Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

2026 Commonwealth Games

Article: 2026 Commonwealth Games (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Commonwealth Games begins in Glasgow, Scotland (Post)

News source(s): BBC

Credits:

• Nominated by LiamKorda (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Opening of the games is an Recurring item. LiamKorda 05:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not ready: Many unsourced statements, primarily at the #King's Baton Relay and #Changes to the sporting programme sections. Left guide (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Kōzō Okamoto

Nominator's comments: Japanese Red Army fighter who was the only surviving perpetrator of the Lod Airport massacre. Chomik! (talk?) 01:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) Fields Medals 2026

Article: Fields Medal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In mathematics, the Fields Medal is awarded to Yu Deng, John Pardon, Jacob Tsimerman and Hong Wang. (Post)

News source(s): Scientific American

Credits:

• Nominated by Fdfexoex (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.

 Fdfexoex (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support The articles of the recipients are mostly updated Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

comment I believe the main articles should be the recipients, not the fields medal Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems that this was the case in 2022. Twotwice^talk 19:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support The articles are well maintained, sourced, and appear to be comprehensive for their careers (on the shorter side, but I'd imagine you would expect that for explicitly young mathematicians).

Snosibsnob (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Added "in mathematics" to blurb as its a common award, and as this wasn't a joint award (like some nobels) where we can easily fit in the reason it was given, it implies these are all math advancements. Masem (t) 20:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support All 4 articles of the recipients are ok. Grimes2 22:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support A blurb with four biographies in good shape. May be a record. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Paddy McNally

Nominator's comments: British businessman and racing driver and former boyfriend of Sarah Ferguson. ItsShandog (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Haim Yavin

Nominator's comments: Leading Israeli television anchor. Chomik! (talk?) 20:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - definitely RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Flamingo Revolution

Nominator's comments: Though the article is receiving frequent, high quality edits from Matete Plays, this event fails the second prong for Ongoing: The ongoing section maintains a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news. Coverage from reputable sources has dwindled as of 2–3 weeks ago. Yes, the event is "ongoing", but that is not the sole basis for Ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 15:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support removal I haven't seen any prominent coverage for a long time, unlike Ukraine and Iran which continues to be headline news. Nfitz (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose … coincidence? anyways, It’s similar to like those “teen takeovers” I’ve been seeing on the news recently, but besides the point, it’s still decently actively talked about on news sources FlamingMingo 🦩 17:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning Support Removal Perhaps this is because of the side of the pond I'm on, but I haven't seen any coverage for about a month. The article is still continuously updated though (with the last update being yesterday), so maybe this would still be in my feed if I was European.

Snosibsnob (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning Support Removal since, per Snobisnob, not much coverage in (admittedly english language) European media either This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well I don't believe any old men have died during the protests so I must say i'm a little surprised you want it removed ~2026-39266-37 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please stay on topic and refrain from making personal comments unrelated to the issue at hand. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support for the same reasons I stated last week: Just because there are daily updates and it is an ongoing event does not mean it has to be posted. Furthermore, the visibility of the latest developments suggests that, at the moment, these are simply street protests by citizens, without daily relevant international coverage and without any significant and long-term impact _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above. Non-Albanian/Balkan, and specifically English-language coverage has mostly dried up. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the actual proposal to remove this item, I should note that English-language, or any-specific-language coverage is not a requirement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hence why I started with "Non-Albanian/Balkan." The greater point was that non-local coverage had dried up. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support it had a good run in ongoing but now that news coverage has mostly died down I think it’s better to remove. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom and !votes above. Jusdafax (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Removed as per consensus. Schwede66 08:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Blurb/Ongoing: Indian protests

Protestors carrying the sign of Bhagat Singh

Articles: 2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests (talk · history · tag) and Sansad Chalo March (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In India, protests in New Delhi organized by the Cockroach Janta Party following a massive exam leak intensify.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In India, protests in New Delhi following a massive exam leak intensify.

News source(s): The Guardian, Radio France International, NYT

Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Pelph Hoters (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EarthDude (talk · give credit), XYZ 250706 (talk · give credit), Sarim Wani (talk · give credit), Piejuno (talk · give credit) and UNIVERSALLORD77 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major protests in India, receiving sustained international coverage this week. The exam controversy was nominated and received extensive support, but wasn't posted due to low quality. The Cockroach Janta Party ban was nominated, but opposed since the situation didn't seem serious at the time. Now, it clearly is. I would suggest blurbing the recent intensification in activity and then shifting to ongoing. — Knightoftheswords 06:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb - Per Nom and current news articles like The Guardian and NYT. If in the future this is still happening, than I would support moving it to "Ongoing". MrCryptoNerd (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment- The nominater is requested to describe what he/she means by "suggest blurbing the recent intensification in activity and then shifting to ongoing" Sarim Wani (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Sarim Wani: It is not uncommon at ITN to place an article like this into Ongoing once the original blurb shifts off the page, as was done at the start of the Iran war. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb. Major event, very large coverage around the world. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb as it's growing rapidly and widely reported, but pay attention to the wording since it's not actually a registered political party (yet), as far as I understand. Yakikaki (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support extreme growth of attention, many news outlets are reporting this extreme-scale protest that is going on in the world's most populated country, India. The population changes the tone a lot, especially that a sixth of everyone lives in India. All because of one unregistered political party about a bug, which also called people a bug, for some reason. FlamingMingo 🦩 13:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb I'm guessing the sudden increase of attention is due to the detention of the opposition leader Rahul Gandhi on the 21st ( ). Definitely an escalation for a blurb, we can see about ongoing after the blurb's time is up. Added an alt blurb without mentioning the party. Juxlos (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb per FlamingMingo and Juxlos. Also per Juxlos, I noted the relevance of Rahul Gandhi's arrest; is there scope for mentioning that in a blurb, rather than just the generic-sounding 'existing protests intensify'? GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Question We are using words like "Massive" in relation to the test, and "Extreme" relating to the protest. There's no mention of "massive" in the target articles, it only says large. And an "Extreme level" of protest? How is a relatively small protest of only 10,000 even worth mentioning, let alone it being extreme. Why the superlatives? Alternate blurb text seems poor ... do we need the word "in" twice? Why is there no actual blurb nominated? Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment the estimated number of protesters stand at 100,000 please get your facts righ, rest of the editor's are requested to ignore this part of the Question Sarim Wani (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then why, @Sarim Wani, does the article not say this? For one past day it says tens of thousands, however of the supporting references one says ten thousand and the other does says tens of thousands (how many? 15,000? 90,000?) is a running blog, with the supporting articles not referencing this. And still, how does this support the word "extreme". If we were to blurb every time that Toronto has a protest tens of thousands of people in the streets, we'd be here frequently. That there was a million people in Toronto protesting wasn't enough to get an ongoing blurb about protests pulled last year. Why the superlatives? Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment I do agree that the phrase "massive exam leak" would probably sound better if it was "large exam leak" or simply "exam leak", and the first altblurb should probably just be the intended blurb. I really do not see the issue with using the word "in" twice though, maybe you could reword it but I really don't see the point. The blurbs seem fine to me for the most.*:Snosibsnob (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would call it "college entrance exam leak" without other modifiers. Masem (t) 20:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd go with "university entrance exam leak", as these seem to be for professional degrees, and college doesn't have the same universal meaning across the anglosphere. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds clumsy. Why not just eliminate the words "In India". It's pretty obvious where New Delhi is. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Alt0 blurbs are disabled in ongoing noms — Knightoftheswords 22:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps because there is almost no situation where both should be proposed simultaneously (and this is a example of where the ongoing shouldn't have been done until after the blurb was there). Nfitz (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb, then ongoing when it rolls off as we've done with protest movements before. Prefer altblurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose What exactly do we mean by "intensify"? We cannot include protests simply because they are escalating in the sense that large numbers of people are turning out. Until there is a noticeable impact, significant consequences, changes in government, or even deaths resulting from police repression, I do not believe these protests warrant special consideration. In a country with a population of one billion, with overcrowded cities, it is normal for there "to be a lot of people" at protests. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC))
• Support blurb Widespread international coverage, and there is evidence of both a noticeable impact in Indian politics and society + significant consequences (e.g. the detention of Rahul Gandhi). Unlike implied above, we have never set the standard for a protest blurb at "change in government" or "deaths from police repression". Asking for either of those is a much, much higher bar than we've ever set in the past. For example, there was no change in government or police murder of protestors for Canada convoy protest, Yellow vests protests, or March for our Lives. Respectfully, for ITN to have posted all these western protests but not this one because India has 'so many people', amounts to a double standard. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Flipandflopped It is not a West-versus-East issue. The protests in Canada were pulled because they weren’t particularly high-profile (remember that a state of emergency was declared), whilst the "Yellow Vests" protests had international repercussions and significant fallout (as well as street violence, lasting for weeks, and changes to economic policies). The examples you give help to illustrate that the protests in India are not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose No casualties, no change in the government, etc. Wi1-ch (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe there are in fact over a hundred injuries Vetrenarisisum (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb per above. Hold judgement on ongoing until blurb would roll off. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Sansad Chalo March as the proposed bold article has multiple expansion tags. Stephen 01:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Notwithstanding my questions about notability, the article simply isn't ready. The target article has merger discussions underway. There's also a rename discussion. This all tells us that that we should be waiting for the article to stabilize. The article isn't ready, and needs a lot of editing work. The unit of currency seems to be in crores (krona?) without equivalents in a common currency. Poor grammar, punctuation, wikistyle issues, lack of linking and local idioms abound. There's unexplained acronyms, red error messages in references, and stuff that's referenced to simple twitter videos (if secondary sources are available, why the twitter video links?. Can a serious protest be satirical? Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Nfitz: The article that appears to be receiving major updates (including figures of 100K described above) would be Sansad Chalo March, which is liable for a merge into the main art here: Talk:Sansad Chalo March#Proposed merge into 2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protest. The merge and move discussions (Talk:2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests#Requested move 18 July 2026, Talk:2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests#Requested move 23 July 2026) should conclude before any consideration is made for featuring this on the main page.

  I also agree, the qual issues are paramount ("satirical" indeed appears off as a description).

  PS: The crore (10 million) is not a currency unit but a feature of the Indian numbering system. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ah yes @Gotitbro - someone appears to have adjusted the nomination and blurb to add more targets, without mentioning it in the discussion, tut-tut. And gosh, that article looks even more troubled. Ah yes ... crore rings a bell, I've never had good lakh remembering how many that its. Another idiom to be fixed. Hmm, that makes that unusual symbol next to it the currency then; perhaps that needs to be spelled out for comprehension; I don't remember a symbol being used the last time I was there, it was always rupees spelled out or abbreviated ... but should have conversions in a stable widely-known currency. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that it is reasonable to describe the standard symbol for the currency of a nation of a billion people as 'unusual'. And while WP:COMMONALITY says that more universal terms should be preferred to more localised ones (specifically using 'crore' as an example), it is nonetheless reasonable for these articles to be written broadly in Indian English, per WP:ENGVAR. Your 'good lakh' comment shows that you know perfectly well how to find these things out for yourself, and that you are treating this linguistic and cultural difference as a joke. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions @GenevieveDEon. My presence in India was entirely related to a hydrological/hydraulic engineering project where the unit of measurement we used always used lakh. I don't think crore ever came up at that time, nor do I recall ever seeing a Rupee symbol, and the one used in the article seems unintuitive to me. Having conversions to more international units is quite common - even many if not most US articles mention kilometres along side miles. To assume that a simple pun is treating linguistic and cultural differences as a joke is an AGF violation an a personal attack; please don't do this. I stand by my comment that a featured article needs to be more universal. Doing some research, the "₹" symbol is relatively new (and since the last time that I was there), and not even used in the majority (or any other!) of countries that use Rupees as their currency unit! At the same time, I wouldn't support Canadian articles using the term "loonies" instead of "dollars", UK articles using quid instead of pounds, despite local usage. When local usage is incomprehensible to a majority of our readers, it needs to at least have other equivalents. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

'Loonie' and 'quid' are both slang and not appropriate for an encyclopedia, outside discussion of the dialects to which they belong. The rupee symbol, on the other hand, is an official currency symbol no different in significance from $ or £. I would never suggest that either of those should be replaced by the currency name written out longhand, and I oppose the same for ₹ as well. Your dislike of the variant of English that an article is written in is ultimately your problem, not Wikipedia's, and it's certainly not germane to ITNC. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It's very different from the pound (even the pound sterling) or the dollar, @GenevieveDEon. As far I know all the many countries that do, or have, used dollars or pounds have used those symbols. However India is only one of several countries that use the Rupee and I don't believe any of the other ones have done so. The symbol is merely a local dialect. That said my issue is the lack of an equivalence, which doesn't preclude use of the symbol (which could even be initally provided in parenthesis as is often done with most units of measure). The other issue is your inexcusable and vile personal attack, for which I've not seen an apology. And yet another assumption - where have I said I dislike this or any Commonwealth version of English? Why such weird and possibly racist assumptions? Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the IND symbol is an outlier. I have done this to hopefully make it clearer for international readers. The other use of the symbol does not use crore/lakh etc and should be clearer. Black Kite (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality The main article has issues. 150 edits in the last 24 hours, many of which are reversions back and forth and involve probable sockpuppets and editors that have later been blocked. Also a number of uncited statements, a number of flaky sources (WP:TIMESOFINDIA) and some images that are almost certainly copyvios. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above. Setarip (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment One bolded article is slated for merging, while the other article has orange tags. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment A recently added image in the lead of a politician's daughter appears to be quite an explicit WP:BLPCRIME vio. Gotitbro (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps not BLPCRIME, but absolutely unacceptable and I have removed it from both articles where it was placed. I'm about to warn the editor who placed it. And I have EC-protected the main article. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: While you're at it it also may be worth it to at least semi-protect the article about the march. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Sansad Chalo March is orange tagged. ArionStar (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb when ready. Protests continue, and international coverage is becoming more significant. Articles both need work - especially the second, to clear merger discussion, orange tags, red error messages, and poor reference formatting. Both articles need a copy edit for readability and grammar. No prejudice against ongoing being considered in a separate nomination if it rolls off, and protests remain prominent. Nfitz (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per @FlamingMingo

~2026-41171-01 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Wang Quanying

Nominator's comments: Last living Chinese Red Army female soldier during the Long March. Toadboy123 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I believe article looks good, interesting person Vetrenarisisum (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Michael Preston

 Happily888 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor Ochoa Cárdenas

Nominator's comments: Colombian composer and musician, best known for his song El Camino de la Vida. Inducted into the Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2015. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Seems adequate. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - sourced and ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Olaf Tufte

Nominator's comments: Norwegian Olympic rower. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Article currently has an orange tag but should be fixable. Spencer^T•C 22:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - above mentioned problem fixed. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 526A

Nominator's comments: A notable plane wreck was discovered after 74 years, many outlets are covering this. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not ready: Fails WP:ITNUPDATE as there is only one sentence discussing this development. Left guide (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  It has been updated. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I very much doubt that finding the wreckage of a crashed aircraft is significant enough to post about. It’s fairly trivial, a local matter, and I don’t think it will lead to anything interesting or important. It’s not like discovering the wreck of the Titanic. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose it’s not very significant just to discover the remains of a disaster unless it’s like the titanic or the Malaysian airlines flight 370. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose seems more like a DYK. Had the plane completely vanished - like Amelia Earhart, or the relatively recent Malaysian plane, then yes. But they always knew roughly where this was, and what had happened. And there were survivors - presumably in the same location as the crash (though a situation like Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 might be notable). Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is where I think we are lacking good coverage - interesting stories that are not currently that significant enough for ITN (under our current approach), but where the update to the target article would not meet DYK's update requirements. I'm not saying we IAR for this, but this is the type of story that if we opted to disregard significance in favor of article quality and news coverage, this would be an easy ITN. Masem (t) 00:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very good points. I'm not sure what the solution is, as that gets very subjective. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Newsworthiness assessment is inherently subjective, and has to be subjective to some extent, beyond wanting to avoid systemic bias. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  thats why I've suggested previously on the talk page drastically lowering the weight of news significance in favor of higher quality articles/updates with a goal for more itn throughput (like this story) Masem (t) 20:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Borderline on both sides I get the argument that its too long in the past and probably not super important outside of a DYK, it is worth remembering the Pan Am crash led to our more modern safety checks and the now pre flight videos, although then pre flight manuals more so. And had Wikipedia existed in 1952, it would have been a "In The News" discussion a la Miracle on the Hudson. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nfitz - purely my own opinion, but the fact only the wreckage was missing makes this not pass my bar. Survivors were picked up and we know what happened in the accident, and the only instances where that can be overcome is if it came with massive and enduring media coverage (i.e. the Titanic). The Kip ^(contribs) 00:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - per Alsor97 MrCryptoNerd (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Minor update to a very old story. Modest Genius ^talk 11:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I don't see why people see this as a "minor update" and fail to give a reason on why it is a minor update, seems odd.

Personally, I do not think that this is a "minor update." Instead, I feel like this would open up opportunities for finding other missing aircraft. UselessAccount20 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

this would open up opportunities for finding other missing aircraft - I'm sorry, but this is pure WP:CRYSTAL. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kaylee Hottle

Nominator's comments: Deaf American actress, died in a car crash at only 18. Article is a bit short but meets minimum requirements for posting. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Meets minimum requirements.--Launchballer 23:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Article in good shape.TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support - Per above. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: John C. Dvorak

Nominator's comments: Tech journalist since the 80s. There are some unsourced sections and some possible cleanup but not terribly far away Masem (t) 04:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) Daniel Ortega moves to formally terminate Nicaraguan democracy

Daniel Ortega

Articles: Next Nicaraguan general election (talk · history · tag) and Daniel Ortega (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Co-president of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega (pictured) suspends the next general election, declaring that the country will no longer have elections. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Co-president of Nicaragua Daniel Ortega (pictured) suspends the next general election, declaring that the country will no longer have elections.

News source(s): NYT

Credits:

• Created by Dolph Kiwi (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EditorShane3456 (talk · give credit), SonOfYoutubers (talk · give credit), Mararaya (talk · give credit), Edferrarajim (talk · give credit) and ITBF (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major news in Central America. Although Ortega has been an authoritarian, the straight-up termination of an upcoming election, followed by the declaration that his country's (albeit already weak) democracy is formally dead, is a pretty big deal. — Knightoftheswords 15:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose "Dictator admits he's in fact a dictator" is not that big of a news. NotKringe (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Why is this ITN/R? Removed that flag. Natg 19 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ... because Ortega just announced the results of a National Election? Technically he announced that the next election was already decided and that the only vote that mattered was his own, but that just means we do not need to apply even the hint that this might have been a legitimate election. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support on notability but wait - I think a government formally announcing that it intends to become a dictatorship and cease having elections is notable for the same reasons elections are notable. But I think let's wait, quite often people walk back this kind of announcement. Blythwood (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support on Notability but wait I agree that we probably will want to blurb this. I agree that this is probably the correct thing to blurb. I think we probably need 24 - 48 hours for things to shake out enough to know if this is a flash-in-the-pan or an actual fire. That being said, I'm not sure the article is comprehensive enough; The article is almost entirely "background", so it is hard to tell where the current event fits into things. The article probably needs more detail about the anouncement in the body and a reactions section. ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready – Article hasn't been updated yet, though support on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready: Target article fails WP:ITNUPDATE. There is all of one sentence covering this cancellation in the article's lead and no discussion in the article body. Left guide (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support notability, a significant effect on the country and probably geopolitically, but article definitely not ready Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support notable.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Not ready The article has an orange tag. ITN typically doesn't post articles with orange tags. CastleFort1 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support when ready. Permanently cancelling the ITNR next election seems notable to me. And far more than other cases such as the ITNR next election in Tuvalu, population 10,000. Nfitz (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support on notability, oppose on quality per all above. This is notable, but the article is nowhere near ready. Will strike my oppose if or when the article is updated. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 22:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support on notability, if we post sham elections, we should post when sham elections get cancelled. Still not ready due to the lack of substantial update, especially in the body. Even beyond the most recent developments, the article is a mess, and isn't consistent about the formerly planned date for the election. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This doesn't seem to have much practical effect as the planned elections would have been a sham like the last time. The article doesn't make it clear what will happen instead. Ortega is 80 and already seems frail so there will be a replacement in due course regardless. Predicting exactly what will happen then seems too WP:CRYSTAL and so we should wait until there is an actual change in the leadership. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)

  I feel like this is the same case as when Min Aung Hlaing officially became the president of Myanmar, which is basically it's a "formalization" of dictatorship rule. In that case the blurb is rejected on the ground that nothing changed. I assumed the support votes are here cuz it's rare for dictatorship to come and say "no there won't be the next election" in board daylight like this. NotKringe (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  That case wasn't posted and this shouldn't be because it's obviously still at the "concept of a plan" stage. Note that there's a discussion about changing the name of the article in question but that's going nowhere because no-one is quite sure what's going to actually happen. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Altblurb: I've added an altblurb highlighting Ortega since Daniel Ortega#2026 decree banning elections seems to have the most substantial update available. Left guide (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Note from the page history that the section has changed since the above comment. Left guide (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support alt1. Regardless of if the elections are a sham or not, for the same reason I'd support posting anyway, I think the election NOT happening is of the same level of significance. Also preference to the alt focusing on Ortega. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any formal process involved or is just a dictator being a dictator? It might be better to wait until there is an official statement that no elections are to be held November 2026, which is still a few months away, and something could change. It might be better to wait until that point where the absence of the election actually occurs, so we aren't dealing with a CRYSTAL issue. Masem (t) 00:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support on notability per Blythwood and others, though oppose on quality - the election article is orange-tagged and barely updated otherwise, and the update to Ortega's own page feels minimal. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the article is notable because a country cancelling elections is certainly interesting news, even if their elections before were hardly even elections. However, I agree with the other commenters that it may not be ready quality wise. I recently updated the article as part of a competition and added everything I could find background wise, since the election hadn't yet occurred and, at the time, was said to have been delayed by about a year, although it was unclear if this was confirmed or potential misinformation. Hence, I suggested both possibilities in the article prior to its lede being updated. Due to this new information, it seems that the elections may never occur any time soon. Therefore, I think the background section is fine to stay, but there definitely needs to a review of the information I added to that section (and potentially new information added) and there must be new sections created related to the new information. Before that happens, I think it's agreeable that its quality must be improved prior to inclusion on ITN. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per above Setarip (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Support on notability as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Personal preference to hold until the actual procedural changes are put in place, whatever those might be, but no objection to posting now This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Marking as ready - election article has been expanded and is no longer orange tagged, and the country's legislature has formally moved to start enacting Ortega's directive. @Admins willing to post ITN: . — Knightoftheswords 20:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Support on notability as a major and historic turning point in the country's decades-long democratic backsliding; elections under Ortega weren't always total shams, the country used to have free and fair elections, but each one under him was less free and less fair than the last as the ousting of Ortega at the ballot box was a real possibility that he feared and so he required increasing levels of voter intimidation and opposition media suppression with every election. A declaration that there will never be one again is a final nail in the coffin of what used to be a democracy. At the risk of sounding like I have a crystal ball, it's easy to imagine that one day, once the Ortega era is over and Nicaragua comes out the other side of it, the country will remember this announcement in their history books as one of the moments that defined Ortega and what he did to the country. As for quality, the Next Nicaraguan general election article looks much better than it did earlier today, though the Ortega biography article still has a "needs expansion" tag on the section about the sanctions against him. Good to go if the bolded page is the former (which makes more sense imo), not if the bolded page is the latter.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support but I prefer "... announces the suspension of the ..." instead. ArionStar (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support It's exceedingly rare to find a world leader openly decreeing that his country will never hold elections again. Like many notionally democratic countries, Nicaragua's recent elections have been considered neither free nor fair by international observers for more than a decade, but the Sandinistas still kept up the pretence of a democracy to maintain the legitimacy of Ortega's continued rule despite democratic backsliding. That he now decides to unilaterally put an end to Nicaraguan elections is an extraordinary change to Nicaragua's system of government, and clearly ITN-worthy because it eschews that pretence in favor of a new kind of regime: unapologetic authoritarianism. Oppius Brutus (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• A large part of the relevant update at Next Nicaraguan general election#Suspension is cited to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS which the community has declared generally unreliable. Can this be fixed? I've tagged it with {{better source needed}}. The main blurb otherwise looks ready. Courtesy ping @Knightoftheswords281: who added the content, although anyone else is free to help too. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would say that for just repeating the statements of US government officials it does fine as a source, but I would be uncomfortable using it to source any more. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted the original blurb. Schwede66 08:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support following post I'd suggest creating it's own page for the abolition of the electoral system in Nicuragua. This situation may be a problem for Trump's administration as we would be having another socialist dictatorship in the western world. shane (talk to me if you want!) 09:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest removing the easter egg link at the end to Politics of Nicaragua - firstly MOS:EGG and secondly the article has a big ugly orange box at the top saying that it's out of date. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, MOS:EGG doesn't apply because there is no article or redirect titled "No longer have elections" to be confused with. Secondly, non-bolded links aren't required to meet our quality review standards, which means they sometimes have orange tags; this is perfectly fine. Left guide (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

RD/blurb: Kevin Keegan

Article: Kevin Keegan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Footballer Kevin Keegan dies aged 75. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ English footballer and manager Kevin Keegan dies aged 75.

News source(s): The Times

Credits:

• Updated and nominated by ItsShandog (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: Former England footballer and manager, regarded as one of the greatest players of all time. ItsShandog (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blurb Vital and described as one of the greatest footballers of all time, he merits consideration for a blurb. There seems to be quite a lot going on currently so it might be difficult to fit him in but the option should be discussed. The article seems to need more references so we can talk about it while that's done. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  a blurb may be reasonable on looking at current reports on his death but the article fails to make the case why he was important. There is one statement in the lede that is a prelude to being a major figure but this is nowhere replicated in the body, making it a quality issue. Yes, I can look at stats and honors but its OR to conclude he was a major figure from those. It should nevtrivially easy to add a legacy section with just the obits today to state why he was such. (That is I am not doubting he's blurb worthy but the article fails to show that clearly) Masem (t) 14:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm no expert but what I notice is that he won the Ballon d'Or twice while Messi has won it eight times. So, my impression is that he was great but not quite the greatest. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  obviously winning that twice is clearly a indicator of how good he was but we need more that just listing his awards to justify the lede statement claim (and just listing three refs when I last checked). Context and attribution to explain why he was considered a great outside of wikivoice. Masem (t) 15:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Notice that the French and German language Wikipedias have already posted both Andy Burnham and Kevin Keegan and with pictures too. The England football team has figured out how to beat France and Germany but the English ITN is still too slow off the mark. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not a race, especially not against the wikipedias of other languages, some of which have very different policies to ours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:ITNPURPOSE: To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. The article has been updated and you can be sure that thousands of readers are reading it already. Other parts of the English Wikipedia such as the Portal:Current events have been updated. It's just the English ITN that always drags its feet. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

thats one of (now) 5 goals and no goal is prioritized above the others. Quality is still essential. We do not care what the other wikis do because standards are very different. Masem (t) 16:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Our readership doesn't care what ITN thinks; they are already reading the article. It will be interesting to see which is the top read article today: Andy Burnham, Kevin Keegan or someone else. The usual pattern is that, by the time ITN gets around to it, most of the readership has moved on. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN has no basis in caring about readership numbers, reiterated for the billionth time, nor should we be expected yo srtve as a newspaper where ppl are coming to catch up on news. We want to post in a timely manner but we also want to show quality articles, snd having an article that doesnt give any depth as to why we are featuring it as a blurb is a quality issue. Masem (t) 16:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Andy Burnham got more attention than Keegan but there wasn't a lot in it and it was only enough for bronze. The top two places went to topics that ITN has yet to post: Lamine Yamal and The Odyssey (2026 film). It adds to the impression that Keegan doesn't quite make the cut. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Notice that the French and German language Wikipedias have already posted both Andy Burnham and Kevin Keegan and with pictures too.

Complete honesty: who cares. For the love of god, this is not a race and the fact you still don't understand that makes me begin to believe you're just simply trolling at this point. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I see no good reason for this response to be as harsh as it is. Andrew wasn't saying anything controversial there; plenty of us have complained for ages about how ITN doesn't run as efficiently as we'd want it to & how so many blurbs and RDs that are marked as (Ready) languish and sometimes even roll off or go stale because we don't have enough admins willing to post. Acknowledging that other ITNs run smoother != implying we're in a race against them. Let's WP:TONEITDOWN.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve run out of patience to deal with Andrew’s antics diplomatically. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What other ITNs do or do not do is not in the slightest relevant for ITN significance at enwiki. The only reason this and other derailing nonsense (pageviews, vital stats etc. now with embelished with embedded pictures in comments) keeps being brought up by Andrew is to make a point about ITN not working according to his whims. That is indeed disruptive, this is the nth whimsical ITNRD blurb nom this week alone with nothing to show for significance beyond 'I like it'. Each time most editors pushback but I guess that is just 'part of the game', well we are certainly not in on it. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this blurb nom, as there is a case for Keegan. The issue is his insistence on comparing with other language wikis, page views, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support blurb Huge footballer. Vital 5. Nfitz (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb - one of the very few players to have won the Ballon d'Or more than once, the only English footballer to do so, I believe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I do, however, agree with Masem's concerns above. Ideally, we could have a small player profile section like at Diego Maradona#Player profile, to show why he was such an impactful figure. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Wait on blurb per Masem. Seems notable enough for one, but his article fails to make a case as to why. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose blurb Other commenters below have made a better case as to why he's not suited for one. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb, while I agree he is a major footballer in the UK, I disagree about his noteriety outside the UK, given the lack of international coverage (for example, neither AP news, Washington Post, the public service broadcasters in mine and the neighboring countries report on this).

We can't blurb every major US/British person that dies unless they're a household name globally, like a president. ~2026-40598-56 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

International coverage: . ArionStar (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've been more specific, by lack international coverage, I mean lack of widespread international coverage, as in most international outlets either not reporting at all or a short notice, there are obviously going to be some reporting (especially considering Reuters reporting on it), but his death isn't headliner news outside the UK nor can you really ask a random person in the world who he was and get a correct answer like Thatcher, Maradona or Mandela. ~2026-40598-56 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• AP
• Washington Post
• South China Morning Post
• Al Jazeera

I doubt that there's any major news source that hasn't reported his death now. English football is remarkably popular across the world and this guy was a superstar for Liverpool which is one of the top teams. Notice that his article has equivalents in 59 languages. Note also that his death is already on the front page of the following language Wikipedias: French, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Norwegian, Finnish, etc. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Keegan played for Hamburg in Germany at the height of his ability. He was a European champion with Liverpool and Hamburg. His name was given to French children, and he never even played there (second source leads with it being after Kevin Costner, but verifies that some were named earlier after Keegan, I've even met such people) Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Many paragraphs unsourced, especially in the "Managerial career" section. I personally don't know who this is but no preference for/against blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)(updated comment)Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Added altblurb — Knightoftheswords 22:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support blurb The tribute subsection does an alright job but I think a fully fleshed legacy section would do a better job. Subject appears to be top of his field TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• support blurb a multi time ballon dor winner, I don’t know much about football but I know that’s very significant. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Not one of the top 10 footballers of the century, so not at the very top of his field. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb per ~2026-40598-56. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 01:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb as he wasn't a household name unlike Maradonna or Pele. ~2026-40490-46 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb An iconic footballer in the UK (and Germany), and this story is top of the news stories in the UK - not just the sports pages. However, whilst you will regularly find him in lists of the greatest footballers ever, he is not near the top, and I think we should be reserving blurbs for those reliably reported as one of the greatest ever. In this one he is #60, in this one #40, and so on. Indeed, of players who regularly find themselves at the top of these lists, Paolo Maldini is the oldest living and he's only 58, so hopefully none of them will be troubling ITN for many years. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Franz Beckenbauer is 78 and Michel Platini is 71. Did we blurb Johan Cruyff and Alfredo di Stefano? For GOAT managers, Alex Ferguson is 84. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39411-22 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I can remember Cruyff was blurbed? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you check in March 2016, he wasn't. Three Ballons d'Or and a massive bibliography of his effect on the playing and coaching of football. If I could VAR check any ITN decision, it would be that. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Man, Andrew even opposed because "The proposed blurb adds no value".... while the proposed blurb here, if I may say, "adds no value" (LOL). Howard the Duck (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Blurb vs RD decisions that occurred before the RD process was fundamentally reformed in July 2016 should IMO not be considered for precedent, since considerations were much different at the time. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 01:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support RD, oppose blurb A major footballer in the 70s/80s yes but not on Pele level (which I say as an Englishman) that would justify a blurb. Article well written and sufficient quality for RD. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• OK for RD, oppose blurb (not Pele). Moscow Mule (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

There are two orange tags on the page. This is not ready for posting. Natg 19 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

True. And still true the next day. Withdrawn. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Admin comment By now, there are three orange tags. If you want to see the bio posted, work towards getting those removed, as an orange tag is a show stopper for posting. Schwede66 08:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) The Odyssey

WP:SNOW close of a topic that was obviously never going to get posted. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

---

The Trojan Horse at the New York premiere

Article: The Odyssey (2026 film) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christopher Nolan's epic blockbuster, The Odyssey, has a strong opening weekend. (Post)

News source(s): The Guardian, NYT, FT, CNN, EuroNews, The Independent

Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by KingArti (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Trailblazer101 (talk · give credit), King10 (talk · give credit), Multiplivision (talk · give credit), Little Jimmy (talk · give credit) and TheMovieGuy (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is in the news, getting a strong critical reception and box office, generating political controversy about the casting and, as a classic sword and sandals epic, showing that traditional cinematic spectacle is not dead yet. On Wikipedia, it is generating lots of encyclopedic traffic as people are not just looking up the movie but all our classical articles about Agamemnon, Helen of Troy, the Odyssey, the Laestrygonians and many more. It seems good that Homer doesn't just mean the Simpsons now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and speedy close: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A movie having big box office sales over the weekend is not something encyclopedic. 67 millionth reminder to you that page views is not a prerequisite for ITN nominations. Tofusaurus (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As noted in the nomination, the topic has many encyclopedic aspects. See Encyclopedia Britannica which has specific coverage too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close Of course not notable for ITN. More pointy and disruptive behavior by the nominator (derailing ITN) who knows this well (counting multiple instances this week alone). I was the one to advocate for no sanctions the last time this tendentiousness was taken to ANI, not so sure anymore. Gotitbro (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I would like to see more arts and cinema stories, 'blockbuster movie has a strong opening weekend' is so loosely defined as to be almost useless. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose Wikipedia is not an ad billboard. I have no clue why you think "this film is doing good on its first weekend" is enough of a justification when there are plenty of way more financially successful films that doesn't get a blurb simply cuz it's just mere statistics. NotKringe (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance Too trivial of an event to be significant, per WP:ROUTINE. As the other commenters point out, there's no basis for The Odyssey's box office sales alone to be ITN-worthy. The film could arguably be worth nominating if it receives any awards (e.g. Best Picture at the Oscars or BAFTAs in March or February 2027 respectively) but not merely for its box office results at this stage. Oppius Brutus (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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) Burnham sworn in

Andy Burnham

Articles: Andy Burnham (talk · history · tag) and 2026 Labour Party leadership election (talk · history · tag) and 2026 Labour Party leadership crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, Andy Burnham succeeds Keir Starmer as Leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister following a leadership election. (Post)

News source(s): WaPo

Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Chessrat (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Nominating planned event early so that we can workshop and see any issues. — Knightoftheswords 00:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. Topic ban User:Knightoftheswords281 from ITN. Why post a speculative post about something that hasn't happened? Is there some contest to be the one who makes the nomination or something? Nfitz (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Mind what you’re saying, that’s quite harsh for an AGF nomination. While agree that it’s too early saying the nomination should be banned from ITN is too far. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  We've repeatedly nominated scheduled events in advance to workshop and tackle any issues that exist before hand, such as the Artemis II launch earlier this year or hell, even Truss's and Sunak's nomination (although given your response in some of those discussions, pointing out these seems to not matter) This is an expected event and we want this to be in postable shape when it occurs. Nothing in that is WP:TBANworthy, though perhaps the community will find you frequently invoking TBAN calls for any action on ITN you don't like as being so. — Knightoftheswords 02:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. It's not like there's any rush to post anything. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this is slightly early but strong disagree with a topic ban. Why are you so quick to bans? I don't think this should be closed, just to be reopened in a few hours or so. Natg 19 (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. TB withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close Show some patience, please. This is not a race, ITN credits mean nothing, literally nothing will change if you wait until it actually happens. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing will change from nominating under the same header it will appear in a few hours. The WC nom from yesterday that was made several minutes before the event was even done is a far more textbook example of a premature nom than nominating an event expected to happen on 7/20 on 7/20, and this has been repeatedly done on ITN for years, even the previous Truss and Sunak noms. Also, allegations of credit fishing are bogus and unsubstantiated. — Knightoftheswords 07:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: I agree with @Nfitz. This bloke needs to be permanently banned from ITN. This is not a race to see who nominates a topic first, no need to feel good about yourself after being the first to nominate something. Close this immediately.

~2026-40620-92 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the above TA has been indeffed for personal attacks. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close About time editors get a hint that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper and certainly not a crystal ball. Gotitbro (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support This is obviously in the news. For example, the NYT has a named group of topics for this with a LIVE thread and multiple headlines including

1. Britain’s Next Prime Minister
2. New Labour Leader
3. Who Is Andy Burnham?
4. Economic Challenges
5. 5 of the Main Challenges Awaiting Britain’s New Prime Minister
6. Burnham Set to Become Britain’s New Leader
7. Here’s How the Transition Will Work

When a topic is so high profile then talk of bans and closes is absurd. See WP:BOOMERANG. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet Burnham hasn't become the Prime Minister. This is simply WP:CRYSTAL. It does not matter how much news coverage a topic is receiving. Tofusaurus (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The process of Andy Burnham becoming PM is currently in progress. This isn't using a crystal ball, it's using a schedule and Knightoftheswords wasn't suggesting posting this until the event happens. If you disagree with preparing in advance for a planned event that is fine but would be a different issue. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) ~2026-40620-92 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Haha, thank you temporary account. I'm sure we've spoken before. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This is ridiculous wikilawyering. The succession is not in any doubt; even the penultimate formalities were concluded two days ago. It shouldn't be considered WP:CRYSTAL to nominate a future event whose planning has been all over the media for days if not weeks, on the day it will actually happen, for posting when or after it actually happens. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Boomeranging what exactly. That he isn't PM yet and the nom misleadingly states so (much like the Starmer kerfuffle where a similar nom by the same user had to be closed for universal opposes due to crystal), or the fact that editors rightly state that encyclopedias aren't in a rush or a deadline and that repeatedly pre-empting events that haven't yet happened is disruptive. I think we all know where the stronger arguments lie. Gotitbro (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

But he is PM now. I'm reminded of the The Snowmen who had a hit with the Hokey Cokey

You put your left leg in,
Your left leg out;
In, out, in, out,
Shake it all about.
You do the hokey cokey,
And you turn around.
That's what it's all about!

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support posting following Burnham being sword in and the relevant articles being updated.

The call for a topic ban is insane, this nomination is not disruptive, the responses to it certainly are. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Baseless. Do not post crystal noms if you don't want the veritable opposes. Gotitbro (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Editors could have simply waiting a couple of hours rather than calling for someone to be banned and bashing them. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean 'veritable'? What's the use of a 'procedural' oppose for a well-formed nomination of an ITNR topic which everyone knows is going to happen in a matter of hours? What actual benefit to the readers (or the editors, for that matter) is provided by behaving like that? And a WP:TROUT to Stephen for earlier deleting this entire discussion in violation of WP:TPO. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've all seen half-baked noms, unupdated articles and confused editors looking for the 'news' in the body. Procedures exist for a reason, cannot jump the gun and then blame editors who rightly point that out. Moreover this is an ITNR item, only crystal noms such as this would receive any detraction beyond quality issues. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Opposes to this nom should have focused solely on quality, and there were no quality issues, all we needed to do was wait for it to become official and for the pages to be updated. An appropriate response would've been to leave a !vote along the lines of "tentative support on quality, wait for official confirmation. no orange tags or cns but will need to be updated". Not needlessly ridiculing the nom for being slightly too early to nominate something that everybody knows is ITN-worthy and certain to occur. That's uncivil, that's unhelpful, that's unnecessary, and that's disruptive. There's just no reason to react like that to something so reasonable. I have to agree with Andrew here: if the nom gets dragged to AN/I for a TBAN proposal, I'd endorse a WP:BOOMERANG too.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You worded my thoughts exactly. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The only one who called for a tban was Nfitz (who quickly retracted it) and a now blocked IP. We can pipe down the rhetoric about non-existent boomerang scenarios here. And there is a reason this received that opposition, when a single editor is consistently making crystal noms the reaction is bound to be negative (cf. Starmer previously).

Let us see, I saw the nom about the "new" PM and went to the article and sure enough much in line with the preceding comments at the time, nothing was to be found in the article about this. Hasty noms are doing no one a favour. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ITN is not a breaking news ticker and most definitely not one which jumps the gun. If certain editors find that problematic then this is likely not the forum for them. Gotitbro (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I think the hostile atmosphere of ITN/C has increased recently (especially with relation to British politics). On top of the call for a ban, we also had accusations of farming ITN credit, unnecessarily hostile language, and someone logging into an anonymous account to insult me.

All this from a fairly run of the mill nomination that was arguably a few hours early. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 - I've been around here a while and the atmosphere was really bad when I first started. It improved drastically over time, especially once the most severely uncivil contributors were tbanned, but I worry we're drifting back towards a more toxic climate again.

That anyone would accuse anyone else of trying to farm credit or racing to see who nominates first is baffling, because there's a reason why we give these credits in the first place. Just as we give credit to updaters because we not only want but need people to do the work of getting pages ready, we purposefully incentivize and reward being the one to nominate something, because we need more nominations and don't want things to be stale by the time they're nominated.

Far too often we see editors leave comments along the lines of "why should we blurb x when y wasn't even nominated?" when the solution to that problem would've just been to nominate y too, not to shut down x. Now a group of editors are mad at an editor for doing what they're supposed to do, and trying to discourage or even penalize nominating things "early"? What will that do to the issue of not enough things being nominated in the long run? It's as though we at ITN are trying to make all of our known issues even worse.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support now that it's happened XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Burnham is now PM, articles are in good shape (slight adjustments for the start of his Premiership needed), this was definitely nominated far too soon (patience, c’mon), but others care far too much on whether something was posted a few minutes too soon. Let’s all simmer down a little TheFellaVB (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support In the news, clear change in the executive powers of the UK. Quality of the Burnham article is fine. The article for the leadership election should be unbolded because there are two citation needed tags still present in the article. CastleFort1 (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support once it actually happens. A long-awaited event which will be a reality shortly, and which is ITNR. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Burnham appointed PM by king. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Actually happened, and no glaring quality issues. And a big Trout for the unnecessarily rude commenters who suggested it's somehow TBAN-worthy for the nom to have prepared this a few hours early when there's truly nothing wrong with that, we knew this ITN/R news event was going to take place and this was obviously going to be nominated quickly and it will obviously be posted (hopefully also quickly). No amount of hostility towards the nom is warranted here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support He is now the PM, big news and worthy of inclusion. It's completely replaced the World Cup results as the main news story in the UK. --~2026-40676-02 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support now he's actually PM. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support now Prime Minister so support. Stevo1000 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support given that he's now prime minister, Burnham's article is solid. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• @ITNA I think there's a clear consensus; could someone review, and if appropriate, post, please? Thanks. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why the rush? ArionStar (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly a rush - see above, where I say that posting here isn't some sort of a race. But when a clear consensus emerges for a major story, it would be good if that consensus led relatively promptly to actual posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support blurb and also support the nominator Clearly ITNR. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing ban-worthy about nominating something in advance of a forthcoming event. We frequently cast “wait” votes here at ITN here for this exact purpose. If you think we should wait, then !vote to wait accordingly. Do not bully others with calls for topic bans if they do not share your view. I agree that a WP:BOOMERANG t-ban or reprimand may be called for in this case. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 18:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted. I used File:Official portrait of Andy Burnham MP 2026 (cropped 3x4).jpg rather than the picture in this nomination as that one was already protected at WP:CMP. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The more important thing here, and the reason that this is ITNR, is that there was a change in prime minister. The change in Labour Party leadership should be the second thing mentioned in the blurb, not the first. Mlb96 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. @Admins willing to post ITN: Can this be changed? Currently it reads somewhat confusingly. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

   Done – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

MV Barima

The vessel in 2004

Article: MV Barima (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 72 people are killed and dozens are reported missing when the MV Barima ferry capsizes off Guyana (Post)

News source(s): Guyana Chronicle

Credits:

• Created and nominated by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major shipwreck with over 100 fatalities expected. One of the worst maritime disasters in the country's history. Article is good length and sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced. Spencer^T•C 02:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 São Toméan presidential election

Article: 2026 São Toméan presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Carlos Vila Nova is re-elected President of São Tomé and Príncipe. (Post)

News source(s):

Credits:

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
• Updated by CastleFort1 (talk · give credit)

 ArionStar (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose article too short. "Aftermath" and "Conduct" sections are needed. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Alsor97:  Done (thanks CastleFort1). ArionStar (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Support but Wait per above. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Is this ITN/R? List of current heads of state and government suggests that the prime minister holds the executive powers in ST&P. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It is often dubious how that list makes its determination on who administers the executive or not, but I will err on the side of caution and disable the ITN/R parameter. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Sao Tome and Principe is a semi-presidential republic, the prime minister has more executive powers but the president has the ability to dismiss the prime minister. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell the presidential election is what's been posted before, in 2011 and 2021. Legislative election in 2014 nominated but didn't get posted Placeholderer (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article has been updated with "aftermath" and "conduct" sections, no orange tags, no CNs, and we've posted São Toméan presidential elections before as the presidency is a sufficiency powerful position.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support A little short, but well-written and well-updated. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Posted. Left guide (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Open Championship

 UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not ready yet - needs prose summary for the final round. Natg 19 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Not Ready The perennial complaint that the field and qualifying section is confusing still stands. The 2025 article split that whole mess off into a separate article, but I think making a table of players and how they qualified and a list of qualifying criteria is also acceptable. On the other hand, even that would probably be confusing and would dominate the whole article. There are also several unsourced paragraphs (one section has an orange "does not cite any sources" tag). ~2026-36471-65 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose No prose for the final round, and several orange-tagged sections. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 FIFA World Cup

Nominator's comments: ITN/R, congrats to Spain. Davey2116 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wait until final article is expanded, ongoing item should be removed. — Knightoftheswords 22:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: We should add a picture of of the MVP from the game as well when that comes out. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 22:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This does not exist. Though we could add a photo of the winner of the Golden Ball, best player of the entire WC tournament (Rodri). Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I meant that. EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 23:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: 2026 FIFA World Cup final needs a prose summary of the match. Spencer^T•C 22:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Wait Absolutely ridiculous to nominate seconds after the result, especially by someone who has not edited the target article at all. There's no prose about or reaction to the match. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Technically two minutes before the result, but yeah, we need expansion of the article. — Knightoftheswords 22:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Support, The second win of Spain in world cup. The first being in 2010 ~2026-40559-12 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Wait It's still a little too early. Wait until final article is expanded per Knightoftheswords281. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Skyshiftertalk 22:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Article is expanded / ready. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 22:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• The article got expanded fast, posting. Dignitaries section needs improvement but it is not a reason not to post now. --Tone 22:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I've added a drive-by orange tag to the unsourced "Post-match" section for not having any sources. Can't see this being pulled over it, though, so I hope someone with knowledge of this area and the time fixes it. Departure– (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Could use this as a photo slot: Rodri (footballer, born 1996) (from Spain) was the winner of the Golden Ball. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is the a player of the match awarded yet? Maybe we should use that in line with previous blurbs (2022, 2018). ~2026-40680-41 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it has been awarded. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I prefer Golden Ball winner, as Player of the Match is fan-voted, and seems like a less official award. Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've updated to use man of the match as the pic, this is standard across football final blurbs both for prior World cups and for other tournaments. (The golden ball winner isn't actually guaranteed to have played in the match - for example in 2018 it was Messi, so it wouldn't have been good to have used a pic of him then). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) Krokstadelva fire

(Posted) RD: Duane Ward

Nominator's comments: Needs a lot of work, not ready yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. Everything is sourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Tim Murphy

Nominator's comments: Former United States Congressman. Article does not have full details about his death yet, however once expanded, the article will be of good enough quality. CatPerson987 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now many lines and paras are unsourced. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Support long enough, to say FlamingMingo 🦩 12:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Still a number of uncited statements and at least one whole paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Multiple unsourced statements. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Denny Sanford

Nominator's comments: American businessman, gave away $4 billion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Several areas needing citations. Spencer^T•C 11:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Citations added. - Indefensible (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jayden Dalke

Nominator's comments: Canadian football player. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Quality is good, with no unsourced statements. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Quality is good indeed. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Edward Stourton (journalist)

Nominator's comments: Broadcaster and journalist. ItsShandog (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment One completely unsourced paragraph in "Broadcasting", and a few other statements as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jennifer Finch

Nominator's comments: Major figure in the LA punk scene and bassist with L7. Article needs a bit of work, I'm AFK for a few hours now but I'll tackle it later if needed Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is well enough sourced now. If anyone could find a reliable citation for the statement that Finch was married to Chris Pedersen (actor) from 2000-2007 it'd be good to see - I could find nothing apart from social media and circular references back to this article (to be clear, I'm sure it's true, but without a source...) Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Support After trimming some dodgy sources this seems fine now. (Pedersen appears to be mentioned in Geo News, but that may be circular.)--Launchballer 14:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

RD: Terence Donovan

 Happily888 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Not yet ready Filmography is unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) US/Iran memorandum declared suspended

(Posted) New world record for fastest mile

Article: Josh Kerr (runner) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British runner Josh Kerr runs the fastest mile in human history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British runner Josh Kerr breaks the mile run world record.

News source(s): New York Times

Credits:

• Nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
• Updated by AFogelson (talk · give credit) and Spencer (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous and prestigious records in running. Previous record was set in 1999 (potentially drug-enhanced) and stood for 27 years until today. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support on significance. Kerr's article seems solid. Blythwood (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support one of the most significant and long standing records in athletics. Amazing it’s taken so long to be broken. Article looks in good shape. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support A breath amidst death-related events. ArionStar (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support A clearly-tracked achievement (this used to be the four-minute mile years ago). It would be nice if the records page could also be featured but that needs work, and Kerr's article works for now. Masem (t) 19:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support on notability, oppose on quality Great story and a significant achievement. However, Kerr's article needs work. There are several unref statements in the body and the tables at the end need citing as well. Also, would it be beneficial to state the record time in the blurb? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very little of these quality concerns are actual issues at face value. The "achievements" section with the stats tables cites a single master reference at the top that presumably covers everything in the section that doesn't have more specific citations, which is perfectly valid. As for the body statements, inline citations are presumed to cover everything preceding them within the same paragraph, so there's only one body sentence that's unambiguously uncited because that paragraph ends without a footnote. Left guide (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Left guide: yes, you are correct in some parts. However, the article has also been somewhat improved sourcing-wise since I posted my comment. I do apologise for thinking the tables were uncited, now I see the ref at the top covers them all. I'd say that the one unref statement is not that big of a deal and so can be passed off. Now with these resolved I strike my vote and Support. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. There are only 3 sentences about it in the target article, 2 of which are just about him announcing his plan to do this. We expect full write-ups from our other sports related ITN articles, I don't think this should be an exception.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  What else can be said? The who/when/where/what/how is all answered and given its a short race, it doesn't make sense for a recap. The update is sufficient for this type of news. Masem (t) 22:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bait30: I added additional detail to the section if you want to take another look. Spencer^T•C 13:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Spencer, it's already posted, but for what it's worth, I would've changed my vote because of your additions :)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The mile run is a non-Olympic unconventional race that is rarely staged in athletics competitions, so the claim that this is 'one of the most famous and prestigious records in athletics' is wrong (this can be said for the 1,500 metres or the 'metric mile run', though). As someone who has previously nominated and updated world records in athletics, I'm unsure that we should post world records in such races. You may argue that this is notable because the previous record stood for 27 years, but, two years ago, Jakob Ingebrigtsen broke the 28-year-old world record in 3,000 metres, which is another unconventional race, by more than 3 seconds. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I can assure you that, at least in my part of the world, it is indeed one of the most famous and prestigious records among the general public. If I tell someone who doesn’t watch athletics that the world record for the mile run was broken, their reaction is “wow that’s remarkable!” If I were to tell someone that the 1500 m record was broken, they would never have heard of it and have no reaction. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support The Enduring Magic of the Mile ...the Mile is far from a relic of the past. It continues to be a popular and respected event and has seen a resurgence in recent years, with athletes across the globe competing in high-profile mile races. ... As the only non-metric event officially recognised by World Athletics for world records and rankings, the Mile remains a distance that athletes around the world still vie for one of the sport’s most historic achievements—the sub-four-minute mile. Running must be the most popular participation sport now and this is a distance that everyone can understand and hope to try. Ten minutes is more my target than four though! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment I just want to point out that this is a perfect example of Anglocentrism, as the mile is not only not natural for a large portion of the world population but on top of that, the Mile we are talking about is derived from the English mile and would even not be the same the moment you step outside of the Anglosphere. We are on the English Wikipedia but please keep in mind that the world and the audience for this wiki is larger than only those countries that natively speak English. Dondville (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Except that for the longest time, breaking the four-minute mile had been seen as an example of humans getting more athletic for more than a century. Yes, in modern track events they use lengths of meters nearly exclusively, but the mile race has always been its own thing. Masem (t) 11:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Note that WP:ITNCDONT says Please do not ... Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). I cited the source because it says that this distance is "officially recognised by World Athletics". That body was founded in Stockholm and is now based in Monaco and so is not especially Anglocentric.

  I do like the mile partly because it is familiar but also because it is a classical unit, originating in the Roman Empire as the mille passus (thousand paces) which seems easy to understand as a natural human unit. It's not the only running distance with classical roots as the archetypal example is the marathon, which is Greek in origin.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 15:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I added additional detail to the section regarding the world record race and training. Spencer^T•C 13:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - Who decides if the fastest mile is more prestigious and worthy of a blurb than a fastest kilometer? It's not even an Olympic sports event. ~2026-40490-46 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Cricket is not an Olympic sport either but we'd be posting every variant of it on ITN. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's usually called the 1000 metres and that article explains that it's not a common distance for running. The equivalent metric distance which has the prestige and popularity is the 1500 metres and that's because it's a "metric mile" and so gains status from the classic mile. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support A world record in a renowned/recognizable distance, done in a professional race (London Diamond League), is notable enough.

Sxchen1110 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Per all above. Not all world records are ITN-worthy, but this one is receiving significant coverage in the news source. In addition, this breaks a 27 year record in a very well-known distance. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)