This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Faustin-Archange Touadéra Following a Saudi-led offensive, Yemeni government forces take control of Aden, the capital of the Southern Transitional Council. Faustin-Archange Touadéra (pictured) is re-elected as the president of the Central African Republic. Delcy Rodríguez is sworn in as the interim president of Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro during United States strikes on the capital. Luke Littler wins the PDC World Darts Championship. Ongoing: Iranian protests Russo-Ukrainian war timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Terry Yorath Jim Dennison Tim Shadbolt Jonathan Powell Martin Chivers Aldrich Ames More current events Nominate an article

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.

• Archives of posted stories

 Natg 19 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs work still. Natg 19 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose/wait till results then post Otto (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready, there are no results in the article yet. This nomination is premature - articles are supposed to be updated before beginning an ITN nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 20:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready I was waiting for the report of provisional results before nominating on the same day results were announced. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for results as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the election have anything to do with the attempted coup? It seems not to, judging from article content. If so, then let's remove the coup part from the blurb. Bremps... 04:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources attached to the nomination state that these are the first elections since the attempted coup. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok enough quality. Bremps... 19:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:14, 12 January 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: 83rd Golden Globe Awards (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ At the 83rd Golden Globe Awards, Wagner Moura becomes the first Brazilian to win for Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama. ()
News source(s): People
Credits:

• Nominated by ArionStar (talk · )

 ArionStar (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wagner Moura was not the first Brazilian to win a Golden Globe as, for example, there was Walter Salles in 1998. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Blurb mentions he is first to win in that specific category, not overall. jolielover♥talk 09:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not significant enough, especially when narrowed down to one category. I would support an alternate blurb, like At the 83rd Golden Globe Awards, xyz won Best Picture to highlight the biggest award that night. jolielover♥talk 09:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would generally expect to see. I'm baffled by this as a proposed blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. On looking at the article, I think the film & show with the most wins could be mentioned in this blurb, which would be One Battle After Another and Adolescence. jolielover♥talk 09:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the GGs have four "Best Motion Picture" categories. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb as written - to be blunt “first [nationality] to win a Golden Globe in [x category]” is not ITN material. Not opposed to blurbing the Golden Globes in general, however, and would have to consider other proposed blurbs. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Quite obviously (and blatantly) not worth posting and not going to be posted. "Person becomes first from X country to win Y award at Z award show" is many layers of cruft below ITN. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Golden Globes have always been considered secondary for both the Oscars and Emmys for US film and television, and the diffusion of categories makes it very subjective as to what wins to feature (compared to both Oscars and Emmys where its far easier to tell). And focusing the blurb on one specific win because it is the first X from country Y to win is very much not significant for ITN. Masem (t) 12:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the nominated blurb as trivial (it might work at DYK if the article qualifies there). More broadly, I understand we stopped posting the Golden Globes some time ago, and I don't see anything unusual about this year that should change that. Modest Genius ^talk 16:38, 12 January 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.

Nominator's comments: The governor of New Jersey from 2004 to 2006. Thriley (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Cabinet and Legacy sections are unsourced. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Legacy portion fixed. Bremps... 04:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: English actor best known for playing Charlie Slater in EastEnders. ItsShandog (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Very influential in the fields of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology. Article in relatively good shape. Vpab15 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Along with Graham Hancock, the key figure in modern pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A reminder that RD !votes should be based on the quality of the article, as all figures with a Wikipedia article are presumed important enough to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article is actually in poor shape, lacking balance, citations and key aspects of his life such as his marriage. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Lech Poznań legend. Plenty of sources in the article, large potential to expand further. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Short but well-sourced. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American composer who worked on popular animated shows such as The Fairly OddParents, Danny Phantom and Johnny Test. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2026 (EST)

• Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unreferenced filmography. jolielover♥talk 09:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Better now, would really appreciate someone tracking down a source that says he was born in Fort Atkinson. Bremps... 04:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 03:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet WP:ITNQUALITY's minimally comprehensive overview. The "Career" section has only three sentences, while the lead says "publishing eight albums and writing 70 songs ... Blu Radio crediting him with the revitalization of the genre".—Bagumba (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American musician and songwriter. A founding member of the Grateful Dead. Thriley (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose rather thin on citations but otherwise looks fine. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Now Support Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bob Weir was a founding member of a globally impactful band and it doesn't seem like there are any showstopper issues with the page, so it's strange that it hasn't been included as a Recent Death yet. ~2026-25342-8 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A reminder that RDs should be reviewed based on the quality of the article, not notability, as all people with an article are presumed important enough to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The page has 98 references, far more than some other Recent Death articles. The death is verified and footnoted. Article is certainly long and detailed enough. Are there any actual issues with article quality that would prevent this from being a Recent Death? Cfiler (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't look like it (I'll now change my !vote actually) but I'm just reminding them of the RD procedures for the future. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This was the top read article two days ago as the subject was quite famous. This works against them at ITN because either there is a big fight over posting a simple blurb or it gets bogged down in bureaucratic demands for sources for their long list of awards and works. If you want timely and complete information then you're better off at Deaths in 2026. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very surprised this hasn't at least been floated as a blurb but other localized events have received extensive comment. Wikipedia has effectively become Reddit. CoatCheck (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Discography needs sourcing per WP:ITNQUALITY:

  Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources

  —Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Negotiations for this have been protracted and the further formalities and implementation will take time too. But this seems to be a major milestone which is in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the page alone for the agreement is more detailed than any other Wikipedia page not about a person place or thing that I have read in my entire history across several accounts and devices on Wikipedia and if this is so controversial I would not personally add this but I would take suggestions from other users including you Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edc5657 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Until it has been approved by the European Parliament. Its consent is also needed. Earliest possible vote is during the session that starts 19 January. Yakikaki (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• then this would be stale by the time that they vote on it so let's wait Edc5657 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose and close per others, with no prejudice against reopening when the agreement is set in stone. It not only hasn't come into effect but is not guaranteed to go through yet, though I would support on notability when it does go through later on. Departure– (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others. Wait until the agreement is confirmed and comes into effect. Natg 19 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems of reasonable importance, but change "approve" to "advance" to avoid confusion. If we keep rejecting promotions, the ITN section is going to grow stale. There's no reason we can't promote things like this to ITN more than once for different reasons. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty good reason things aren't posted twice; consensus. Even if ITN doesn't specifically rule out posting things more than once, if something was posted once less than 2 or so years prior it's almost certain editors will oppose posting it twice, and to that end, most would rather see something posted at its most pivotal moment--in this case, either its formal signing into law or implementation. Departure– (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm choosing to ignore that fact. Honestly, I think there needs to be a culture change around ITNs as I discussed at the talk page. I don't think I'll ever find that culture change without actually exhibiting it. aaronneallucas (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of topics are revisited on ITN -- we even have a formal list of those that regularly repeat -- WP:ITN/R. So, for example, the current top blurb is:

• The Southern Transitional Council's secretary-general announces its dissolution after Yemeni government forces capture Aden.

but just a month ago we reported

• The Southern Transitional Council seizes most of southern Yemen from the Yemeni government.

and we've been here before in 2018 with

• In Yemen, separatists from the Southern Transitional Council seize government buildings in Aden...

And I doubt we've heard the last of Yemen. So, it is with the EU and Mercosur. This agreement has been a long time in the making and there's more to be done now -- further approvals, ratifications and implementation stages. Even if it all goes to plan it won't be complete until 2040. And the world is so volatile currently that such plans are likely to be subject to changes.

So, the point is that the agreement is "in the news" now and so we should report it now rather than waiting for some uncertain future. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Until fully ratified by both parties, once the word "proposed" is removed from the first sentence I will support.–DMartin (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting now as per Andrew. It's in the news now. Khuft (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for an agreement that took 25 years to get to this stage this is an appropriate time to post. It is in the news now, if this gets nominated at another, later, stage then I can foresee there being a lot votes opposing due to the news being stale; administrative tasks are not as notable as the agreement itself. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As it is in the news now. The ratification may or may not be widely reported upon by news sources in the future and I agree with Abcmaxx that it could effectively be seen as stale when renominated again later; it makes sense to post now when the news is fresh. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a tangible possibility that the European Parliament does not in fact approve it. Posting it now would therefore, whatever other argument about there currently being a lot of noise around it, be premature in my view. I'm all in favour of posting it if it is actually adopted, though. Yakikaki (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Significant regional development, sustained worldwide coverage. No problems with the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for final ratification. This isn't the final step, the treaty hasn't even been signed yet, and approval by the EU parliament is not a guaranteed formality. Also, the blurb is a mess that won't make sense to most readers. Modest Genius ^talk 16:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The time is now. This is when the media coverage is at its maximum. The media decided to go now and we should do the same. It is not up to us to decide when is the "right time" to talk about it. Tradedia^talk 17:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Founder of Shakespeare & Company. Filmography needs sourcing though. Struck that out since the filmography's now fully sourced. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Life and career section needs broken into headings for easier navigation. After that, it's probably ready for promotion. aaronneallucas (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd prefer if the awards were sourced, but there's only two of them, so it's a minor enough issue to where I'm still willing to support. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead sentence comment It's bizare. It says she was born "Christine R Packer" [3]. Is that suggesting her MOS:LEGALNAME was changed to "Christina Packer", or should "Christine R Packer" be listed first and bolded? Note that the source for "Christine R Packer" says "Births Dec 1938", but her WP bio says she was born 28 September 1938. Her legal name and birthdate needs to be resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 –DMartin (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fully sourced. Long enough. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Are they any additional sources for the death outside of Tony Ortega's blog? Spencer^T•C 03:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Split from #Aidarus al-Zoubaidi dismissed from Yemen's presidential council due to the much broader scope of events. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on significance, neutral on quality - this is clearly a huge story, and it may be that the military narrative would do better in its own article, but I am not committed to that position, nor am I sufficiently well-informed to say how it should be done. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb - the STC getting dissolved is the important news here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support since we posted a blurb for the STC making big gains last month, it's logical that the collapse of one of the major faction in the civil war should be highlighted. NotKringe (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb. This is a major development in a long-running civil war. The article is in good shape and has been updated. Alt 1 is clearer and more concise; however I don't think the section link is a good idea for readers coming from the main page. Linking to the top of the article would be better. Modest Genius ^talk 13:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on significance, neutral on quality. References are present throughout the article. There are some redlinks, most notably in the infobox. The significance of the dissolution cannot be understated, and it is a major development in Yemen's civil war. From the beginning of December, it took the STC about nine days to seize almost all of former South Yemen. When the New Year began, it also took nine days for Yemeni government forces to take back Aden. The STC lost every bit of its territory in a span of 1 month (9 December to 9 January). CastleFort1 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added altblurb2 as the dissolution of the STC has been contested by its spokesman, although the group doesn't appear to hold any more territory after its leadership fled. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt2 per Chaotic Entity the dissolution is contested but the territory appears to be completely under Gov't forces now Ion.want.uu (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the capture of a million+ population city is huge news. Redlinks appear to be resolved. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Huge development in a long ongoing conflict Normalman101 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well obvious. Per all above already.BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt2 Per all above. I agree with including the dissolution and using Chaotic's language, given it is contested. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb: Per all above. I'd support the first alt blurb since it's the most concise. WhatADrag07 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, obvious global significance. Either blurb seems fine. Joe (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've made an article for the battle itself; Battle of Aden (2026). Chorchapu (talk | edits) 07:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every event needs a separate article covering it, particularly here that its understanding the capture in the context of the larger conflict. Masem (t) 13:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

comment mention UAE as that is the geopolitical relevance (Somaliland is also near, but that's OR)Psephguru (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Alt2, but linking to the nominated article. If there's a desire for changing the target article, please discuss this here. Schwede66 20:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The situation seems chaotic as the headlines I'm seeing now include:

  1. Yemen’s main separatist group now denies it is disbanding
  2. Yemeni southern separatists in Riyadh announce disputed disbanding of STC
  3. Thousands rally in support of Yemen's main separatist group

  As the matter seems to be swinging to and fro, we should avoid being too definite about what's going on. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Schwede66:The situation is more complex. The STC leaders that were not part of the Riyadh delegation deny that the group has been dissolved and insist that statement was made under duress. I'm surprised no one noted this before. Cheers!

1. Southern Yemen separatists call foul as 'detained' delegation in Riyadh announce STC dissolution
2. UAE-backed Yemeni Southern Transitional Council denies disbandment rumors
3. Yemen's STC denies dissolution, demands release of detained delegation in Riyadh

Goodposts (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to original blurb, as that seems factual and is undisputed. Schwede66 23:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned snowballs and that'll be about right. Schwede66 22:34, 12 January 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: Bust of Sir John Gordon (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ UK government announced temporary export ban on Neoclassic Scottish bust, valued at £3.1 million, found in a storage shed. ()
News source(s): The Scotsman, BBC
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by ChrysGalley (talk · )
• Created by No Swan So Fine (talk · )

Strong oppose and close--good faith nomination, but one item being blocked from sale is hardly major world news. This'd be suited more for DYK if it was eligible. The update this year is the blocking of a sale, with it being valued at 5 dollars in prior years being the interesting part. Departure– (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's an interesting story but the ban is only for a year and so the ending is still uncertain. Looking for wider coverage, I find that the Smithsonian covered it in 2024 and so it's somewhat stale. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the eventual sale would be the natural point for featuring an article like this. Discovery (if we existed in 1990) could've been another moment for featuring, but this temporary block is just a small part of the longer story. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and snow close This has no snowball chance in hell... Tradedia^talk 16:11, 12 January 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.

Stale. Results published 2025-11-10. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:36, 9 January 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: Cloud-9 (RELHIC) (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ Cloud-9 is confirmed as the first RELHIC to be discovered – a possible sign of a dark galaxy. ()
News source(s): BBC, CNN, European Space Agency, NASA, NYT, Scientific American
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · )
• Created by Luizpuodzius (talk · )

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a new type of astronomical object with lots of dark matter but no stars. This was first conjectured from ground observations and has now been confirmed by Hubble. Our articles need lots of work but we have to start somewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability but strong oppose on quality. The article is currently a short stub, and I would really like it to be updated to explain its significance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as stale per Modest Genius, research results were published two months ago. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. NotKringe (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, but oppose until the article to reaches sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as stale and strong oppose on quality. This object was discovered in 2023 and the Hubble results were published last November. Quite why NASA & ESA have only now put out a press release about it is unclear - perhaps there was a related talk at the American Astronomical Society conference? Regardless, this is old news, and the article is a micro-stub that hasn't been updated. Articles should be updated before they are nominated for ITN. Modest Genius ^talk 13:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha, it was the subject of one of 32 press conferences held at the AAS meeting, talking about the paper from November. Modest Genius ^talk 13:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Both articles are tiny. I would suggest merging them into one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 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.

Nominator's comments: First major tragedy of the year in the Philippines. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 01:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks whole enough. Notable enough I think, mass-casualty garbage landslides are rare. Bremps... 04:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 –DMartin (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The "Matches" section needs a summary.𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 07:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• :I actually wanted more work to be done including adding more information to the matches section @Moraljaya67 Edc5657 (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC) [{WP:SOCKSTRIKE]]. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The matches are mere bullet points with no prose.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No view on posting yet, but I've added an altblurb with the traditional wording. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality needs some match summaries as well as aftermaths (e.g. there are multiple BBC sport articles talking in depth about England's problems and futures, death of Bazball etc- so should be easy to get some aftermath content). Side note: Test cricket should always have a capital T as Test is a proper noun in this context (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/The Nets/Style advice), so have changed in both blurbs. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. There's no prose describing what happened in each of the matches - after 'venues', the article is just a bunch of tables and statistics. Needs at least one referenced paragraph of prose about each match. Modest Genius ^talk 13:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad quality. Tradedia^talk 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Welsh international footballer. Article is woefully undersourced; I'm going to start working on it now. Looks OK now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality There are three CN tags in the Honours section. Resolve first before posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I honestly see a lot of issues, lots of missing info, unsourced sections, I've had a little go atm, but in all honestly I don't think this is up to the standard needed for RD. Regards, Govvy (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the "unsourced sections"? I've sourced everything that was there (and removed material that was irrelevant or unsourceable). Any help would be useful here, but I think the major parts of his life are covered. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The Honors section has ~4 CN tags JaxsonR (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  These are now cited. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support 3 citation needed tags for honours probably shouldn't stop an otherwise well sourced article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we have the date of death confirmed, please? January 7th or 8th? The infobox and the prose do not match. It looks like a family member (the widow herself?) has gone in earlier this hour and made some changes. The linked BBC news article does not specify the date. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources conflict (I see one saying 7th and one saying 8th), so I have changed it to conform with the standard format where we don't know. It was probably 7th, but we can't source it. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good now. Thanks for the quick editing. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: New Zealand's second longest-serving mayor, good article size Kiwichris (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there I was trying to nominate it, but Kiwichris beat me to it. Schwede66 06:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, seems like an obvious choice for such a figure. Incidentally, the article says he was the longest serving mayor. Is that wrong somehow? Joe (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think he likely is the longest serving (depending on how you count it) but sources are iffy on it so I've changed the wording from "the longest serving" to "one of the..." Support ITN inclusion TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the title of longest serving mayor belongs to George Perry – Mayor of Hokitika. He doesn’t even have an article! Almost a year longer than Sir Tim. Schwede66 09:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  George Perry served for almost 31 years, Shadbolt served for more than 32 years. Perry would be the longest-continuous TheLoyalOrder (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, the problem is that I cannot count. Yes, Sir Tim has clocked up 32 years. Schwede66 01:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two citation needed tags. I'd prefer if those were fixed before this article was posted. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Citation needed tags appear to have been resolved. Article is detailed and well sourced. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - ready now.BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: I didn't expect to be back here so soon, but oh well. Famous Latvian and Soviet basketball player, had the largest feet ever in Women's basketball. Article mostly okay, but more info can be taken from the Russian one (is an FA) and needs more cites. RIP. AustrianEarlyOne (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support No issues relating to sourcing. Support is weak because the Russian version of the article contains much more detail about Semjonova's early life and career than this version of the article. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, especially if someone feels like translating some of the Russian version of the page. Joe (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. There are just two sentences dedicated to her 21-year career at TTT Riga ("For almost all of her playing career, she played for TTT Riga, which was part of Daugava Voluntary Sports Society. With TTT, she won 15 championships in the Soviet Union and the European Champion's Cup 15 times.") In addition, the infobox mentions that Semjonova played for Tintoretto Getafe and Valenciennes-Orchies, but this is not mentioned in the prose. Spencer^T•C 05:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can't support when the FIBA obit has more details than WP's article. 2 Cn's for a stub is not acceptable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Now 287 words of prose, with one {cn} tag remaining. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: British composer, pianist, musicologist, editor, tackled extremely tough pieces. The article had basically his most incredible recording, with 7 references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article. Yakikaki (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gerda's quick and substantive overhaul of the article is nothing short of remarkable. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as above. Joe (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article has adequate quality for posting on RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Canadian ice hockey player and hall of famer, widely acknowledged as one of the greatest ice hockey goaltenders of all time Elisecars727 (talk)☺ 04:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Incredible goaltender, less incredible article. Virtually no references across much of the page. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Another hockey great with a less than stellar or usable WP article. Needs sources and a rewrite.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality There's an orange citation tag, and some paragraphs in the Career section don't contain any references. CastleFort1 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple paragraphs with zero footnotes. Most bullet-points in the Awards and achievements section unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: For almost a month now the US has seized 4 oil tankers and chased after many more. Every time it happens, it's in the news. Both Skipper and Bella 1 were nominated for ITN. The article more than passes the daily updates and is a major topic especially in relation to the Venezuela strikes recently. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator Comment: How about the other article, Operation Southern Spear? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an ongoing, it's the whole situation with Venzulea, as all the issues around Maduro, new leadership, US demands, etc all factor into thus. The tankers are a far tiny part of this larger story. Masem (t) 19:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just Operation Southern Spear? JaxsonR (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Operation Southern Spear includes operations of the US in Venezuela and the oil blockade. Article needs update. Grimes2 20:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the current blurbs have scrolled off and then we can assess the best article(s) to put in ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There have been so many of these nominations that have been shot down, but this is now front and center on the international stage. It's in headlines, has been going on for months, and there are multiple elements of the conflict that are blurbed, nominated, and discussed. Also with the Israel-Gaza conflict gone, we don't need to worry about overcrowding Ongoing. Normalman101 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already five other ongoings, @Normalman101. Normally there's zero or one. That might be a valid comment when you could squeeze it all on one line. But it's already overflowing onto two in most views. This would make it 3 lines on my phone. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I forgot about the addition of Iranian protests, however it still doesn't push ongoing beyond what it was with Gaza Ukraine Myannmar and Sudan just a handfull of months ago. Either way it still deserves ongoing, even if I would change the target article. Normalman101 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The shipping issue is just a minor aspect of the USA decline into tyranny and state terrorism. Do we add more Ongoing for USA's threats against NATO, Columbia, Panama, and Mexico? We need something wider - though I'm not sure what the target would be. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz How would you feel about Operation Southern Spear in general? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't cover the other aspects of the USA's desire to increase State terrorism and institutionalized racism that are the root cause of this whole over-attention by the world media. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Largely per Masem. I'm not opposed to something related to Venezuela or Operation Southern Spear being added to ongoing once the Maduro/Rodriguez blurb has rolled off, but I don't think this particular article is the right one. Adding only the oil tanker issue to ongoing when there is much more to the situation surrounding Venezuela carries some WP:UNDUE concerns in my mind. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 00:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Added altblurb erm, article. What do people think of this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  you didn't need to make a separate nomination. And again, we should be focusing on the larger US/Venz issue, which is going to include the blockade, this ship seizure, but also the attack to capture Maduro, etc, so that article itself is too narrow. Masem (t) 00:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this was already posted to ITN. Scuba 01:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Ongoing nomination. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose effectively per Masem. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obvious extremely important world event. Joe (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can we have a shorter piped link like "Venezuela oil blockade"? Bremps... 13:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be ideal. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Masem. Spencer^T•C 04:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maybe something like Operation Southern Spear (military buildup • oil blockade) Note: the military buildup article would have to be added separately, I just included it for demonstration purposes, though I do think it's getting regular updates. ^Falling_Gravity 19:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Three ongoings? It's not even receiving much international media attention when I look at various international outlets. And we'd need common usage. I don't see OSS being used very much at all - do we change Ukraine war to Spetsialnaya voennaya operatsiya? Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well for the longest time Gaza war was three Ongoings so it wouldn't be out of place, though if you read my Note you'd know I'm only suggesting two like the other timeline-attached Ongoings. ^Falling_Gravity 04:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also which "various international outlets"? I'm seeing front page coverage from the BBC, France24, DW, Al Jazeera, etc. ^Falling_Gravity 04:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are articles @FallingGravity, some stale - not the front page. It certainly isn't close to leading on the broadcasts. How is this comparable to Gaza? I see nothing on the main page at BBC for North American readers - https://www.bbc.com/news or France24. I'm not bothering checking the others. Nfitz (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nfitz: I'm not saying it's comparable to Gaza, I'm noting there's a way we could put multiple related articles in Ongoing if we wanted. The news stories and tags were linked from the front pages at the time of writing, and in any case prove it's getting international coverage. Also the BBC link you posted currently has two articles about the Venezuela crisis and Maduro's capture, so I'm not convinced it's stale news. ^Falling_Gravity 23:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the articles is about the Venezuelan opposition leader, and the other is about prisoner releases, @FallingGravity. None of it is about oil tankers or the US military, which is what this ongoing is. Going back to the 4 articles you linked, the first wasn't mentioned on the front page, the second wasn't an article but it was a search term to find articles that were stale - there was nothing on the front page. The third doesn't mention the oil blockade or the military. The fourth is at least quasi-relevant and visible on their English-language North American facing front page - along with 20 other news items, and below the story about the coach of Real Madrid - a local Spanish sports team. If something is in ongoing, it should cover all of the USA's current bizarre failures. The threats of invasion/attack to Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, and NATO. The decline into tyranny with the prosecution of those who speak out against their leader. The police state that has risen where the USA defends shooting people in the back of the head who have fled away from the police. Then we can end all these poor US-related nominations. Nfitz (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, I'm a bit confused because I'm talking about the conflict more broadly and generally agree with your original comment: We need something wider - though I'm not sure what the target would be. I mentioned OSS because others here have brought it up, though I'm open to other article suggestions. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is not important enough for "Ongoing" as compared to the other Ongoing. Tradedia^talk 18:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]