This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages ofPortal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcludedPortal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelledalt1,alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
Atarget article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in theOngoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
TheRecent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass ourstandards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets ourminimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about.We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the dateof the event (not the date nominated).Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the{{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should bereliable,support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb insimple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add{{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (seeWP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins shouldalways separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, checkWP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or becauseconsensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page,before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them.Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful.A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such asethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handleconflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Oppose arecurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss themhere.
Use ITN as aforum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.
This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.
To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
Milagro Navas, the mayor of La Libertad Este andEl Salvador's only opposition-aligned mayor, announces that she will run for re-election in 2027.(El Mundo)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Lufthansa staff conduct a one-daystrike to protest the airline'scost-cutting measures, grounding at least 460 flights and affecting nearly 70,000 passengers.(DW)(Reuters)
Strong oppose unusual, but unimportant to life on Earth, and the blurb fails to specify how this is notable. Seems a prime candidate for DYK if it's eligible, though.Departure– (talk)13:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to read the article, which explains thatThe planetary system of LHS 1903 is notable for its unusual architecture, which challenges traditional models of planet formation.Andrew🐉(talk)14:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be communicated in the blurb. I'm not opposed to blurbing things that cause major changes in fields of science, but this article let alone blurb don't communicatehow this discovery does that."challenges traditional models of planet formation" just sounds like buzzwords.Departure– (talk)14:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is just barely past a stub but as per Departure, there's no clear obviousness to why this is more than a curiosity.Masem (t)13:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While this configuration is unusual, it's certainly not unprecedented. I dislike the click-bait blurb, and while I am definitely not opposed to all astronomy (or even all exoplanetology) stories at ITN, contra Departure's objection, I don't feel that this comes close to the threshold I would want to see.GenevieveDEon (talk)14:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that it's not unprecedented; I was curious and went check if I can find any similar cases in planetary system architecture studies. There's a prior case ofTOI-700 which has two Earth-sized planets exterior to a mini-Neptune (and another Earth-sized on an interior orbit), of comparable masses, even with similar commentary on how this architecture might have formed. There's alsoKepler-80 andKepler-102, which have an Earth-sized planet exterior to two/one mini-Neptunes, but in those two cases the exterior planet is also significantly smaller. LHS 1903 has a super-Earth exterior to two mini-Neptunes, all three of similar masses. Disappointingly I don't see that mentioned anywhere, in the discovery paper, or in the media reports.Slovborg (talk)16:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really irreconcilable with it, but it certainly requires additional mechanisms at work; be it migration mechanisms which allow planets to skip each other (see here also:Nice model, which is the standard model of our own system's formation – which requires Neptune forming interior to Uranus before the orbits get reshuffled, possibly with afifth giant planet getting ejected); or as mentioned by the discovery team, by allowing multi-stage formation where the final planet only forms after the volatiles have already been accreted (I have to say I'm not fully satisfied with their explanation, as I'd expect volatiles to accrete slower, not faster) – or perhaps dispersed by the young star'sstellar wind which pushes thefrost line further out? There's also a similar problem among theGalilean moons – Callisto's geology compared to Ganymede hints at it having formed much slower, meaning it retained much less primordial heat.Slovborg (talk)17:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the current ITN blurbs, they don't convey the hidden complexities of those stories -- the background to the shooting; the political developments in Portugal; the fuss over the half-time show at the Superbowl. And they don't explain the complexities of Canadian gun law, Portuguese presidential elections or the intricate rules of American football. There's no way we can fit all that into a headline so we don't try. Hackneyed phrases are used instead so that ITN always has a grim, monotonous and stale appearance.
ITN quite the opposite of DYK, which makes an effort to be fresh, varied and interesting and which works so much better. This story will probably end up there instead where it will be welcomed and appreciated rather than scorned and sneered at. So it goes.
Though with the rest of the blurbs you mention, they are standardWYSIWYG fare.
I don't think this can be conveyed through an ITN blurb here and the reader would be clueless as to how thenebular hypothesis is "challenged" (already an unclear term) as neither of those articles mention each other.
Browsing, I soon found asimilar astronomical topic which wasnominated at DYK a few weeks ago. Several hooks were suggested and they went with:
... thatBienor(pictured) is a very longcentaur in space?
The key difference is the complete lack of hostility in the process. The general presumption at DYK is that they are there to get articles posted. At ITN, the attitude seems quite the opposite.Andrew🐉(talk)08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, though article should be enhanced to explain why this planetary set-up doesn't fit standard nebular hypothesis. I'm a firm believer that astronomic news should of course be featured on ITN, and a discovery that seems to upend (or at least require tweaks to) the standard planetary creation model we've all learned in school is a prime candidate for that (quality allowing).Khuft (talk)00:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being, beyond the blurb/headline, neither the sources nor the article provide how this would "upend (or at least require tweaks to) the standard planetary creation model". I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely explained by the current model either.Gotitbro (talk)05:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on the article's talk page,Slovborg has returned to expand the article, having now read and digested the main paper. Substantial updates have been added, including
The system is an important test case for the theoretical models of planet formation. A gap feature in observed radii between the super-Earths and mini-Neptunes, called the radius valley, can be explained by different processes. ... The two models predict a similar location of the radius valley, making validation of either model over the other hard. The planet LHS 1903 e is so far the strongest case for a planet which must have formed according to the gas-depleted formation model. This is also similar to the models previously invoked to explain the formation of the Earth and the rest of the inner planets.
Now, Slovborg clearly understands this better than most of us but is perhaps still absorbing the detail. It would be good to get input from other astronomy experts such asMike Peel andModest Genius too. The latter says that they are "part of the editorial staff ofScience" and so should be especially well-informed.
I first came across the story while browsing CNN, which is a mainstream news site. It was listed with a variety of stories in a sidebar and I drilled down because it seemed the most interesting. The news has been triggered by apaper inScience which is a top-tier journal. A lot of institutions were involved – the paper lists 170 names – and many of them have announced the story on their sites. For example, I found the picture at theEuropean Space Agency's announcement, established that it had a CC licence and so uploaded it and added it to the article. The story has naturally been picked up by the popular science press such asNew Scientist andScientific American. And it now appears in a variety of international newspapers such asEl País andTimes of India. It's still spreading so maybe there will be more.
And note that, since I nominated this, there haven't been any other nominations apart from a couple of minor RDs. So, we're not spoilt for choice, are we?
Article updated The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The election is ITNR, so !votes should focus exclusively on quality. The article is already presumed to be important enough to post. And is this case the article is someone lacking in quality at the moment.Chorchapu (talk |edits)14:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support With major updates, the article now fulfills the checkmarks for sufficient article quality for posting on ITN. The header was amended, background was added, and the campaign section was expanded. A result prose exists, alongside seat tables and results by constituency. Both domestic and international reaction sections are also good in quality.CastleFort1 (talk)18:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support The results have been announced, and it is quite significant, also being the polling day for a referendum on reforms, and the country’s third leader in three years too.Kknnkj (talk)06:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
I don't expect we will have good coverage of when they have all departed, compared to this point. But fair to wait a couple days to make sure nothing flares up.Masem (t)15:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Article states that it is still ongoing and Homan said that the withdrawal will take a week beginning today.Support starting February 19 or whatever the date is that the withdrawal is finished. --SpectralIon15:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal – If this is not removed now, the conversation will drag for a week, and then this removal will be re-nominated, and finally it will be inevitably removed despite it being obvious it could have been removed before (like how the Iranian protests stayed in Ongoing despite ending 2+ weeks). Let's avoid this unnecessary bureaucratic hassle; the operation is over / has received less coverage, and we can always renominate it.Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)15:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quick reminder that the purpose of ongoing is to "maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." It's irrelevant if a subject is physically ongoing, what is more relevant is whether it is still frequently in the news and, mainly, whether the article is still continuously updated. The nomination does not provide a guidelines-based reason to remove the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)16:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well a good other reason is that immigration enforcement news out of Minn. has significant waned. There are updates both in news and on article but nowhere close to top news headlines as they had been when this was added. Lots of fallout to still be resolved but that's now into legal matters which never resolve quickly.Masem (t)16:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - local issue that should never have been there, rather than an overarching ongoing on the rise of fascism, militarism, and authoriatism in that entire country. We seem to get disproportional reaction when American citizens die, despiite dozens of non-white non-Americans dead at the hands of ICE in the last year. We shouldn't be playing along with the US media amplifying American citizen deaths and ignoring non-citizen deaths. Metro Surge isn't mentioned in the ongoing blurb - I'm not sure why we use cutesy militaristic names here - as if this was some fun war thing.Nfitz (talk)16:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Prior to today's announcement, article without updates in the "Timeline" section after February 5th. Not meeting regular updates threshold to remain on Ongoing.SpencerT•C03:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Checking theupdates made in the past 24 hours, I think we're still way above the update density of other Ongoing items. Checking Google News, I am seeing many detailed news articles on this subject in the past 24 hours as well, including American news websites and local Dutch ones for me (AD,NOS, for example). This article and the related news articles are clearly still ongoing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)10:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Updates to the article are very minimum. Looking at the last week of its history, ignoring gnoming/copyediting, the last actual edition of events was back on Feb 5, and the bulk of those additions are unsourced or poorly sourced (and still are) Only two major current events were added, but those are related to the comments Walz saying it was likely to end soon, and the statement from Homan. The other significant updates are simple updates to some of the legal actions. This isnot properly updated, so that's already a problem. And while I know there's some bits still appearing in the news, it is nowhere close to the volume when this was first added to ongoing. And while even after Homan's announcement I've read of some ICE action, the problem is that we will have no hard signal that they have all left MSP, which is why we should take the announcement, coupled with the article failing to meet ongoing quality aspects needs to be taken off ongoing.Masem (t)13:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/weak oppose If the law enforcement surge is going to end soon it makes more sense to remove it when it's actually over. I'm also skeptical of the speculation that news outlets won't be able to tell if the operation has ended.FallingGravity15:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two pilots are killed after assailants shoot at a landing Smart Air flight inBoven Digoel Regency,South Papua,Indonesia, carrying 15 people. Another person is killed after a convoy is attacked.(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Took the words right out of my mouth when I heard of his death. Notable pop culture actor for Millennials, but only nostalgia goggles would prompt a blurb nom.
Needs work This was the top read article yesterday with nearly 2 million readers – that's about a thousand times more than ITN's pick ofAntónio José Seguro. Anyway, we're an encyclopedia and, as a general reader, my interest is why this person should have died at such an early age, which the article doesn't explain – its lead doesn't even mention the death. Investigating, I find thatcolorectal cancer is now the leading cause of death for men in the US under the age of 50 and that screenings are recommended from the age of 45.Chadwick Boseman was another high-profile sufferer. The exact cause for this increase is not clear but consumption of processed meat is known to be a significant risk factor. There was a big spike in the readership for our article about the condition too so it's good to see that some readers are able to find their way without our assistance. But we can still do better.Andrew🐉(talk)08:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely do not use readership as a deciding factor period. You have been asked to stop bringing that up multiple times now.Masem (t)12:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, at what point does this become more than POINTy enough to bring to ANI? Clearly the ITN Talk Page hasn’t worked as people there sided with Andrew over a different issue and if anything, he’s gotten worse about readership numbers despite being constantly told they don’t matter since.GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! /Mission Log)18:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Readership figures are still useful context. They shouldn't be the sole reason to post an item, but I do find them interesting (as someone who mainly lurks on this page). It's always important to be reminded that we serve the readers. ITN isn't just an intellectual exercise.Zagalejo (talk)19:23, 12 February 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.
Oppose Until it is confirmed that it was due to the escape of an alien or something extremely serious. For now, trivial. Airports are usually closed for extraordinary reasons (weather, security, etc.)._-_Alsor (talk)12:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, a sensible explanation is provided. In this case, the reporting says,an El Paso city representive, said that while there was no reason to believe the city is in any “kind of imminent safety threat,” the lack of clarity from the F.A.A. was fueling fear and misinformation. “What’s especially troubling is that there appears to have been no advance notice to local government, airport leadership, or even local Air Traffic Control or local military leadership,”Don't Panic!Andrew🐉(talk)12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN is not for wild speculation. It is very unusual but nowhere at a point we can reliably cover it in an encyclopedic manner.Masem (t)12:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:ITN, ITN started with the WTC attack which was posted on Wikipedia's main page within minutes. It was not clear what was happening initially and it was first supposed to be an air crash but editors pitched in to make sense of the developing news and this was generally thought to be a good thing.Andrew🐉(talk)12:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear obvious immediate impact, including who did it, within a few hours on 9/11. Nothing yet outside a eerie warning has happened here. WP is responsive to news, not proactive.Masem (t)14:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, lean oppose Feels best to wait for more developments before deciding. For now, I lean oppose on notability based on trivia concerns, per Alsor.CastleFort1 (talk)12:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - TFRs happen exceedingly often; this is just a very large version of one. Anything mentioning what might be happening is speculation.EF513:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So far this is just a minor inconvenience for travellers, which is likely to be lifted long before the 10 day upper limit. We can't post every time an airport closes for a day and cancels those flights.Modest Geniustalk14:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd say that was the biggest waste of time at ITN this week, but sadly it's not that long since Andrew nominated the CIA World Factbook closure.GenevieveDEon (talk)14:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given there was no apparent damage or deaths, it's absolutely a non story, not even appropriate to document for an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper, this is a prime example why we take time to determine if there's anything encyclopedic to write about.Masem (t)15:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd held back we'd only have the Barbadian election to talk about today and that's the non-story as the incumbent just got another term. I reckon our readers are much more interested in this one.Andrew🐉(talk)15:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably differing from others here, I think it's good you propose unconventional noms to challenge ITN's conventions etc., but this should've waited until we knew what the story was. We sometimes have days where there are no blurb noms, which is fine, more time people can spend writing articles etc., community time isn't there to be used up. Proposing types of news stories we don't usually post (like that plastics one a while back) would be most constructive imo, still too many disasters, elections, and sports. But need to look outside US and UK newsKowal2701 (talk,contribs)15:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And now someone has rushed to close the election nomination too. SeeWP:WHENCLOSE which indicates that discussions should not be closed too soon and may not need closing at all.Andrew🐉(talk)15:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've had multiple reasons. The NYT now reports that "Officials on Wednesday offered conflicting explanations..." This confusion will itself be part of the story now.Andrew🐉(talk)16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopedia? Is this going to be even notable in 10 years? This us exactly why we can't be thinking like a newspaper.Masem (t)16:23, 11 February 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.
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.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Barbadian election, Westminster system, ITN/R. The results have come in and media around the world is reporting on it, but the article needs to be updated and requires a lot of work. Abcmaxx (talk)11:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elections in Barbados have been previously opposed on quality in ITN nominations back in2013 and2022. The quality of the article needs to step up if editors desire the election should get posted on ITN. Examples include adding a campaign section, results prose, results by constituency, and a reaction section.CastleFort1 (talk)12:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs a lot of work and general update: nothing about the campaign and political proposals, nor about the reactions/aftermath; the results section is empty._-_Alsor (talk)12:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hey hey, the general electionis taking place today, it is still underway. The blurb is incorrect. Let's wait and see what's going to happen._-_Alsor (talk)12:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Premature the election hasn't even happened yet, 0 votes are in, wait until the results of the election come in and are reported on.Scuba14:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can I ask how and why Abcmaxx, who I think of as an experienced editor, came to nominate an election, with outcome, when it had not yet been held?GenevieveDEon (talk)14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Just nominating for an RD listing,not a blurb. "Legendary" broadcaster in British Columbia who died at the age of 91. Death announced February 10th. TheSandDoctorTalk07:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is the second deadliest shooting in Canada during the 21st century. It is also the deadliest school shooting in the country since theÉcole Polytechnique massacre in 1989 and the first major school shooting sinceLa Loche. Mass shootings are somewhat rare in Canada so this makes the one today highly uncommon. Also, 37 victims total from a shooting is highly notable.Bloxzge 025 (talk)03:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Article is too thin as of this comment. However, once expanded I will support based on the obvious notability. This sort of thing is extremely rare in Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk)04:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to wait until we have more information. We are not a news ticker. I suspect that we will have much better quality article tomorrow and we can post it then. -Ad Orientem (talk)04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article is undergoing rapid changes - while this has seen headlines globally - until there is enough to substantiate an article with it is slightly prematureTawker (talk)04:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worst school shooting in Canada in over 30 years, unusual event in Canada. I'd like to note though that "school shooting at a school" is redundantKoiramainen (talk)06:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the second worst school shooting in Canadianhistory at this point. Notable and worth a mention for sure, though I respect the thoughts of Ad Orientem and will concede that this can wait a little if necessary. Just lodging support now in case that point happens while I am otherwise indisposed. I would just couch that perhaps we should say "at least 10 people dead" as, tragically, that figure might change given those in critical condition. --TheSandDoctorTalk06:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolute tragedy and a historic one at that, being the second deadliest school shooting in Canada and the third deadliest mass shooting overall in Canada. If required, I can acquiesce to waiting, though much information has come out, but I do understand that neither the shooter's identity nor the motives have been released, however, that will most likely take much longer, and that's if the motives are discovered. I think the injuries part in the altblurb should be merged into the main blurb as the main blurb is worded much better, but the injuries part is very much notable.DRWiki1102 (talk)07:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Second deadliest school shooting, @Twistedaxe? I'm scratching my head here. There's been shootings at universities, and even at a college, but those involved adults. Also, there's still no confirmation that any children were killed (though it seems likely). The last "school" shooting, a few years ago, didn't involve any kids or students.Nfitz (talk)17:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my own head by your statement. This is indeed the second deadliest school shooting in Canadian history. I don't understand what you're trying to say. "School" in this case is defined as being an educational institution such as a primary school, secondary school and/or college and university. See this article for more information:List of school shootings in Canada.TwistedAxe[contact]21:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That article is bizarre. Includes a 60-year old who shot his wife in a car near a school, and accidental but harmless discharge of a gun during show-and-tell, over other non-significant and trivial stuff. Common usage - when one thinks school shootings, one doesn't think universities - or even colleges.Nfitz (talk)23:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is your definition of the word "school". You seem to get stuck on that definition and you seem to not understand that it is a relatively subjective manner. The articleSchool refers to a school as being aneducational institution (and, in the case of in-person learning, thebuilding) designed to providelearning environments for theteaching ofstudents, usually under the direction ofteachers. Later in the article, it clearly states:An institution wherehigher education is taught is commonly called auniversity college oruniversity. Just because your definition of school does not fit the current narrative does not mean you are correct.
Regarding your other statement, it clearly states that a teacher along with his own wife was shot at a secondary school. By definition, again, a school shooting isanarmed attack at aneducational institution, involving the use of afirearm according tothis article. It makes absolutely no reference to it having to occur at a primary school or secondary school. It also makes no mention of children having to be the sole victims. It wouldn't make sense either even if we tied the definition to having to occur at secondary schools because some students in secondary school are 18+.
I don't know why you are hung up on this so much. But our article onschool shooting refers toan armed attack at an educational institution, and we mention shootings at colleges and universities in that article.Natg 19 (talk)23:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is international news in a way that that the Artsakh story isn't, with coverage in all the major media. There seems to be some mystery about the shooter; currently described as female, which seems unusual, as about 97% of such massacres are committed by men, it sayshere. This may make it more than the usualnews event.Andrew🐉(talk)08:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that "This is international news in a way that that the Artsakh story isn't, with coverage in all the major media." It is news No. 1 for the moment in Canada, naturally. But objectivly the trial of Artsakh leadership (end of the 30+ history of Artsakh republic) is more important than just another school shoooting. This only means that "coverage in all the major media" should not be the prime criteria for ITN in Wikipedia, it should not follow the media bias. Otherwise, the bias towards events in English-speaking countries cannot be avoided.Wi1-ch (talk)10:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is an IP and another editor saying the shooter was trans to a very likely non-RS. S/he was reverted by multiple editors (including me). I dont want to put a dispute tag as it's current and headed to ITN, but something to watch out for. I've opened discussions in talk.Psephguru (talk)11:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I am having great difficulty following the discussion there, but there's a strong flavour of 'not touching you' about the non-IP participant's behaviour on that talk page. I feel that some sort of official intervention may be warranted, but I'm not sure where to begin.GenevieveDEon (talk)12:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly notable and significant because this is the worst school shooting in Canada in over 30 years. Quality of the article is sufficient enough for posting.CastleFort1 (talk)14:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That shooting was at a university - so no children involved. A bit misleading to call that a school shooting. Surely this could be the deadliest shooting - if indeed 6 kids were shot. And the first multi-person killings since 1975.Nfitz (talk)17:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurbs are misleading with only 6 murdered at (or near) the school. Still no indications that any children were killed. At least need to wait until more information is released. Is the murder of 9 people - only 6 at a school - that significant? Seems a bit borderline to me.Nfitz (talk)17:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if children or not were killed? The shooting still happened at an educational institution (in this case a secondary school) and left over 8 people (if you exclude the perpetrator) dead. For being Canada, yes, this is significant as it is the second deadliest school shooting in their entire country's history. The numbers being premature are not grounds for pulling this article from ITN. We've posted lots of stories similar to this one with equal amount of significance where the numbers have fluctuated after the articles were already made and the blurbs were posted to ITN.TwistedAxe[contact]22:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6 at the school but even then, that is very notable. We're talking about Canada. The remaining 2 deaths are still attributed to the same perpetrator even if they did not occur on school grounds. I don't understand what point you're trying to prove or convey here.TwistedAxe[contact]03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 5 children at the school. My point was the blurb isn't clear. I've not argued that the event itself isn't significant after we found out that 5 children were killed. Normally these types of incidents are work place violence, with the dead being adults. Deliberatly killing multiple kids has literally never happened before - but we didn't know that any kids were killed at the time of the nomination. There was lots of unfounded reports early during theLa Loche shootings that there'd been an active shooter, killing children in that school - which turned out to not be true as the two or three in the school who died awere teachers). As this is the first multiple shooting deaths of children in a Canadian school ever - then yes, it's clearly ITN - my objection is that solely timing; and particularly that we didn't know this at that timee.Nfitz (talk)16:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. In that case, because we've received confirmation that it is now a school shooting, would you like to reiterate your !vote? The dust has also settled regarding the death toll and such as I believe the Canadian authorities have mostly identified the victims as well as the perpetrator.TwistedAxe[contact]19:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Wait Article needs more detail, particularly the Suspect, Investigations and Aftermath sections. No need to rush this into ITN before the article has matured; ITN is not a news agency.Dr Fell (talk)17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been marked as not ready because of the orange tag for a content dispute, but it's not immediately clear that there is any meaningful dispute about the content, except from trolls.GenevieveDEon (talk)18:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ‘Identity of shooter’ discussion is extremely unhelpful. RS have not yet identified the suspect, full stop. The ‘gunperson’ and his or her motive may not be public for some time. (The Nashville shooter’s manifesto was not leaked until six months after the attack, with the leaks directly contradicting earlier official statements on their content.) Editors involved in that discussion may want to disclose their involvement before suggesting there is no meaningful dispute, though.Dr Fell (talk)18:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pull @muboshgu - 8 were killed - police corrected the number a while ago. And since when do we include the shooter? Also only 5 kids - isn't that important? As is it is with 5 being the deadliest shooting of children in a school (or anywhere?) since 1902. Posting wrong inflated numbers is why these things shouldn't be posted to quickly.Nfitz (talk)21:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to pull. Admins can fix these errors but this is still the deadliest shooting in Canada in a long time, for a country which does not have mass shootings.Natg 19 (talk)21:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the number to nine, as the perpetrator is a person who is dead too. Why would we not include the shooter in the death toll? – Muboshgu (talk)21:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have always included the shooter (or perpetrators) in death tolls (e.g.At least 190 people, including the attackers, are killed in attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army orA suicide attack at a mosque during Friday prayers kills at least 33 people in Islamabad, Pakistan - this included the suicide bombers).Natg 19 (talk)21:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pull because the information is premature. We shouldn't see death tolls reduce and inaccurate statements at the time of posting. Given the gun may have originated from one of the victims, it's not clear if they weren't somehow implicit. But yes - bigging shooting of children in a Canadian school probably since 1902 when 1 or 2 were killed - relatively significant - but still only 5. And what were 12-year olds doing in a secondary school?Nfitz (talk)21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that in BC that high school begins in Grade 8 (which isn't totally unusual - it's Grade 7 in Quebec) - so that adds up.Nfitz (talk)22:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As TwistedAxe says above, we consistently post blurbs in which the death/injury tolls fluctuate. This has been true of most "disaster" blurbs that we post. Also, whether or not children were killed, this was the deadliest mass shooting in Canada since 2020.Natg 19 (talk)22:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per Niftz. This was premmature and notability is being greatly exaggerated. Also, this is not a quality article, as it is missing significant information expected of a shooting, even at such low turnaround. Frankly this is not much more than a stub as far as ITN standards lie. More importantly, as as been pointed out the dead toll is 20% lower than the initial blurb proposal and less than half ITN's typical posting for US shootings. Regardless, being the deadliest shooting in Canada within a decade or two is not, on its own, notable for ITN. Being the deadliest in Canada over a time span is notable but that should not put it over the line when is it so far from crossing a line that is typically given for similar tragedies. In the past, ITN has put the "notable death toll" (despite valid insistence not to set one) for US mass shootings at around 20. When european countries had single digit shootings the consensus was that typically that they were too insignificant to be blurbed in such a way that would be respectful to the tragedies in more violent countries and reflect their own notability. It is true that death toll is not a wholly fair judgement of if a recent event article is worthy of a blurb, but there still needs to be other criterion of notability met. The only thing notable is that its the deadliest shooting in a decade or three in a country that has few. But what actually is the significance of that? Genuine question, what does that actually matter for ITN? Because surpassing prior landmarks has never been valued as notable, only ever something to add to ITN blurbs or DYK facts of otherwise noted articles. The context of this blurb is just a fact that gives us context about Canada but it doesn't indicate anything significant about what Canada or other nations will be like in the future. We have to wait to see if anything happens and likely nothing will come of this that is notable to ITN. If next week the Canadian Parliament passed stricter gun control regulations would ITN blurb that? If the economy of Tumbler Ridge crashes and turns to a ghost town would we ever blurb that? Unlikely. As many point out, it is partially the job of ITN to predict if an event will be notable in the future given new information, and I have a hard time believing people here are making fair predictions rather than reacting to a discrepancy between their model of the world and what has happened.
The reason why we have different criteria for US school shootings and school shootings outside of the US is because if we were to blurb every school shooting in the US, the ITN would become a literal obituary and filled with only school shootings in the US. Canadian school shootings happen every few years for instance. It's a highly notable event. This shooting is making headlines across multiple news outlets that aren't even English speaking.
I would like to see some examples of some European school shootings in the "single digits" that weren't mentioned or blurbed in ITN. As me & Natg 19 has pointed out above, just because the death and injury toll fluctuates when a blurb is nominated, does not make it any less fitting for ITN and definitely not enough to be grounds for pulling.TwistedAxe[contact]04:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
> I would like to see some examples of some European school shootings in the "single digits" that weren't mentioned or blurbed in ITN
For completeness and to show im not cherry picking here is an example with a similar death toll (double digits so technically out of the scope) that was actually posted... from montenegro which has a population ~1/50th that of canada. So their notability threshold is much lower than canada.
This one in Oslo was controversial, it was posted but there was no strong consensus on this one and was non admin closed, couldve easily gone the other way
>if we were to blurb every school shooting in the US, the ITN would become a literal obituary and filled with only school shootings in the US
This is not particularly true if you look at the actual list of mass shootings in the US. Yes wed have too many blurbs but its not like theyd be weekly, more like every few months (to be clear i dont think they should be posted at this scale)
A quick look shows within the past few years only two to six events of the same scale occur annually. Considering Canada is about a tenth the population of the US that shows these events are proportional to population within at least an order of magnitude.~2026-94762-3 (talk)06:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the links you linked have oppose votes due to the articles being stubs or not being of sufficient quality to meet ITN standards. While there are a handful of oppose votes that oppose because of the low death count, I should also note most of these are not school shootings. They are either spree shootings or mass killings of some sort (even if the death count only went to ~4 victims).
>For completeness and to show im not cherry picking here is an example with a similar death toll (double digits so technically out of the scope) that was actually posted... from montenegro which has a population ~1/50th that of canada. So their notability threshold is much lower than canada.
Please avoid using this argument. Whether its Canada or Montenegro, no country has a higher notability than another country. SeeWP:ITNATA.
>This is not particularly true if you look at the actual list of mass shootings in the US. Yes wed have too many blurbs but its not like theyd be weekly, more like every few months (to be clear i dont think they should be posted at this scale)
Looking at the list you linked, there were 15 mass shootings alone in 2025. This comes out to be around 1.25 shootings a month. I could not imagine the insane obituary ITN would become if we posted all of these stories. And to think these are the more notable mass shootings. This stuff happens way more in the US and unfortunately we've had to adapt to it here at ITN. We simply can't post every mass shooting story coming out of the US solely for this reason. But this goes both ways - if a really bad blizzard hit the southern US, it would definitely make its way onto ITN. Such a story would not make it onto ITN if the same blizzard were to hit Alaska or northern Europe - they're common occurrences. I hope you get the pattern.
One more important thing to note is that this school shooting isn't just a school shooting (which, by itself is already bad enough because we're talking about Canada here - where school shootings are uncommon and the last school shooting in which someone actually died was 2 years ago as well as 4 years ago), but also the fact that this shooting makes it the second deadliest shooting in all of Canadian history. To put it into an American perspective, this shooting is equivalent to theSandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which, was posted to ITN and a similar shooting in the US would absolutely no doubt be posted if something like it happened again, even in the US.TwistedAxe[contact]07:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eight murdered the second deadliest shooting @Twistedaxe? Off the top of my head? The Monteral massacre was 14. The 2020 Nova Scotia shootings were 22. The Sheddan massacre was 8. In terms of in schools, not including higher-level education where there were adults, this is by far the highest number of students killed, with 5. I'm not sure the previoous record was 1 (on several occasions) or 2 (back in Manitoba in 1902, as the sources aren't clear if there was one or two students killed). How can this be comparable to an elementary school shooting like Sandy Hook? There's been no kids killed like that since 1902 - and it would appear never multiple killings!Nfitz (talk)16:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 Nova Scotia shootings were not attributed to beingschool shootings. Same goes for Shedden Massacre. The Montreal massacre is the deadliestschool shooting in Canadian history with 15 dead (including the perpetrator) with this one leaving 9 dead. This is comparable to the Sandy Hook shooting because the Sandy Hook shooting was the second deadliest school shooting in American history (seethis article). It does not matter if children or not are killed, if the attack happens within the property of aneducational institution, it's a school shooting. It does not matter if the victims are children or not or whether or not the "school" in this case is a university or a primary school.TwistedAxe[contact]19:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple shooting of adults compared to kids is not in the slightest bit comparable. This has never happened before in the history of the nation. Within the property - that's just not realistic, given how much buildingless lands that school boards hold, and after hours usage of school parks. You don't normally get active shooter situations restricted to parking lots - it's one and done pretty much. More West Side Story than Rambo.Nfitz (talk)23:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Mass killings and school shootings are different.
>Most of the links you linked have oppose votes due to the articles being stubs or not being of sufficient quality to meet ITN standards.
Not exactly true, some of these were but almost all had convos disucssing the merit of blurbing regardless of the article quality. I would say this article also is dry. No, its not a stub, but its not exactly brimming with information. Most shootings in north america have much details at this point in the article life cycle.
>Whether its Canada or Montenegro, no country has a higher notability than another country
Then by that metric this article is totally not notable because this wouldn't be considered notable in most other countries. Neither the causality count nor the circumstances. The only notable aspect of this is the shooter's identity. With regards to that, to blunt, ITN has a responsibility to marginalized people to treat a topic like that with the upmost consideration which has not been given in this discussion, only the article talk page.
>Looking at the list you linked, there were 15 mass shootings alone in 2025. This comes out to be around 1.25 shootings a month
Youre looking at the total, not the number that have death tolls similar to or exceeding this event. Which is only a few a year. Again I dont think any of them are ITN worthy, and neither is this.
>because we're talking about Canada here - where school shootings are uncommon and the last school shooting in which someone actually died was 2 years ago
Nobody has died of a school shooting where i live in several years, if one happens here is it immediately notable because of that? You are contradicting your earlier statement that the country is not relevant to notability.
As i just replied to Nifitz with, "countries are not that important in this context because a country is merely a geographic region controlled by a government. If the government is not making a meaningful contribution to the nature of this event, and neither is the border this region is enclosed by, or the culture of the region, or the internal geography, then why does it matter its Canadian? Relying on the Canadian aspect is justp-hacking."
>To put it into an American perspective, this shooting is equivalent to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting,
I fail to see how, and am disturbed by that insinuation. is 5 Canadian children equivalent in notability to 25 american children? Hypothetically we blurb an even where one canadian child is killed do we blurb an event where 5 american children are killed if there exists no other context to contribute to notability?We don't do death comparison like that for a reason. And for what it is worth the notability of Sandy hook is high in the US due to a decade of high-profile lawsuits, conspiracy theories, and grassroots campaigns--not the event itself.~2026-94762-3 (talk)18:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
>Not exactly true, some of these were but almost all had convos disucssing the merit of blurbing regardless of the article quality. I would say this article also is dry. No, its not a stub, but its not exactly brimming with information. Most shootings in north america have much details at this point in the article life cycle.
It is sufficient enough for ITN.
>Then by that metric this article is totally not notable because this wouldn't be considered notable in most other countries. Neither the causality count nor the circumstances. The only notable aspect of this is the shooter's identity. With regards to that, to blunt, ITN has a responsibility to marginalized people to treat a topic like that with the upmost consideration which has not been given in this discussion, only the article talk page.
This would absolutely be notable if it happened in any other country. If this occurred in Germany, UK, Sweden, Russia or Saudi Arabia, we would absolutely blurb this. The only instance in which weprobably wouldn't blurb it is if it was an American school shooting. For reasons why, please refer to my replies above.
>Youre looking at the total, not the number that have death tolls similar to or exceeding this event. Which is only a few a year. Again I dont think any of them are ITN worthy, and neither is this.
Still too many. If it happens even more than twice a year, it's not that uncommon. For reference, the last instance in which something of this magnitude occurred in Canada was possibly 2016 (with 5 people dead, 3 at the school) and 1989 (with 14 people dead excluding the perpetrator).
>Nobody has died of a school shooting where i live in several years, if one happens here is it immediately notable because of that? You are contradicting your earlier statement that the country is not relevant to notability.
I don't know where you live but if you live in the United States and a similar shooting occurred, we probably wouldn't blurb it for the reasons I stated above. If you live anywhere else in the world and the death count is comparable to this shooting then yes, it is notable and it would be blurbed/posted. As I said, the exception to this rule (WP:ITNATA) is American school shootings simply because of the sheer volume and how often it occurs.
>I fail to see how, and am disturbed by that insinuation. is 5 Canadian children equivalent in notability to 25 american children? Hypothetically we blurb an even where one canadian child is killed do we blurb an event where 5 american children are killed if there exists no other context to contribute to notability?We don't do death comparison like that for a reason. And for what it is worth the notability of Sandy hook is high in the US due to a decade of high-profile lawsuits, conspiracy theories, and grassroots campaigns--not the event itself.
Please note that this is not a comparison of lives taken during these tragic events. Because Sandy Hook was thesecond deadliest school shooting in American history, it is the most similar comparison I can make. Just like this is thesecond deadliest school shooting in Canadian history. We don't do death comparisons for obvious reasons but you're completely misunderstanding my comparison and my point. Even if we exclude the decade of high-profile lawsuits, conspiracy theories and such, there was still a huge amount of attention simply because it was thesecond deadliest school shooting in American history. That's the point I'm trying to convey.TwistedAxe[contact]19:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second deadliest shooting in one country is not comparable to the second deadliest shooting in another country. Countries are just constructs. There isn't something inherently special about something happening in one country or another beyond how we describe and catagorize them. I think we need to actually put in effort to explain why the country matters here.
I got started doing some number crunching but need to stop because i need to get back to work. But the point i was going to make was that if you look atList_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000–present) andList of school shootings in Canada youll find canada has a frequency of 0.10 shootings per month and the US has 2.14 per month. Canada's population is 41.5m so 0.0023 shootings per month per million people, the US population is 341.8m so 0.0063 shootings per month per million people. A 3x difference, well within one order of magnitude. Not very significant in terms of news notability. It is notable in general, thats a clear trend we all know exists due to culture and gun legislation, but in terms of an "extraordinarily rare and unthinkable event", itd only be if you think american shootings are. For more context, the state of idaho (100% cherry picking just for the sake of argument) had 2 shootings and a population of 2 million thus 0.0033, which is lower than Ontario at 0.0042. So should an idaho shooting not get coverage but an ontario shooting should?
What im saying is, if you think relative frequency of a the of event occurring in a country matters to notability then you probably should blurb either both american and canadian school shootings, or neither. Not one or the other. Because the relative difference between them is not that large when you consider population differences.
Apologies for the changing IP address I do not want to associate my permanent account, linked to my real life, with discussions of dead children and politics. I have been reading the noms page daily for several years because I like to get news here in addition to traditional news.~2026-97066-2 (talk)21:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
School shootings per capita doesn't really make sense when both numbers are that low. As I mentioned previously in another reply, school shootings are measured in total, not per capita.
>So should an idaho shooting not get coverage but an ontario shooting should?
If there was a school shooting in Idaho with a substantial amount of deaths then yes. But the problem here isn't Idaho - it's the United States. We measure by countries, not by states. In the United States, there were a total of 68 school shootings alone in 2025 of which 36 had a deadly outcome/casualties. Since 2000, 16 of the 642 school shootings are considered "mass murders" (defined as being 4+ deaths excluding the perpetrators). This same number for Canada is 2 since 2000. If we include the entirety of the 20th century, that's still only 4 total school shootings that count as "mass murders". If we include all the "mass murder" school shootings in the United States from the 20th century, we get 27 mass murder school shootings. That's 675% more deadly mass murder school shootings than the United States.
>What im saying is, if you think relative frequency of a the of event occurring in a country matters to notability then you probably should blurb either both american and canadian school shootings, or neither. Not one or the other. Because the relative difference between them is not that large when you consider population differences.
Problem is, it's not relative to population but relative to gun laws and culture. The second amendment does not exist in Canada, and gun laws are way more strict in Canada. As I've given examples above, you can clearly see how much more common American school shootings are than Canadian ones. That's why we're blurbing this as it's the 2nd deadliest school shooting in Canadian history as well.TwistedAxe[contact]00:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, @~2026-94762-3, I wasn't advocating this be pulled based on notability, I was advocating on it being pulled because the blurb was factually wrong and misleading, with the root cause being it was posted too fast. Obviously it's significantly notable, because with 5 children shot in a school, it exceeds the previous record of 1, looking atList of school shootings in Canada. I.e. this is the very first multi-child shooting deaths in a Canadian school, ever - notwithstanding the confusion about 1902 Manitoba shooting, where the Wikipedia entry is clearly wrong (as it claims one student and two students, both on the same line!).Nfitz (talk)16:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if it is the deadliest in Canada ever? Like I said, that a triviality that indicates little about the future, only tells us about the past. There is no trend you can extrapolate from this event. 5 is simply not a large number in the scheme of tragedies even if it breaks a long standing record. ITN has never posited that record breaking is alone notable even if there are dead children. Records can be easily made to look larger. Nearly every "mass shooting" is the deadliest mass shooting in its first or second order municipality. Like I've said, you should expect shootings to happen everywhere because firearms and violent, deranged people exist everywhere in the world, sometimes they're just more common due to population, legislation, and culture. It is just as expected a shooting happens every once in a while in a country that has low gun crime as you'd expect a healthy elderly person to die unexpectedly. ITN Notability is not about "this combination of circumstances has never happened before in recent memory", as you and other suggest. ITN notability is more about "this is significant to users in the industrial world and they should read the article because it is very significant and we found the article is quality". I dont think that just because this event meets that first definition it ought to meet the second, or visa versa. The article was not quality last night, and it is still not quality, and the significance is of regional interest and trivia. Most people are judging the significance on the fact this happened in Canada, ergo must be uncommon. But countries are not that important in this context because a country is merely a geographic region controlled by a government. If the government is not making a meaningful contribution to the nature of this event, and neither is the border this region is enclosed by, or the culture of the region, or the , then why does it matter its Canadian? Relying on the Canadian aspect is justp-hacking. An event being regional and trivial is probably the most common reason we don't blurb noms, besides orange tags and stale topics.~2026-94762-3 (talk)17:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It matters for the same reason we'd blurb a school shooting occurring in the United States that exceeds the death toll of theVirginia Tech shooting. It is a highly uncommon event, a tragic one at that. No one wants to break the record for carrying out the deadliest school shooting in any country I'd imagine. But in the case of Canada, where gun laws are more restrictive and gun violence is several orders of magnitudes milder than that of the United States, this is a highly uncommon event. As I pointed out in another reply, the most comparable shooting to this that occurred on Canadian soil was in 2016 (if we count the 3 dead victims at the school only). Before that, it was in 1989. Also, I don't know why the number 5 keeps being thrown around when it's 6 people dead at the school, excluding the perpetrator. 8 total people were killed if we count all the killings attributed to the killer made during the same day.
>Like I've said, you should expect shootings to happen everywhere because firearms and violent, deranged people exist everywhere in the world, sometimes they're just more common due to population, legislation, and culture.
No, that is simply just not true - one should not except shootings in a country where gun laws are very restricted. The United States suffers from a gun problem due to their legislation and culture, but it has absolutely nothing to do with population. Otherwise, how come countries like India and China don't suffer from the same gun problems as in the US, despite having over 4 times the population?
>If the government is not making a meaningful contribution to the nature of this event, and neither is the border this region
We don't know that yet though. Perhaps something will come out of this. New legislation or such. But even if there's no long lasting consequences coming out of this, it is still highly notable and should not be disregarded.TwistedAxe[contact]19:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that @Twistedaxe, but I can't imagine how completely backwards a society would have to be to not be making meaningful changes after such an event. Not doing so would be the kiss of death of the government in a normal country - and always sees to happen.Nfitz (talk)23:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unfortunately so. But that's reality in the United States. Time will tell if Canada eventually becomes the same and only says so much without doing anything. To assume anything or make predictions would violateWP:CRYSTAL though, so best keep it away from ITN atleast.TwistedAxe[contact]00:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've often discussed this @~2026-94762-3, and it's been generally accepted that in normal countries where such things are rare or like this, unique, is more ITN than where it's more common in often backwards and militaristic failed democracies. I don't Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech were even the only such shootings this century alone! And how many even bigger mass murders have there been in Nigeria?Nfitz (talk)23:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is some very disgusting bias. Clearly not new. From your talk page back in December you said
>Quite frankly I think those who continue to nominate minor American events should be topic-banned from ITN.
Your political opinion on the united states have no bearing on whether something is worthy of being nominated and the fact you are proud to say you dont think civilian victims of tragic events should not be acknowledge in ITN just because they come from nations you perceive to be "backwards and militaristic failed democracies" is not appropriate behavior for this website. Neither ITN nor Wikipedia as a whole has ever had a policy or consensus of this kind. Severe COI.~2026-99282-6 (talk)01:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives and long-time political leader in national government. AdobongPogi06:09, 10 February 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.
Article:Walk for Peace (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A group of Buddhist monks completed theirWalk for Peace, a 2,300-mile (3,700 km) pilgrimage on foot from Fort Worth, Texas to Washington, DC promoting peace, compassion, and nonviolence. (Post) News source(s):[3] Credits:
Strong oppose--unclear importance, article is oddly written and sounds a little too promotional for me to be comfortable with an ITN feature. Seems like nothing more than a publicity stunt (which it was literally intended to be), and besides a few million social media followers this seems unimportant and unimpactful overall. Note that the event started last December.Departure– (talk)18:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and I question whether this even qualifies for an article underWP:NEVENT. Most of the references are to social media or the group's own press releases; many of the rest are minor local news.Modest Geniustalk19:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The independent sourcing of the article is largely local news, but it's been covered by theNew York Times[4],The Guardian[5], The BBC[6],Rolling Stone[7] and by theWashington Post in February[8] and in December[9]Jahaza (talk)22:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is not "just" for interesting articles. It requires either the article to be brand new or expanded 5x within the last seven days.Natg 19 (talk)01:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[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.
The bodies of three employees abducted from amining facility inSinaloa,Mexico, are recovered after being taken on January 23, while authorities continue searching for the remaining seven missing workers.(AFP via France 24)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Comment: Article would benefit from additional depth. With respect to his academic career, the article lists positions but without any areas of research or scholarly interest. In terms of his political career, the article states "several controversies arose between he and other movement leaders after the Black January incident" without explaining what these were, and otherwise is a list of positions without much depth about what he accomplished in those.SpencerT•C03:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
You mean the soccer World Cup that is an international event that the US participates in? Whereas this is a national event that only US teams are in?GenevieveDEon (talk)20:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(before ec) Yes, I appreciate that. What I'm telling you is that this isnot like the World Cup. It is like the FA Cup, or the Coppa Italia. You can'thave a 'the worldwide thing, but America', because the USA is just one nation. America isn't distinct from the world.GenevieveDEon (talk)20:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Americans are free to watch and get excited about actual worldwide competitions. (Calling a national event the 'World Series' doesn't count.)GenevieveDEon (talk)20:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only picture we have for Walker is a back shot from him in his college days, and thus right now totally unhelpful. I've put Alt blurb to remove the picture mention, unless we can get a better free image.Masem (t)03:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the picture isn't main-page worthy; it's a break from past practice, but could we mention Walker winning MVP in the blurb without a picture to accompany?DecafPotato (talk)03:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added Alt2 for that. I did just do a quick google and flickr scan and came up empty w/ free images outside college play which doesn't help.Masem (t)04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The most important sporting event in the US, and also previous games have been featured in ITN as well, though I believe that we can find a better picture because it is very out of date.EvanTech10 (talk)03:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support when game summary is updated and fully referenced. Another Superb Owl that was a defensive masterpiece is in the books; Sam Darnold finally has some success away from the long suffering Jets, and the post Brady/Belichek Patriots don’t manage to pull one off. Agreed that the Walker picture we have isn’t the best, hopefully another option can be found. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! /Mission Log)04:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2 on significance, oppose on quality until there is acceptable prose for the game summary. The international broadcast bit is less important.GenevieveDEon (talk)08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated; someone has removed the empty 'First Half' and 'Second Half' sections from 'Game Summary', along with their attendant orange tags. But this means that there is no prose narrative for the gameplay at all, which is clearly unacceptable. (I also find it ludicrous that there is more space dedicated to Turning Point USA's 'alternative' half-time show than to theactual half-time show. That seems undue, to put it mildly.)GenevieveDEon (talk)10:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The gameplay never had prose sourced. Tennis, cricket, soccer.
Needs work Strange prose with lots of past future tense such asThe game was a defensive battle as the Seahawks would take advantage of a struggling Patriots offensive line by kicking four unanswered field goals throughout the first three quarters. In the fourth, the game would see its only touchdowns....Andrew🐉(talk)11:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
Comment - The game summary is fairly rudimentary, but it's there and it's sourced. I removed the bit about the alternative half-time show on the basis ofWP:UNDUE; it's highly relevant, and not undue, in the article about the main half-time show, and it appears correctly there.GenevieveDEon (talk)13:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removing that about the alternate show I think is not appropriate here, it needs to be included, or at least some mention. It's been covered for a long time that this alt show was going to happen, and definitely can be sourced, just that we don't need a lot of details in the game article, a more thorough summary can be at the half time show article and the standalone article covering it tells the rest.Masem (t)14:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The shorter summary is a definite improvement. I'll let those with more investment in the Owl as a whole decide whether it needs to be in its own subsection or not.GenevieveDEon (talk)16:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportalt1 alt3. The article is mostly good, and has a game summary.However the summary says very little, largely ignores the first half, and has only a single reference - it seems out of place with what is otherwise a comprehensive article. The summary should really be improved, but I don't think it's bad enough to hold up posting. I also don't mind the orange tag on the list of international broadcasters, that's not important information.Modest Geniustalk14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It wsa an extrmeley defensive game until the 4th (most boring, but i played D in team sports, so loving it ;)). Not much more to add, just it was hard to find a source and it' s a live one, so can use a better one but i doubt it can be found.Psephguru (talk)14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was defensive, I watched it. That doesn't mean nothing happened, or that there's nothing to say. There should still be more than two sentences describing it.Modest Geniustalk16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... don't mind the orange tag on the list of international broadcasters, that's not important information: Then instead of the sourcing tag, slap on an orange{{undue}} (or just stop including such sections, if trivial). —Bagumba (talk)17:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot find a suitable picture of Walker, then we do not normally list the MVP. If we do find one, the MVP will be listed in parentheses (Super Bowl MVP Kenneth Walker III pictured).Natg 19 (talk)19:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure why there's any discussion of a different half-time show in the article. It wasn't part of any North American broadcasts as far as I know. Was this shown internationally? And it doesn't appear to be from the stadium either - but something that was prerecorded and shown by other broadcasters. Should we discuss what all the other networks were counter-programming the Super Bowl with?Nfitz (talk)00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with a brief mention of it. It was notable counterprogramming by the right-wing and the few sentences that are in the article is appropriate weight.Natg 19 (talk)00:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Brief, perhaps. But it had a section with the same weight as the real halftime show. However that's now been fixed. SoSupport.Nfitz (talk)11:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN is election inundated as is. I am already wary of non-ITNR election items and when that extends to "The President of Portugal has a largely ceremonial role, with no executive power, but can veto new laws and dissolve Parliament" the case is even harder to make.Gotitbro (talk)03:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this sounds like aWP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, a similar one is made under sports nominations from persons who claim we post too many sports and subjectively claim they are unimportant. The President has some executive power and the function is not purely ceremonial either, but rather than focusing on the technicalities, this was fundamentally an important election in Portuguese politics and covered worldwide, therefore I don't see how this is any less relevant than any other recent election.Abcmaxx (talk)07:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rationalizing an oppose on the substantive reason of us not posting ceremonial elections is not an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. The onus is on those advocating for a posting to show "this was fundamentally an important election in Portuguese politics" and I have seen absolutely no rationale to substantiate that for this nom.Gotitbro (talk)08:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Describing this as a ceremonial election is misleading. I disagree that the post is purely ceremonial, but the election is a regular political election by universal suffrage. A ceremonial election would be something like the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which serves only to confirm a decision that has already been made by a committee.GenevieveDEon (talk)08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Describing this as a ceremonial election is misleading." I quoted that exactly from what the lede of the article says.
I also opposed the Irish presidential election for the same reason but even then there rationale was provided to show significance of that election beyond suffrage or head of state changes (that election also not being ITNR); I ams still waiting for that here.Gotitbro (talk)10:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Come on; the words 'ceremonial' and 'election' both appear in the lead of the article, but the adjective is not used there to qualify the noun. And I think the article about the presidency is probably a better source for the nature of the presidency than the one about the election.GenevieveDEon (talk)10:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The contention against this stems from the fact that the post is ceremonial in the first place. It can easily be argued ergo that the election is as well, unless of course contentions can be sustained otherwise (still waiting).Gotitbro (talk)11:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support when properly updated. While not ITNR, I feel this is an election that is notable enough to feature. People were previously complaining when ITN was static for most of last month and now others are saying we now have too many elections stories for turnover? We cannot make news happen after all. Luck of the timing. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! /Mission Log)04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Changes of head of state are generally signficant, and this election has been in the news nationally and internationally. As our articlePresident of Portugal indicates, the presidency is a hybrid role that doesn't fall neatly into any one category, but includes a legislative veto power. (I'd be interested to know when that was last used, though.)GenevieveDEon (talk)08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ThePresident of Portugal has very few powers and is "a largely ceremonial role, with no executive power" (quoting from the election article itself). The important office isPrime Minister of Portugal. Although Ventura did better than expected, he didn't win. We post elections to the most powerful political position in each country, not the ceremonial figurehead. I don't see any reason to make an exception here.Modest Geniustalk14:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would have opposed the Irish president if I had seen that nomination. US Congress isn't relevant, that's a legislative assembly not a ceremonial president. Note wedid post the Portuguese legislative assembly elections last year.Modest Geniustalk16:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Not covered by ITN/R, and no other editor has made a compelling case as to why this presidential election was significant this time around. Perhaps ifChega won, I would support a blurb.Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)15:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the article reads: "This was only the second time that a direct Portuguese presidential election went to a second round, after the 1986 election".ArionStar (talk)03:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, explaining significance The incumbentMarcelo Rebelo de Sousa was set to retire after two terms in power, and the election went to asecond round for the first time since1986. The results section of the article describes thatAntónio José Seguro captured nearly 67% of the vote in a landslide victory, winning 303 out of 305 municipalities, 3,095 out of 3,239 civil parishes, and all 20 districts ofPortugal. Also while the President of Portugal is a mostly ceremonial role, the president acts as a mediator between the three branches, has veto power, and has the power to dissolve parliament. Clearly significant and historic.CastleFort1 (talk)00:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe are merely procedure hiccups. I am still not seeingWP:ITNSIGNIF here. To repeat, though I opposed the Irish prez elections, even then a rationale for the party/candidate which had won was provided including how it was substantial for the then Irish political scene.Gotitbro (talk)01:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just browsed the coverage. It's reported by the heavyweight international mainstream sources and the main theme seems to be the challenge of the surging right-wing protest partyChega, which got about a third of the vote in a high turnout and so joins AfD, National Rally, Reform and the like. So, it was not just a formality but was significant as abellwether.Andrew🐉(talk)10:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good enough to go. Although it is not an ITNR and the Portuguese presidency is ceremonial, these elections have received special coverage and relevance due to the historic support that Chega received._-_Alsor (talk)12:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support precisely per AusLondoner and GenevieveDEon. These elections have received widespread coverage, and the global news sources are treating it as a significant development.FlipandFlopped㋡00:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Thai election is ITN/R. The results have come in and media around the world is reporting on it, but the article needs to be updated. Scuba17:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the PM is officially appointed Even though Anutin is most likely to lead a coalition, he is not holding absolute majority yet (as his party's seat counts is not over 50%), so I think we should wait until he was named official PM just in case the messy situation like the2023 Thai general election happens again.NotKringe (talk)21:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if for whatever reason Antuin isn't named the new PM, he is still the leader of Bhumjaithai and should be listed as such.Scuba21:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no need to wait for a PM appointment. A blurb on the election result can be posted once the header of the article is updated.CastleFort1 (talk)22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I updated the article by adding the election result to the header and by expanding the results prose. The article appears good to go for posting.CastleFort1 (talk)22:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per CastleFort1 and Alsor97; we can post the results, if someone else winds up becoming Prime Minister due to shenanigans involving courts or the Thai Monarchy, that can be another blurb as per precedent. Article seems ok for posting update and referencing wise. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! /Mission Log)04:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is in a very solid shape, and I really don't think we have to wait for approval of a PM, the result is significant enough on its own, and bucking it would be worthy of an entry seperate the election.V. L. Mastikosa (talk)00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ready to go. Suggestions to wait until they are appointed seem bizarre to me; do we report US presidential results until they are appointed in late January - or is this just a "rule" for other countries.Nfitz (talk)00:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Added House of Representatives to the blurb, like in 2023's, to be clearer on what was won. Needs more explicit affirmation to add alt2's portion on the referendum.—Bagumba (talk)05:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments:Bell Labs researcher, "Grandfather of the Internet" engineering professor and academic computer scientist who taught several Internet technical pioneers throughout the infancy of the Internet. CreatedSNOBOL language and served on many Internet organizations' boards. Schoen (talk)16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment From someone who is actively working on this article - it may be prudent to wait a bit until the vote counting is mostly done. The ruling coalition currently has a supermajority (two-thirds), however the LDP is very close to outright winning a supermajority on its own. If we wait a bit longer we can accurately specify in the blurb that it is the LDP itself that won an outright supermajority.Basil the Bat Lord (talk)15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support when results expanded This nomination will receive my automatic support as soon as the results prose and tables are expanded and clarified upon.CastleFort1 (talk)15:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to the article the last significant protest was in mid-January, it is misleading to have this article remain in the "ongoing" section -Dumelow (talk)08:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The protests are effectively over after the crackdown/massacres. What we have now is the aftermath of them and Trump threats to attack Iran not the protests.Gotitbro (talk)13:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iran is still a hotbed with the potential Israel/US attacks that have been abuzz. Even if the protests were the catalysts for these attacks as a way to threaten the current leadership, I would now expect that if the attacks were to happen, that would be a wholly separate article now, and as others have said, whatever protests have happened appeared to have been quelled.Masem (t)13:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal for the same reasons as when this was discussed last week. Protests have been suppressed since mid-January. Yes, Iran is still making headlines, but due to uranium negotiations, not these protests.Nice4What (talk ·contribs) –(Thanks♥)15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal—I think we can now say that this story has become stale. If protests reignite (which, you never know, they may), then we can always re-add it to the main page as necessary. For now, it's run its course.Kurtis(talk)18:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Removal Strong Support This is the third nomination and I was the nominator of the first one. Based on the reception of the first and second ones there will 100% be people who come back to try and get this back up. I agree with all of the above points and will put this here to secure the removal. --SpectralIon03:49, 9 February 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.
Nominator's comments: The Ongoing section is currently extremely crowded, and it doesn't really make sense to have it there at the same time as a blurb for the opening ceremony. We can add it back once the opening blurb rolls off. ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question/weak oppose Has it been our precedent to add the olympics to ongoing only after the blurb rolls off? These winter olympics only last for two more weeks. Depending on how slow the next two news weeks are, it might not roll off at all. Unless there is a clear rule to the contrary, in these special circumstances, I might lean towards having the blurb and ongoing entry simultaneously.FlipandFlopped㋡05:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There’s some kind of a precedent from the last few Olympic Games. In the past, it was posted to ongoing alongside the blurb (this was a common practice even before ongoing had been introduced). However, the recent precedent isn’t a strict rule and can be safely disregarded for the good of our readers (even if it’s a rule, we haveWP:IAR). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk)07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes we don’t post enough stories, so blurbs don’t roll off in a two-week span. Furthermore, it’s a very unwise decision to post it to ongoing at a random time because our readers aren’t aware at all that we have to wait until the blurb rolls off. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk)07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Readers would be looking for the word "Olympics", and adding the ongoing once the blurb rolls off would just be a standard practice by the admin that pushes the blurb off, so the word would still be there. This doesn't hamper the reader's ability to find it.Masem (t)13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The winter Olympics is getting a lot more attention than anything else at ITN but it's the very first link in ITN and so repeating it further down too seems redundant.Andrew🐉(talk)12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my original point. I looked at your user page to confirm if you are (it appears) of European heritage. But I was suprised to see the userbox indicating you are a "user [that] can pinpointthe exact moment Afghanistan became a failed state." I can't understand how someone can recognize that and the role played by the US in that coup, what all that lead to in Afghanistan, and still you do not recognize the relavance of a US-UK orchestated coup against Mosaddegh has lead to the current state of affairs in Iran. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs)00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The Olympics blurb will easily be pushed downwards due to election blurbs. There are three national elections on 8 February, which may be posted within the next one or two days.CastleFort1 (talk)13:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb should roll off soon and ongoing can be cleaned up with removal of stale items. Linking to the timeline in ongoing is more useful to readers following the games than the link to opening ceremony.EvansHallBear (talk)17:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seems a bit unnecessary and bureaucratic (though I don't know what policy supports this). Ongoing "blurbs" should be briefer thougy. Support simply changing this to "Olympics" and remove the timeline.Nfitz (talk)19:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep - It makes sense now to keep it, because the opening blurb is going to fall off quickly with the Japanese & Thai elections and very likely the Super Bowl blurbs. 20:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Normally, I would vote to Remove because the Opening Ceremony blurb is still in ITN and precedent has been to only add the Olympics to Ongoing when that blurb rolls off. However, because of the number of elections and Superb Owl blurbs soon to be posted, I will IAR voteOppose/keep because it makes no sense for us to have to put it back up again in less than a day when the Opening Ceremony blurb rolls off due to the aforementioned imminent turnover. Also keep the chronological summary/timeline link in the Ongoing item. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! /Mission Log)04:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm personally opposed to the idea of removing an ongoing event from ongoing just because there's many other ongoing events. --SpectralIon22:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - and now everyone is worried about the length of ongoing? Make the "blurbs" shorter then. And get rid of that stale MSP one.Nfitz (talk)00:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Article updated The nominated event is listed onWP: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 meetWP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Haiti's been struggling for a while now. The council was intended to facilitate a popular election for a president though that's not in the cards right now. Bremps...00:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support Could count as ITN/R on a technicality. While the actual office of the presidency is vacant, theTransitional Presidential Council acted with the executive powers of Haiti, and then transferred to the Prime Minister. Only a lean support since there are some duplicate citations that need to be resolved first. Quality of the article looks sufficient for posting.CastleFort1 (talk)00:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Member of the Scottish Parliament who was Minister for Social Security 2016–2018 then Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport 2018–2021. Drchriswilliams (talk)15:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The birth date seems to be cited only to the month, not the day. The Instagram link I cannot access, but it would likely not be RS anyways.Chorchapu (talk |edits)21:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chorchapu: On closer inspection, I agree- The STV and Times obituaries both only list birth month. The source in the article is Companies House which lists a month and year for people registered as directors etc. I've update the birth dates listed accordingly.Drchriswilliams (talk)22:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (seethis RFC andfurther discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meetsWP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using theinline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using<ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when<ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_2025-11-04.png)
_(cropped)_(2).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.png)
_(cropped_2).jpg)
.png){kind=link}