would be dropped. Nfitz (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing exists to deal with a quirk created by the way ITN wishes to exists conflicting with the natural occurrence of events. But it remains a subset of ITN, and should serve its aims. It is not to meant to feature all ongoing news events anymore than ITN is meant to be a news ticker. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the mpst important event that is in news. I fail to see a reason for removal here. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My limited understanding: It doesn't matter how important it is beyond a minimum significance. It's either significant enough for ITN or not. What's more relevant for Ongoing is updates (climate change doesn't get regular updates). It's a philosophical question whether or not timelines should count towards regular updates to the relevant article, related to the question of whether or not timelines should be listed under ongoing in general Placeholderer (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - if people want the timeline, they can find it in the article. I'd also support changing "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Ukraine War", which is it's WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Name ideas are probably best suited for the article talk page. ITN should use whatever name the article is using.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others such as Maplestrip have noted, the timeline is the article receiving the most frequent updates. We should direct ITN readers to the page where those updates can be found. Removing the timeline accomplishes precisely the opposite. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 15:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we think that people would be drawn in particular to the latest timeline, rather than a more general article. Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: If we image the people using the Wikipedia home page as their home page, which article do you think they are more likely to click on every day or every week? The one that is constantly updated, or the one that is mostly static? The goal of the front-page is to give returning readers a dynamic selection of our work to read. Every user who has been on the Wikipedia front page for the past three years has had the opportunity to read the article on the war already. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a case to remove ongoing completely, and give more room to new stories. Do we have any stats on those that use Wikipedia as a home page? Nfitz (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is still receiving updates and to be frank this thing is still ongoing. Not long ago Ukraine launched a strike to Russia where even Putin acknowledged the damage it’s caused. The war is still ongoing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Readers can easily navigate to the most recent timeline from the main article on the war, so this is completely unnecessary and not in line with WP:ONGOING (it nowhere mentions that we can post links to multiple articles about the same ongoing event). I know that removing the link to the timeline would leave an article with no regular updates on the main page, but this is something that has to do with the wording of WP:ONGOING, which seems to be inconsistent with the postings onto this section in the past couple of years. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal – let's cut some slack for the overflowing tank that is the state of the 'ongoing' section today. The navigational templates and section hatnotes will still make the timeline easy to find anyways. I feel like a good majority of people already know about the Ukraine war by this point in time, so having that timeline link still there might be overemphasis on the topic now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The war is still going, and likely coming to a crucial and defining moment. There is no reason to remove it precisely now. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BilboBeggins and TDKR Chicago 101: your oppose !votes here don't seem to quite align with what the nomination is proposing. The proposal isn't to remove the Ukraine war entirely, it is just to remove the "timeline" part. So instead of Russo-Ukrainian war (timeline) it would be changed to just Russo-Ukrainian war. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The same narrative applies, timeline is closely aligned with the war itself. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I don't think timelines really belong in the "ongoing" section, nobody is really interested in reading those, and it's the main war that is the article we wish to highlight. I think there was some concern before that for large-scale events, the main page doesn't receive frequent enough updates, but that doesn't mean we should have a fudge like this pointing people to a page they are unlikely to want to view. Better to just IAR and keep the main entry in anywya. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "nobody is really interested in reading those" well. there are 85 127 views this month, so this is definitely not the case. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (keep) per Masem's response to Mr rnddude. This never stopped being big news, I still see new reporting on it all the time as someone who reads a lot of news. The timeline article is also being sufficiently updated and BilboBeggins's response to Amakuru shows readers do in fact still care about this and want up-to-date info about it. I'd rather we relist the Gaza war and genocide - which never ended despite many erroneous comments in the discussion that led to its removal from Ongoing - than delist the war on Ukraine. Not that I expect that to happen, many feel we already have too many things listed currently so any proposal to add something is going to face an uphill battle.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanilla Wizard How about removing the timeline specifically to free up space to add the Gaza war? Seems like a good compromise to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The timeline is the main article for news about what historians are calling the largest armed conflict globally since 1945 and the most consequential war of our lifetime. It should obviously remain on the In The News section. Shanes (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as several have already put forward: the article remains updated, the war is one of the biggest military conflicts in decades, and is regularly featured in global news coverage. Yakikaki (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(POsted) RD: Vladimir McTavish

edit
Article: Vladimir McTavish (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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: Scottish comedian GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the article is still too short at 1150 characters. R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Bremps... 18:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2026&oldid=1363721353"