Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

< Wikipedia:In the news
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Itnc)
Shortcuts

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.

Jordan Staal in 2013
Jordan Staal

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

edit
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target 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 the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent 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 featured in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

edit
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum 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 date of 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 be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple 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 (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

edit
  • 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 should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting items marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, post the item and change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, close the discussion section and change the header to (Closed). If the article's quality remains poor, leave a brief note explaining why to encourage and assist others in fixing it.
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

edit

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.

Please do...

edit
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

edit
Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

edit

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Structure

edit

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.

June 17

edit

June 16

edit

June 15

edit

(Closed) Ongoing: 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies

edit
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW closure. The Kip (contribs) 16:57, 16 June 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: List of 2026 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I think there are too many controversies related to this World Cup that are regularly in the news (e.g. visa problems, unfriendly treatment of foreign players, concerns regarding Iran's participation, the restricted use of the Spanish language etc.), so it makes a lot of sense to add a link to the list of controversies in brackets. Note that the article receives regular updates and is in very good shape. So, the resulting layout of the ongoing item would be FIFA World Cup (controversies). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC) --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I don't think we have any separate ongoing for List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies (which is extensively covered by media) since it's already covered in the main article. NotKringe (talk) 16:47, 16 June 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.

(Closed) 2026 Edwards Air Force Base B-52 crash

edit
Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 16 June 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: 2026 Edwards Air Force Base B-52 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In United States, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress of US Air Force crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base in California, killing all eight crew members. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Eight people killed in B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base
News source(s): Reuters ABC NYT
Credits:
Nominator's comments: well covered and article looks fine to me to POST QalasQalas (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Afaik we only post military aviation disaster if there's large amount of casualties, which this one isn't the case. NotKringe (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eight casualities enough to post BTW the crash is significant and fully covered by media. QalasQalas (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a newspaper, and ITN is about featuring quality articles that have been in the news. This article is basically just a notch beyond a stub so nowhere close to being representing of quality work on WP, and as others have said, we generally take military accidents as part of the job. And ITN really needs to get away from posting small scale disasters that have very little far reaching implications. Masem (t) 11:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose eight casualities is not enough and this is not disasterpedia. There has always been a clear consensus when it comes to assessing the risks of military operations and setting high standards in the event of military aircraft accidents. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have consistently said that military aircraft accidents need to be far more notable than the likes of this tragic but unfortunately common incident. In the past we have generally only posted military incidents either when the death toll has been extremely heavy or when one or more notable people have been on board. Neither appears to be the case here. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – I think this would count as a workplace accident, and as such it would need a particularly strong article to really support a feature. ITNSIGNIF is met, but I am willing to set higher quality standards for featuring a military aviation in peacetime accident. The current level of detail wouldn't even have been sufficient for a bigger public aviation accident either, for the record. Five sections with each a short paragraph averaging under 3 sentences each is not feature-worthy regardless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maplestrip on quality. I think 8 casualties who are all crew is low for ITNSIGNIF, especially when it is a military aircraft doing military things. Also, both of the proposed blurbs have weird grammar and are giving me a headache trying to figure out how to reconfigure them. Maybe "A US Air Force B-52 Crashes shortly after takeoff in California killing all 8 crew" and "Eight people die in a B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base". ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question Highly covered by the media? ArionStar (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - it's not anywhere on the BBC News front page, and that's a lot of stories... Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I googled it and it has a lot of reports. ArionStar (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
UPS Airlines Flight 2976 was posted when nine deaths were confirmed. ArionStar (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tragic for those involved, but we can't post every transport or workplace accident with 8 deaths. I'm not seeing anything particularly significant about this one. Also, the article has barely any more information than the proposed blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:37, 16 June 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.

(Ready) RD: Abdullah Ibrahim

edit
Article: Abdullah Ibrahim (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

 Abcmaxx (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the issue states above is fixed LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Stanley Cup Final

edit
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Stanley Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Carolina Hurricanes beat the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup Final (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Jordan Staal pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Carolina Hurricanes win the Stanley Cup Final (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Jordan Staal pictured).
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In ice hockey, the Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup Final (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Jordan Staal pictured).
Alternative blurb 3: ​ The Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup Final (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Jordan Staal pictured).
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

 Cyrobyte (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I sourced the roster on both teams. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's worth mentioning that Staal is the captain of the Hurricanes Elisecars727 (talk)☺ 20:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sincere question: why? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he's the captain and I don't see a reason not to Elisecars727 (talk)☺ 21:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Individual tables under § Game summaries remain unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys don't remember what happened three years ago. Do you? When you all blatantly took down the 2023 Stanley Cup Final initially due to sourcing issues, when there was plenty of it, it causes a stir against many users that some of us, including me, protested against it due of the ITN's controversial decision due to enforcing stricter policy regarding sourcing. Because of you all, we had in frustration add some additional sourcing on tables, even though there was external links on the game recaps on NHL.com, which would likely consider sourcing, but you all made it inconvenient by pulling it down and forcing us to add additional sourcing, which should never have happened. Doing that was an insult to what the news stood for a sport championship. Literally, an insult. Refusing that a day after the championship isn't a good thing to have due to those stricter sourcing policies the ITN has enforced. Therefore, all this will spark another debate because of it. Just so you all know. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It had slipped my mind, but I recall it now you mention it. The item was posted when sourcing requirements weren't met yet, pulled, and then re-posted after the WP:V issues had been resolved. Now, as then, it's rather simple to resolve this issue, by simply providing the required references. As per below, I'm not sure why the Stanley Cup generates such controversy when editors nominating all other stories here just get on and supply the requested references. I'll see if I can do it myself later today if nobody else does so first, but given we know where the info comes from, it shouldn't be at all onerous. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us were very sore about the removal of it back then, even though there enough sourcing to justify having it on the news regarding a championship win. Also, yes, please see to that if can do it later and add some sourcing on that Stanley Cup championship win. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on quality While I respect Bagumba and Amakuru's opinion, their issues with the article seem overly nitpicky. The sources in the prose above the summary tables are the accompanying reference. All of the information in the table is included in the articles summarizing the game. The team roster section also is fine. It hyperlinks to the biography article of each player and includes basic information about them. We don't need to source to sports aggregator websites for such basic information. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It may seem "overly nitpicky", but it's literally the same standard we apply to every other story at ITN, and indeed at OTD, TFA and DYK too. I'm not sure what it is about ice hockey articles that gets people so riled up and argumentative about this, rather than simply fixing up the issues that have been raised. Your "support on quality" notwithstanding, this is not yet ready to be posted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, This is not just about ice hockey. I have also spoken out about this issue on the talk page in the past with regards to RD nominations being held up because of "unsourced" works tables as well. When golf articles come up in abysmal state with no sources AT ALL (in the prose or tables), I vote against. However, in this specific case, the sources in the article back up the information in the tables. There is a community consensus from this nomination that this is sufficient. We don't need a footnote in every row of the table if a game recap article contains all of the info and is cited to in the adjacent prose. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article's prose doesn't mention:
    • Who assisted on the goals
    • The time of the goals
    • Each penalty's details
    • Shots by period by team
    Per the WP:INTEGRITY guideline:

    ... adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy ...

    —Bagumba (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bagumba That's what the "recap" link in each individual game section is for. The Kip (contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Games 2, 3 & 4 dont have a "recap" currently. Is there a box score I'm missing, because the recaps there dont all list the assists, and I dont readily see the penalty and shot by quarter info. —Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba If you check, all of of that information is in the sources which are footnoted to in the prose above the table. It just isn't footnoted again a second time in each corresponding row of the game table. The source is sufficiently "clearly placed" and no reasonable user should conclude, reading the prose above the table, the sources the prose links to, and the table together, that there is any original research. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has been brought up to good enough standard to post; that's a major improvement over the last 24 hours. Sure the prose could be improved further but we don't demand FA quality for ITN. The blurb definitely needs to include the sport. I've added alt2, which uses the same wording as in previous years. Modest Genius talk 14:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sourcing is fine. The Kip (contribs) 16:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - OK, as promised above I have added sources for the box summaries on the six games, similar to those that were eventually added on the 2023 Stanley Cup Final article. That resolves my outstanding concerns, and I think from what Bagumba says above that was the outstanding point for them as well. Going forward, it would be nice to have these added immediately, then there won't be barriers to posting. Good work everyone. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (as an aside, there were a few stats in the tables that didn't exactly match the sources, and in some cases the figures in our article didn't actually add up within themselves; see . Personally I think having these tables is overkill anyway per WP:NOTSTATS, but a clear advantage of having them cited is that someone can actually check if they're accurate  — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC))[reply]
    I'm satisfied with your additions. I'm at a loss as to why some claimed the information was already there when it was, in fact, not. —Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

edit

2026 Butler PAC P-750 crash

edit
Article: 2026 Butler PAC P-750 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A skydiving airplane crashes in Butler, Missouri, United States, killing all twelve occupants. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not significant. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is the minimum number of deaths required to be considered significant? ArionStar (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about the deaths it is about the article quality. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Andy Lewis (performer)

edit
Article: Andy Lewis (performer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American BASE jumper and slackliner. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Anne Schedeen

edit
Article: Anne Schedeen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actress best known for Kate Tanner on ALF. Her death announced on June 14. ~2026-35203-29 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now as mostly all of the filmography and television is unsourced. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Ali Musa Daqduq

edit
Article: Ali Musa Daqduq (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death was announced on this date. Chomik! (talk?) 15:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) UFC Freedom 250

edit
WP:NAC: it's snowing in here. Modest Genius talk 11:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: UFC Freedom 250 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Justin Gaethje wins the lightweight title at UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, DW, France 24, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: An unusual setting for this sporting spectacle garnered plenty of international attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no evidence that this imperially-sanctioned gladiatorial spectacle is a sporting event that would otherwise be significant enough to merit posting, and I really don't think that the fact it took place in Trump's front garden in any way elevates it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The article isn't updated to describe what happened at the event itself. It's just one enormous "Background" section describing the planning and intention, but we need some descriptions of what happened on the day itself. Despite all the work put into it so far, it's not ready for an ITN blurb yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ROUTINE. This is just one of a series of similar events over the course of the year. The political involvement is not significant per WP:NTRUMP. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Setarip (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose incredibly routine. Feeglgeef (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Also why even naming specific fighter from a specific weight class if the supposed "significance" of this blurb lies solely on where it took place? NotKringe (talk) 11:26, 15 June 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.

(Closed) Islamabad Memorandum

edit
There's a consensus that this is still premature and should be closed as wait. This blurb or a similar one may be renominated if and when the peace agreement is actually signed. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 05:57, 15 June 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: Islamabad Memorandum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A ceasefire, signed by the United States and Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz (Post)
News source(s): Axios
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The final nail on the coffin ending the 2026 Iran war. Interstellarity (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this needs to wait under Friday (at the earliest) when the memoranda will be officially signed. It sounds like there is a lot more work to do to finalize the agreement. Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready – The main body is <100 words. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 01:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important The peace deal was NOT been signed. ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the day after tomorrow US attacks Iran again. Wait please. Skyshiftertalk 01:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait it will be formally signed Friday, and given what's happened over the last few months, that all can change on a dime (as I've read, there have been more than 50 false declarations of the end of this conflict). Also, I would generally oppose this being just a memorandum, given that it gives 60 days for a formal ceasefire to be created, which if that doesn't happen, we end up back at square one again. A actual ceasefire agreement is the real point here. Masem (t) 01:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until the "memorandum" is signed, and that even depends if the ceasefire would really hold.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Better just post the peace deal on Friday, if and when it happens, than minor unstable updates covered by ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And the blurb is incorrect/misleading. The hook links to the "proposed peace agreement" not a ceasefire.
    So, we cannot be posting this in any case (WP:CRYSTAL). Gotitbro (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and Close big wait still. There's still a lot of time for this to go wrong, or for Israel to sabotage it. Also, it's being reported as a peace deal, not a ceasefire. And I don't think we can really discuss a blurb until we understand more about the deal - which if the Iranian description is correct, with zero concessions to the USA and war reparations paid by the USA, is more of a USA surrender than anything else. I'd suggest closing this and waiting 5 days before renominating when there's better understanding what this is, and isn't. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait The proposed blurb is strictly incorrect at present: the MoU being discussed in this article has not been signed yet. On the contrary, all that's been reported by reliable sources is that a deal has been reached between the US and Iran which is planned to be signed on Friday. The terms of the deal are unclear and differing accounts suggest that there is still plenty of disagreement on key issues including Iran's nuclear enrichment, tolls in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's support for its proxies throughout the region. Whether the deal even addresses these issues or simply kicks them down the road for further negotiations while a ceasefire takes place is similarly unclear. That said, when (if?) a deal is actually signed and we have clear visibility of the terms, I would support its inclusion in ITN. Oppius Brutus 04:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close It was NOT been signed yet. ArionStar (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and close per all above. Given the repeated pattern where the US and Iran "nearly reach" a deal only for an Israeli strike or some other extraneous event to throw things sideways, we definitely can't post this yet. We need to wait at least until Friday, when the deal will be signed (supposedly). FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "only for an Israeli strike or some other extraneous event to throw things sideways"
    Hmmm: https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/06/15/world/gaza-health-officials-say-six-killed-in-israeli-attacks/2365172 Gotitbro (talk) 05:34, 15 June 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.

(decision/attention needed) RD/Blurb: Oliver Tree / 2026 Rio de Janeiro mid-air collision

edit
Proposed image
Oliver Tree
Articles: Oliver Tree (talk · history · tag) and 2026 Rio de Janeiro mid-air collision (talk · history · tag) and Gaspi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American singer-songwriter Oliver Tree (pictured) dies in a helicopter crash aged 32. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A mid-air helicopter collision kills six people in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, including American singer-songwriter Oliver Tree (pictured).
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In Brazil, a mid-air collision between two helicopters in Rio de Janeiro leaves six people dead, including American singer-songwriter Oliver Tree.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ In Brazil, American musician Oliver Tree and Argentine internet personality Gaspi, alongside four others, are killed in a mid-air helicopter collision in Rio de Janeiro.
Alternative blurb 4: ​ Singer Oliver Tree, Youtuber Gaspi, and producer Lucas A. Vignale are killed in a mid-air helicopter collision.
Alternative blurb 5: ​ A mid-air helicopter collision in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, kills six people, including singer Oliver Tree, YouTuber Gaspi, and producer Lucas A. Vignale.
Alternative blurb 6: ​ A mid-air helicopter collision in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, kills six people, including singer Oliver Tree, YouTuber Gaspi, producer Lucas A. Vignale, and DJ Lucas Frota.
News source(s): CNN Brasil
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American musician known best for "Life Goes On", died in Brazilian helicopter crash. News has broken within the past hour. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might even change my vote to blurb. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I added a blurb, and Support alt blurb. Setarip (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support RD only when ready. Quite a few unsourced statements in the article. Not a major figure in his field, certainly not transformative. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Alsor97: I've added sources to all uncited sentences I could find, please let me know what you think and if any more quality improvements are needed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the limited information on the crash and its notability most deriving from Tree's death, I believe it'd be appropriate to merge it into Oliver Tree's article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a Brazilian, that is absolutely wrong. This is absolutely notable independent of Oliver Tree being a victim. Skyshiftertalk 18:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, oppose blurb per Black Kite. Not a major music figure, some lines are unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Singer Oliver Tree, Youtuber Gaspi, and producer Lucas Vignale killed in Rio de Janeiro helicopter collision. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And their nationality? ArionStar (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to put everything in a frigging blurb. They've gotten too long already. Does anyone not know where Rio is? Even then, adding "US" and "Argentinian" twice still keeps this shorter than other blurbs out there. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These stats are very interesting to me: Yes, he died on June 14, but the stats show that his pageviews jumped to 1.5m on that day alone. On no other day prior to June 14 did he have more than 1000 views. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's explained by the fact that he was basically a two-hit wonder, both in the COVID-era. Still, our readers our incredibly interested. Feeglgeef (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

24hrs of Le Mans

edit
Article: 2026 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 24 Hours of Le Mans is won by Nyck de Vries, Kamui Kobayashi and Mike Conway driving the #7 Toyota GR010 Hybrid. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Nyck de Vries, Kamui Kobayashi and Mike Conway of Toyota Racing win the 2026 24 Hours of Le Mans.
News source(s): Autosport
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Updated with results, needs prose which I'll look at when on a proper computer. 3142 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

edit

RD: Roy Hattersley

edit
Article: Roy Hattersley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Deputy leader of the Labour Party. ~2026-35203-29 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Umer Chapra

edit
Article: Umer Chapra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Arab News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Pakistani-Saudi economist and winner of the 1990 King Faisal International Prize for Islamic Studies. Khaatir (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Needs more breadth, in my opinion, in the main part of the article. Biography jumps from the early sixties to the mid nineties without any substance between. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Haben

edit
Article: Ralph Haben (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bradenton Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 NBA Finals

edit
Proposed image
Article: 2026 NBA Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, the New York Knicks win the NBA Finals (Most Valuable Player Jalen Brunson pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In basketball, the New York Knicks defeat the San Antonio Spurs to win the NBA Finals (MVP Jalen Brunson pictured).
Alternative blurb 2: ​ In basketball, the New York Knicks defeat the San Antonio Spurs to win the NBA Finals (MVP Jalen Brunson pictured).
News source(s):
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Final game summary needs to be written. KNICKS IN FIVE! – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support major sporting win, article is in good shape TheFellaVB (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support heavily Though the blurb should be updated to include who the Knicks beat, ie "In basketball, the New York Knicks defeat the San Antonio Spurs to win the NBA Finals" CY223 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although some of the game summaries might be overly detailed. Hsnkn (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2026 NBA Finals § Game 5 needs expansion. 2026 NBA Finals § Player statistics is missing Game 5 stats.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These have been addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP — Knightoftheswords 16:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Aldon Smith

edit
Article: Aldon Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN SF Gate
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Sourcing is good but not yet ready to post; article is being heavily updated. ~2026-22522-51 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is sufficient quality. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Symphony of the Earth

edit
SNOW close. Consensus against posting. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: International Festival of Language and Culture (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ "Symphony of the Earth" – The 15-day international cultural festival is taking place at Porsche Arena in Stuttgart, Germany since 13 June 2026, bringing together dozens of young dancers and singers from Africa, Europe, Asia and the US. Organized by the International Festival of Language and Culture (IFLC), an annual celebration founded in 2003 that has brought together over 2,000 performers from more than 160 nations to showcase songs, dances and storytelling. (Post)Credits:

Article updated
 Enjoyman (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notability of this year's event is not established, can't find much secondary coverage of it. Greenflipper (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As an inaugeral event, this would need massive coverage to demonstrate how significant it is at this point. Perhaps if it runs for a few years and gains more coverage (something akin to Eurovision) then maybe we can consider it. Masem (t) 23:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that the event has been held annually since 2003, "Symphony of the Earth" is just the theme of the 2026 edition. Only a few editions are actually mentioned in the main article. Greenflipper (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Also why does the blurb is so long and sounded more like an ad? NotKringe (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose insanely long blurb, no links in the blurb (athough that's easily fixable), doesn't seem notable at all.
Gaismagorm (talk) 12:57, 16 June 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.

June 12

edit

(RD ready) Blurb/RD: Niño Guerrero

edit
Proposed image
Article: Niño Guerrero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  A joint United States-Venezuelan strike kills Niño Guerrero, leader of transnational gang Tren de Aragua. (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Tren de Aragua leader who was killed in a joint Americo-Venezuelan strike. Suitable for posting. — Knightoftheswords 15:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD – Article is of sufficient quality, the American-Venezuelan joint operation is significant too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support a blurb. ArionStar (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is alright quality and the guy was a leader of a gang. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support a blurb or just an RD? in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RD for now as the article is way to short for a blurb IMO. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb. Feeglgeef (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the gang article has too many problems if the blurb is used here, it should not be bolded. Masem (t) 11:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, bold removed. ArionStar (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But now, we run into problems with SEAOFBLUE. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only three [[ ]] is not a problem, in my view. ArionStar (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "transnation gang" likely doesnt need to be linked since that is linked in first sentence of the gang itself. Masem (t) 13:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Neutral on Blurb article is of sufficient quality, can be blurbed. I am indifferent on whether it is or not LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropic suspends Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

edit
Proposed image
Article: Claude Mythos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American AI company Anthropic has suspended all foreign access to its new AI models, Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5, after U.S. export-control directive. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNBC, TechCrunch

Article needs updating

 UCinternational (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Company being forced to stop selling stuff to other countries is not that unusual. NotKringe (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't meet notability requirements. Scuba 06:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is in the news again because these AIs are considered so powerful that they threaten the security of many/most computer systems. This is highly significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, many analysts consider this to be a falsehood spread by CEOs trying to maximize their IPO sale price. Abductive (reasoning) 10:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      {{citation needed}}. Let's see what the NYT says:

      Anthropic unveiled Claude Mythos in April, but said it could not share the A.I. system with the public because it could become a powerful tool for hackers looking for ways to break into computer networks.

      Mythos quickly became a security concern in Washington and Silicon Valley because it could represent what experts had worried about for several years: that A.I. represented a new and far more dangerous threat to computer networks.

      Anthropic shared the Claude A.I. system with about 40 organizations that maintain critical computer infrastructure so they could use the system to patch security vulnerabilities before hackers exploited them.

      Reactions from researchers who have had access to Mythos have varied. Some agreed that Mythos was a new and alarming threat. But others said that it was more evolutionary than revolutionary, and that they could use it to protect their networks just as hackers could use it to break into them.

      There's nothing about CEOs and IPOs there. Instead, it appears that experts are taking this seriously and the US government is acting. It's in the news and has some impact. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The blurb should make clear of the security threats it poses; right now, it just reads as a routine business decision. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      And that's part of the problem, no one knows what the security concerns are that involved this. There's even wild speculation that this happened the day of SpaceX's IPO was to aid Musk, which isn't too far out there given what happens with this admin. That's the problem with ITN candidates where there's way too much lack of understanding to make for a proper update. Masem (t) 17:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Another {{citation needed}}. The article says nothing about the SpaceX IPO so that seems to be another wild rumour. We have plenty of sourced facts and I for one understand them reasonably well. Editors who want to discuss rumours that they don't understand should please do more reading and cite their sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that no one knows why this order was issued, and as such, there is a lot of speculation of what's going, and thus why this is not good for an ITN. If we can't provide a good enough picture of the hows and whys for a story, we certainly can't assure good encyclopedic quality for the article or makes sense to consider a story to post. Masem (t) 19:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It's very clear why the order was issued; the software is considered a security risk to important computer systems and the US naturally doesn't want foreign powers to have easy access to such dangerous technology. See export control for the long history and elaborate bureaucracies for such measures. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      We dont know the nature of the exact risk, and making such decisions off the cuff indicates something unusual is going on (whether its a legitimate reason or something more related to the dubious nature of this admin). That's the issue. Masem (t) 11:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      We know the nature of the risk as there have been numerous cyberattacks and this tool will tend to amplify their quantity not quality -- see TaqPCR's evidence, for example. And this decision is not off the cuff because the issue has been well advertised and discussed -- see Reuters for example. The US government has obviously made a risk assessment and decided to act. It's this action which is the event that we will report. The risks are background. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "a routine business decision" Meanwhile in reality Mozilla made more security bug fixes in the month of April than in the 15 months between January 2025 and March 2026. TaqPCR (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It would help if an altblurb was proposed that reflects this reality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 19:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Take it from Scientific American. Cybersecurity experts are not convinced Mythos is as exceptional as Anthropic suggests it is & the security risks are likely being overblown by Anthropic themselves because it is rare for any organization “to suffer commercial detriment by predicting calamity.”. OpenAI did the same thing with GPT-2 and nothing came of it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That article in Scientific American was written by "a freelance journalist in Newcastle, England". Not very scientific, not very American. It fails to get the word "vulernabilities" (sic) right. Not impressed. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That article was edited by the senior desk editor for technology and engineering at Scientific American. and the publication itself is WP:GENREL at WP:RS/P. Not impressed by this effort to discredit the source.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the nth AI-product related nom this year and we haven't posted any of them, the rationale being that individual software/product updates simply aren't notable enough. Gotitbro (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After getting access to Mythos Mozilla fixed >10x more security bugs in Firefox in April (423) than it did in any single month of 2025 (31). Those 423 bugs are more than the prior 15 months combined. Anyone who thinks there isn't a reason this is a massive concern is sticking their head in the sand. TaqPCR (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposing alt after suggestion altblurb At US government direction ​American AI company Anthropic suspends foreign national and general public access to Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 in light of concerns about it's ability to discover and exploit software security vulnerabilities. TaqPCR (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Mythos was being used by 150 of the world's largest organisations. Cutting access to a model that has a tangible and differentitated expertise in cybersecurity to non-Americans is a strong geopolitical stance by implying other states cannot be trusted by the technology (but America can). I see it as an action of astute intervention that transcends a simple product update.
It is an act of American authority that affects millions of non-American workers and, indirectly, many more citizens in key international industries like finance and tech. Therefore, I think it makes sense to surface this decision in ITN. Squid45 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trivial. Day-to-day business operations. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Access to a product being limited when the product purposefully hasn't even been released anyways is not an important development.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was released to select users as Claude Mythos and then Fable was available for a few days before this shutdown. For instance with it Mozilla made more security fixes in April than it had done in total since January 2025. It's real, in use, and absolutely upending cybersecurity. TaqPCR (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there's no need to repeat the same point this many times so close together. Before you sent this reply to me, you'd already made this argument two other times, and I'd already read it and responded to another editor by saying with a source that cybersecurity experts are not all convinced of the hype. Here's a second WP:GENREL tech publication making the same point . This one even goes on to argue that the number of bugs found by Mozilla is a misleading statistic. Some of the bugs in the count were actually found by the older models that are already available, none of the bugs were zero-day, and even according to Mozilla themselves, none of them were bugs that a human wouldn't have been able to find. The bugs Mythos (and/or older versions of Claude unaffected by this news story) found were bugs Mozilla had already patched without Mythos, and they were being found in a test environment with all of Firefox's defenses stripped out of it, with a great deal of human guidance involved in finding those bugs. It's all just AI hype, and Wikipedia shouldn't be involved in dispersing it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the repeating the Mozilla claims but you did say it was not released yet when it had been released not only to dozens of organizations (as Mythos) but for a few days also to the general public (as Fable) both of which I believe have been rescinded. TaqPCR (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Setarip (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is very likely some sort of propaganda, possibly there is collusion between a CEO who is under tremendous pressure to make the company's mythical, fabled products seem valuable, because otherwise absolute financial catastrophe will ensue, and a beleaguered President and Secretary of "War" who need to distract from their loss to Iran. It might even have a germ of truth, but propaganda does not have to be false. In any case, ITN is not the place to parrot propaganda. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing lots of weasel words here like "very likely" and "possibly" but zero reliable sources. These claims of collusion seem to be absurd because Anthropic is at odds with the US government already over restrictions on Pentagon use (see Anthropic-DoD dispute). The export controls seem more likely to be the government trying to exert more hostile leverage, rather than collusion. Anyway, what's the source of these wild rumours as I'm not finding anything. Truth Social? Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN once posted the discovery of Planet Nine, and was about to post one of those sad stories that fusion had finally been achieved in a tokamak. Oh yeah and a quantum computing one, what a joke. These are embarrassments. Abductive (reasoning) 08:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you don't actually have a source; this is just your personal conspiracy theory, right? As for those other topics, they seem quite irrelevant but, for the record, here's what ITN has posted: Planet Nine; Fusion; Quantum. None of my doing, except insofar as I opposed the fusion hype. The Anthropic story seems much more substantial in that they have a working product and lots of customers who are using it and the point of the story is that it is being restricted not hyped. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gene Shalit

edit
Article: Gene Shalit (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American film critic. Thriley (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks fine to me. Scuba 06:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2026 Peru general election

edit
There's a clear consensus to wait until the ONPE declares a winner. As that is likely to take more than a week, I'm WP:SNOW closing this nomination. Contributors are asked not to renominate the 2026 Peruvian general election until a winner is declared by the competent authorities to avoid wasting editor time. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2026 Peruvian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the second round of the 2026 Peruvian presidential election, Keiko Fujimori (pictured) of Popular Force defeats Roberto Sánchez of the Together for Peru coalition, with her party winning the largest number of seats in Peru's bicameral legislature. (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: WSJ has called it. shane talk 12:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until more sources confirm - only seeing WSJ saying so, and our own article hasn't declared a winner. — Knightoftheswords 19:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose once again Honestly, is it really that hard to wait? The result does NOT depend on what an American newspaper says, but on the ONPE. Close nomination until 100% of the votes have been counted or the competent Peruvian electoral authorities have made a statement. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I wouldn’t mention the parliamentary elections either. Technically speaking, they’re stale, and the only vote that took place was the second round of the presidential election. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale since other elections were nominated on day of the results. ArionStar (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And why does that matter? The elections occurred 2 months ago, thus they are stale. Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the parliamentary elections were announced over the first two days, although they were not fully and officially confirmed until the end of May. Let us be clear: last Sunday’s elections were solely and exclusively the second round of the presidential elections and, therefore, the results. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait even the aftermath section of the second round has a source with ONPE saying that a full count was expected to be completed by July, due to a very tight result (50-50 after second round) and a possible recount may happen. ACMehta (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above. I concur that ONPE declared that the count would conclude next month, and if one views the article, only a couple thousand votes separate the two. Not only that, but the outstanding votes are primarily rural (which favour Sanchez) and overseas (which favour Fujimori). This means there isn't an easy way to suggest whichever way the final result falls. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support while I appreciate the wait votes, this is probably going to a recount and it'll take a month or so for a final official signed and stamped result... that we know right now, that Fujimori won. If the likes of the WSJ are going 'yeah it's a statistical inevitability lets just call it now' we should at least consider doing the same, especially as other outlets join in like the Times or Telegraph. But, then again, I'm hesitant. Scuba 06:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is still premature, the National Jury of Elections still has to verify minutes and recounts may also happen. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 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.

(Closed) Jersey election

edit
WP:SNOW close; consensus to post is unlikely to develop. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Lyndon Farnham
Article: 2026 Jersey general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Jersey, Lyndon Farnham is re-confirmed as Chief Minister following the elections for the States Assembly (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not ITNR, but Jersey isn't a subnational division, and Crown Dependencies are essentially in many ways independent from the UK since Parliament cannot legislate on their behalf (at least not without their consent). They essentially have the same level of independence as Nieu, which we did post (although that was ITNR). — Knightoftheswords 18:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
imo something like this would only be notable if it was significant for a broader issue, like the brewing constitutional crisis re the UK gov trying to force crown dependencies to document beneficiaries of their tax havens (which we don't seem to have coverage of?) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: Its a local state election and a not notable one currently. ACMehta (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Local? @ACMehta This is Jersey - which is independent, and not part of the UK. Perhaps you are thinking of of New Jersey (which was part of Great Britian) or Bermuda (a British Overseas Territory off the southern USA). Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Although not INT/R, as the nominator said, Jersey is in many was independent, like Niue, and Niue was posted.R. M. Holda - (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A mistake being made, Niue being listed as in many ways independent, shouldn't set a precedent. I'm sorry but Jersey really is just too minor of a subdivision. Scuba 05:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. In that case, i change my vote to Oppose R. M. Holda - (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a subdivision, we don't post subdivision electoral results to ITN. Scuba 06:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We didn't post Wales elections based on the solid rationale that subnational elections aren't notable (and that rejection also happened on the back of a historic change). Nothing here essentially different from that nom. Gotitbro (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If we're not posting Wales (which we should have done, but whatever) because it's not a sovereign state, then we're clearly not posting Jersey with 5% of the population, which isn't one either. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a non-sovereign election can be notable when there are strong independence movements like New Caledonia or geopolitical importance like Greenland. I'm not seeing that here. I didn't comment on Niue but I'm stunned that it was posted, so don't whatabout me. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Based on the comments above, I think it's worth clarifying that Niue is posted because it's a sovereign state. Jersey is a dependent territory and, per WP:ITNELECTIONS, elections in dependent territories should be ... judged on their own merit. Thus, there is no outright exclusion of posting Jersey's electoral results to ITN on the basis that it's non-sovereign. Niue and Jersey differ from Wales, which is just a subnational division.
    This is not to say that all elections equally qualify for ITN. Based on significance, I supported posting the recent Hong Kong election, while this Jersey election does not appear to be receiving widespread, in-depth coverage with lasting significance. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crown Dependencies are autonomous/self-governing territories under the British Crown. Jersey's status as a Crown Dependency is virtually equivalent to the autonomous territorial status of the Faroe Islands. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly it is difficult to summarise the result of elections where the bulk of returned candidates are independents, even the Chief Minister who gets the job not by popular mandate but the ability to gain the confidence of the assembly.
Secondly and as already noted it fails to meet the usual bar for a sovereign state. There is also an often expressed view the current ITNR definition is already too wide so it does not need expanding further. The "level of autonomy" does not really cut it, logically that could be used for Island Council on Pitcairn (pop 35, GDP NZ$217,000) whose constitutional status differs but level of autonomy is similar if not greater.
Clearly that is a non-starter, I'd argue the committee elections to my local parish social club are are of greater significance, so the line needs to be drawn somewhere and if it is moved it needs to be in the opposite direction to that proposed here. 3142 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Setarip (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted – first RD and then upgraded to blurb) Blurb/RD: Bajrakitiyabha

edit
Proposed image
Article: Bajrakitiyabha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Princess Bajrakitiyabha of Thailand (pictured) dies at the age of 47. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Princess Bajrakitiyabha of Thailand (pictured) dies at the age of 47, following a three-year comatose state.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Following a three-year coma, Princess Bajrakitiyabha (pictured) dies at the age of 47, creating uncertainty to the line of succession to the Thai throne.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Princess Bajrakitiyabha of Thailand (pictured), a likely heir to the throne, dies after a three-year comatose state at the age of 47.
News source(s): Thairath The Guardian Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Thai princess. Death announced today on 12 June. NotKringe

Bajrakitiyabha was second in the Thai line of succession before her death. She was also comatose for three and a half years before her death. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Following the merge of duplicate nominations, the article quality appears to be sufficient for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article is in great quality, death of Thailand's de facto heir apparent. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in good shape. Thoughts on blurb? I'd support blurb. Her death in a three year coma at a young age mixed with her being seen as an heir apparent, wouldn’t that be a good blurb consideration? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would support blurb in principle, though I believe the article needs to expand more on her role as heir apparent first. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also support blurb in principle because the death has an added weight to determining the succession of the Thai monarchy. I echo Nice4What's reasons in expanding the article to describe her role as heir apparent. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CastleFort1: & @Nice4What: I've expanded the article a bit to demonstrate the speculation of her being an heir apparent. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for your work! Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality is good enough and at least personally subject is notable for a blurb due to her position. R. M. Holda - (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Nothing in this tells us why she is considered a major figure. Being second in line for succession is not such an indicator. Masem (t) 23:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree with a second in line for succession is not a blurb indicator, however I think she's a rare exception: her circumstances of death is unique for a senior royal (three year comatose state at a young age), she was heavily speculated to be a heir apparent hence why her death has created a crisis as to who will ascend to the already unpopular throne (per NYT). It appeared she had some weight or was at least an important figure in discussions of the future of the Thai throne. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the burb should reflect the complications on the succession line that was created by the death. Masem (t) 23:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: I felt as though the would make the blurb clunky, but I added another altblurb reflecting this. Her article, at least I think, does a good job establishing her status as a frontrunner to be the heir apparent or regent/describing the impact she had on the line of succession before and after her death. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: Article's been expanded to explain her social justice reforms and how they impacted Thailand and globally (via UN actions/statements). Also added legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am personally still not super convinced of her "major figure" stance, but thats far better for going on the blurb now than before. Masem (t) 11:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Thai, I'm leaning towards oppose blurb. While she's certainly the more popular royal figure, her death doesn't cause much shake up within the country aside the usual mourning period. Since we don't blurb the death of Queen Sirikit, who is arguably more famous both home and aboard for the reasons that her death doesn't have much overall impact, I don't think she's quite making the cut for a blurb. NotKringe (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Sirikit didn’t get blurbed nor posted on RD because of the article’s quality/sourcing issues. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe that the supposed importance of her death still lies heavily to the foreign news speculation though, that her death will cause succession crisis of some sort. Granted, there isn't much discussion about it in general Thai public either due to lese-majeste (which most people just casually skirted around one way or another anyways) or that people simply moved on to other issue, but I think it's clear that her death doesn't really have an impact in the grand scheme of things, at least for now. NotKringe (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @NotKringe: Her article has been expanded quite a bit to cover her impact to the succession of the throne, her legacy and her public impact. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The placement seems correct. Her death was actually on June 11, and the IPO was June 12. Natg 19 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because blurbs are ordered by date of occurrence with newer above older. This event occurred on June 11, and the other event occurred on June 12. This practice is explained at the second unbulleted paragraph of WP:ITNBLURB as well as WP:BLURBDATE. It seems that the nominator posted to the wrong date section; Schwede66's action is correct. Left guide (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The final IPO price was confirmed on June 11". ArionStar (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The death was filed under the wrong date. It’s listed here under 12 June, but she died on 11 June. The IPO was filed under 12 June and it is the posting admin's job to check that the date is correct. If that should have been posted under 11 Nune, then the two items should be swapped. Schwede66 03:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IPO price confirmed date is not relevant. The IPO occurred (shares began trading) on the 12th (Friday). Natg 19 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both the lead sentence and infobox of the article at Initial public offering of SpaceX note the event's occurrence date as June 12, and that's typically what we go by. If some other date is somehow more important, that should be appropriately reflected in the article first before there is anything we can do here at ITN. Left guide (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose What? The heir to the throne of a country is borderline but probably blurbable, but a potential heir? Really? Feeglgeef (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) SpaceX IPO

edit
Proposed image
Articles: Initial public offering of SpaceX (talk · history · tag) and Wealth of Elon Musk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SpaceX raises $75 billion, the highest amount ever, in its initial public offering. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The SpaceX business raises $75 billion from the stock market, the most for an initial public offering
Alternative blurb 2: ​ SpaceX raises $75 billion in its initial public offering, the most in history, and makes Elon Musk (pictured) the world's first trillionaire.
Alternative blurb 3: ​ Elon Musk becomes the world's first trillionaire after SpaceX raises the largest initial public offering in history.
Alternative blurb 4: ​ SpaceX raises $75 billion in its initial public offering, the most in history, and makes Elon Musk (pictured) the world's first dollar trillionaire.
Alternative blurb 5: ​ Elon Musk becomes the world's first dollar trillionaire after SpaceX raises the largest initial public offering in history.
Alternative blurb 6: ​ SpaceX (logo pictured) begins public trading, making Elon Musk the first trillionaire.
News source(s):
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this meets notability criteria, proposed blurb reads a bit funky to me WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slight support I also believe if there are enough sources to back it up, there should also be a mention of it making Elon Musk the first ever trillionaire CY223 (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, that's trillionaire as measured in US Dollars, which is an arbitrary milestone that only looks significant due to the choice of unit of measure. A lot of people have been trillionaires before as measured in other currencies. More significant should be the fact that he is the wealthiest person in the world, which is a true statement in the absolute sense regardless of the choice of units. ~2026-34568-80 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to strongly support altblurb 3 Though I personally think that "dollar trillionaire" is a bit too vague, and "$USD trillionaire" or something similar to it would work better instead CY223 (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Covered extensively. If an IPO is ever to make the news this will be it, it has had massive impacts on the markets and is going to be the largest in history. Saudi Aramco's IPO in 2019 raised $25.6 billion and is the current record holder, so this isn't just a small incremental jump. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. This hasn't happened yet and the article is all in future tense. The sales need to be made and the article updated before we could consider posting. Assuming it does raise the full $75b I do think this is worth posting, but we don't know that yet. I've had a go at writing a better blurb, but I'm not entirely happen with alt1 either. Modest Genius talk 11:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm interpreting this article wrong, it seems to have happened ("SpaceX raised $75 billion in a mega IPO on Thursday); stock trading has not yet started though on the NASDAQ. The Wikipedia article may also not be up to date, which is obv an issue with posting but a different problem. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interpreting this wrong, disregard above comment. The price tag was set yesterday so the 75B figure is out already. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do post this, the world's first trillionaire is the main story IMO and should be the first sentence of the blurb, something like "Elon Musk becomes the world's first trillionaire (in USD) after a record breaking IPO of SpaceX". Kevinishere15 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd actually argue the IP being the largest is the story. Musk was worth some $800M before this IPO, he was eventually going to get to $1T at some point. But in terms of the IPO, it being the largest, and within the article and coverage, a highly controversial one due to the number of rules set aside to allow it to happen and how its going to affect everyday joe's 401K due to how contributions will be made to it, is the larger story here. Obviously, the blurb shouldn't touch on those, but that needs to be covered in the article. Masem (t) 16:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Musk was worth some $800M before this IPO Almost, it was $800,000M. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I meant $800B. Masem (t) 18:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding and support alt4 - let's be real here, the main newsworthiness of this is that Elon Musk has become the globe's first trillionaire, so that should be the leading fact. As such, we should also link to the other appropriate article, Wealth of Elon Musk. — Knightoftheswords 18:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2 - business news doesn’t get much bigger than “biggest IPO ever.” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support mentioning both Musk and SpaceX. It is arbitrary but so are many other awards featured here (and at least this is far more objective than, say, an Oscar). The blurb must mention USD/dollar trillionaire, though, or else it both has bias and is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34561-10 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wealth in this area is always measured in USD. It's the reserve currency, and is used to measure net worth at these stages pretty much exclusively. Adding USD would be clunky, and furthermore, there's no notability being derived from being the first trillionaire in naira, where 1 USD = nearly 1.5K of. This is a level of (confirmed) wealth that hasn't been achieved, and USD is a good measure for that. — Knightoftheswords 19:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Under 5% of people worldwide use the dollar as their own currency. It might be implied to the familiar reader but there's zero reason to leave this so unclear on the Wikipedia homepage. After all, you wouldn't accept '75 billion' instead of '$75 billion', which would likewise be ridiculous. Moreover, the use of 'dollar millionaire' or 'dollar billionaire' in this area is completely standard. ~2026-34814-37 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever seen this verbiage ("dollar" trillionaire/billionaire/millionaire), so I disagree that it is "completely standard". Natg 19 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose altblurbs 2 and 3 as per Masem. Musk becoming a trillionaire is a less important detail than the record for largest IPO. It may also be worth mentioning the criticism the IPO has received relating to its inclusion in index funds. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3 Musk becoming the first trillionaire is a very important detail, actually. Setarip (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3 Kevinishere15 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support yeah sure, why not, first trillionaire Scuba 06:27, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3 to emphasise the trillionaire status as it was over a century ago when Rockefeller became the world's first billionaire. But it should clarify that it is the US dollar, as there are several other countries that have their own dollar currency (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, etc). Panamitsu (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; additionally (especially if we are going to be that pedantic about it), "dollar trillionaire" is arguably still not clear enough, since as stated above, there are multiple countries that have their own dollar currency. The solution of "US dollar" is way too excessively clunky for what is an understandable concept to the vast majority of people globally (the standard measuring of net worth by USD at this level). — Knightoftheswords 15:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's unnecessary (and unnatural) to specify dollar billionaire, as $75 billion earlier in the blurb makes it clear that the context is US dollars. Support altblurb 2 or 3. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 through 5, strong oppose original and alt 1 - Most of the news articles I've seen make a big deal about the fact that Musk is now a trillionaire, and roughly half of them go so far as to include his new status in the headline. I see what Masem is saying, but for us to not even mention Musks new status seems a bit absurd to me. - ZLEA TǀC 19:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

edit

RD: Ute Walther

edit
Article: Ute Walther (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Violin Channel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Mezzo soprano who sang the male title role in the reopening of the Semperoper (then East Germany) as a long-term member of the house, but soon after that had an even longer career with the Deutsche Oper Berlin (for the first years West Germany). German article (which was created on 9 June) translated on 11 June when the news of her death reached us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jane Yolen

edit
Article: Jane Yolen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Locus
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Prolific American author. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready – The article is of a sufficient quality and looks to be ready for RD. However, a majority of the biography is sourced from Yolen's personal blog. The use of the blog is fine under WP:ABOUTSELF, except if there are claims about third parties — and here it seems the biography section makes several claims about her family members (e.g., Isabell [Jane's mother] also did volunteer work, and wrote short stories in her spare time. However, she was not able to sell them.) There's no reason to doubt the authenticity of these claims, but perhaps a better source than the blog can be used. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lhasang Tsering

edit
Article: Lhasang Tsering (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Tibetan poet, writer, and activist. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – There's a handful of unsourced statements, I've added [citation needed] tags to point them out. The bare URLs should be cleaned up too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all this Nice4What, I have took it into account and corrected the page accordingly. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks for your work! I would support posting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Blurb posted) David Hockney

edit
Proposed image
Article: David Hockney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Artist David Hockney dies at the age of 88. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ English pop artist David Hockney (pictured) dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): BBC News The Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English painter, printmaker and photographer, widely regarded as one of the most influential British artists of the 20th and 21st centuries. ItsShandog (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb He is one of the most influential artists of our time. LiamKorda 12:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb not a well-established nor a transformative figure, very much local notability, article also needs some major works here and there. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Someone with "local notability" would not regularly feature near the top of articles about greatest living artists. Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, not internationally significant. Wizardman 01:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yet France24 says, "Hockney, one of the most influential artists of the 20th and 21st centuries . . ."? Ericoides (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb once article is ready. No way for anyone actually familiar with the international art world to argue with an (ahem) straight face that he was not a transformative figure. To add to Liam's citations, Vanity Fair calls him:

... one of the few artists—along with Picasso, Dalí, Warhol, and Kahlo—who could be said to be iconic in the real, literal sense: instantly recognizable, indelibly familiar, culturally omnipresent. Hockney, put plainly, was the most famous artist in the world. He had been in the public eye for so long, and held dear by so many, that the announcement of his death, at the age of 88, not only triggers something of a global shock but also marks a turning point in the history of art. His is the most impactful passing of an artist since Warhol's in 1987 ... Hockney was as conspicuous as a pop star. His paintings, drawings, etchings, photographic collages, sets for opera and theatre, and iPhone/iPad works took up residence in just about every museum on Earth and were the focus of boffo retrospectives and extravaganzas, including jam-packed exhibitions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York, in 2017, and at the Fondation Louis Vuitton, in Paris, in 2025, the largest show of his seven-plus-decade career, a victory lap.

It notes that his work was among the earliest by a contemporary painter to deal with male homosexuality—when he painted his first pictures with strong gay overtones, it was still a jail-time offense in the UK. And: "In November of 2018, Hockney's Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures), a dazzling seven-by-ten-foot, acrylic-on-canvas painting from 1972, set the all-time auction record for a living artist when it was hammered down at Christie's for $90.3 million." Certainly that demonstrates beyond all reasonable discussion that Hockney is worthy of a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be written more about how he was considered one of Britian's most influential artists if this is going to be posted as a blurb. There's only two sentences that really talk about this in the body, both in "Awards and honours", but give the reader no context for why that's the case, and this is ripe for expanding on using the obits, among the other citations that need to be added. If that was added, there would be better justification for a blurb. Masem (t) 03:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb article good enough for that at least. Scuba 06:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biggest Splash Hockney was the top read bio on the English Wikipedia yesterday, getting more attention than Elon Musk, any footballer, Shakira, Ryan Reynolds or any other celebrity in the news. And certainly way more than the tin-pot dictator that ITN is bizarrely featuring instead. The French, German and Spanish Wikipedias all have Hockney on their main pages so once again the English ITN is conspicuously lacking. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you sending me the credit for nomination of this article but I also updated it at the very start and my name was removed from updating and replaced with other editors. Not sure why theirs couldn't be added alongside mine. ItsShandog (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Investigating, it seems that ItsShandog put their account name in the updated parameter rather than the updaters parameter. It's still there and it's curious that this is being treated as equivalent to "yes".
    I added some updaters but had already noticed that there were more. As I understand it, the nomination template has a limit of five and so I stopped there. When I noticed that the item had been posted, I did the credits using my phone and so had to keep it simple. I was thinking of coming back later on a more powerful device and here we are.
    To get the big picture, see the Xtools analysis of authorship:
Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces
Rank Username Links Characters Percentage
1 Dhfvickyp Top Edits · Edit Counter 11,615 12.3%
2 Martinevans123 Top Edits · Edit Counter 9,421 10%
3 InternetArchiveBot Top Edits · Edit Counter 5,304 5.6%
4 Keith D Top Edits · Edit Counter 5,175 5.5%
5 78.52.131.180 Top Edits · Edit Counter 4,230 4.5%
6 92.225.107.48 Top Edits · Edit Counter 3,130 3.3%
7 Andrew Davidson Top Edits · Edit Counter 2,902 3.1%
8 Twixister Top Edits · Edit Counter 2,048 2.2%
9 OGBC1992 Top Edits · Edit Counter 1,521 1.6%
10 Emma.curtis24 Top Edits · Edit Counter 1,475 1.6%
420 others 47,400 50.3%
So, based on such I'll dish out some more credits, starting with ItsShandog...
Andrew🐉(talk) 16:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a place to see that, most of the edits I done was at the very start when it was first announced so people probably did do a lot more edits than me since that. ItsShandog (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Philip Booth

edit
Article: Christopher and Philip Booth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Instagram
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British-Canadian musician known for a lost song that's been somewhat known for a few years as people have attempted to find out where it was from after a snippet of it went viral. They were found out in 2024 via someone discovering it in an 1980s porno. They actually recently found the original recording, and it got featured in the recent Backrooms film, so that's nice. Article's decent, but filmography, etc. are unsourced; however, given that this article was only created three years ago, we should be able to find adequate sourcing for it. — Knightoftheswords 19:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How, again, does ITN handle the deaths of individuals with articles focusing on two people? The last time this happen, both died on the same day. I don't believe, necessarily, that this is a valid RD entry, specifically for the always presumed to be important enough to post, as the article focuses almost exclusively on Christopher, with only Philip having a loosely cited filmography as prose (hence, I'm wondering why they have a joint article and not a single one on Christopher with mentions of Philip). I don't think Philip could get his own standalone article, thus, I believe, the gates to a discussion on whether or not deaths of an individual subject of a joint article opens once more. Departure– (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think such cases have been pipe-linked, here it could be like Philip Booth. In terms of prose past tense is used because if either dies, then the duo is no more technically, even if the other is alive. Brandmeister talk 08:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we've done previously. Ian Brady was the first, I think, in 2017, but there's been at least one more (comedy double act, or something similar?) since. Edit: oh yeah, Barry Chuckle. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, just have Philip Booth displayed while the article of them both is linked jolielover♥talk 11:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready – Unsourced filmography and discography sections. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Northern Ireland Riots

edit
SNOW close. Consensus against posting. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 12 June 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: 2026 Northern Ireland riots (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Northern Ireland, riots erupt following a non-fatal stabbing attack by a Sudanese immigrant in Belfast. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, riots erupt following a non-fatal stabbing attack by a Sudanese immigrant in Belfast.
News source(s): NPR, The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, DW
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major rioting in Northern Ireland, possibly spreading across the strait. Somewhat of a follow-up to the Henry Novak unrest, which wasn't posted on the basis of there not being enough of an immediate reaction. Receiving sustained international coverage, decent article, likely to intrigue and be looked for, etc. Seems to meet WP:ITNPURPOSE. — Knightoftheswords 17:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the Nowak "riot". A bunch of racist idiots finding an excuse to throw things at the police and set fire to things, whipped up by other racist idiots - part 2. I see we're still acting like the sort of tabloid we deprecate and using "erupt". I'm sure it's possible that riots can have other intransitive verbs applied to them. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOAP Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I'm seeing stuff about racists targeting particular houses. But no numbers for actual rioting. How many rioters? How many days has the riots been ongoing? Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – It's unclear to me how this is any different from the Nowak riots that were rejected earlier. Could someone please clarify the significance? The article is in good quality and the story does appear to be receiving widespread coverage though — NYT, WaPo, etc. (For the blurb, we should not wikilink the obvious such as "stabbing" and "immigrant"). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 18:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now It’s hard to see this having a national or long-term impact. Until we reach that point, I don’t consider it ITN-worthy, regardless of who is behind the riots. We are an encyclopaedia; we’re not here to get involved in politics or to preach about morality. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose like disaster articles, we have been a bit too lenient on past protest blurbs. Large scale, violent protests or one's that have a clear immediate impact for the nation or region should of course be posted, but these smaller scale ones without any clear impact are questionable for ITN (much less if they will have sustained coverage for a standalone article per NEVENT). We are not meant to reiterating things things that happen in the news but instead write articles on enduring news events, and ITN needs to reflect that by avoid posts of these smaller scale events with no clear long term notability. Masem (t) 19:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BBC says that protests have passed off without incident. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Setarip (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It appears to be dying down already and these protests seem to be becoming more common. Political violence isn't exactly rare in Northern Ireland either. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also "non-fatal" is framing. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – God this sucks, my first instinct was to want to oppose so badly, but the article describes everything in meticulous detail and is thoroughly sourced, and ITNSIGNIF is met, so there's no guideline reason to oppose here. Good job on the article. Wish this wasn't the world we still lived in... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sources say it passed over last night. However I would disagree with those who said this was just throwing stuff like in Southampton; there was targeted racial arson, which is of huge seriousness. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. This is more substantial than the Nowak protests last week, but fits the same pattern of far-right agitation that gets reporting for one media cycle, then drops off. I doubt this has any long-term significance. Modest Genius talk 11:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Ongoing: 2026 FIFA World Cup

edit
Article: 2026 FIFA World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR Los Angeles Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: It's about to start in several hours, so probably it's time to consider placing it in the Ongoing. Trepang2 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what special about the first touch of the ball, in terms of news coverage. It's all over the news now - especially with the extreme prejudice blocking fans and participants attending. And why when the ref blows the whistle? The opening ceremony starts at 11:30 am CST. Would we post the Olympics when the ceremony starts, or when they light the flame? Or the first kick of the ball? And then ... what about 9 am when the gates in the stadium open? Or heck, as it's later today ... why not now? Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would support when the opening ceremony starts. But it is not even June 11 here in North America yet - the WC starts tomorrow. Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't actually ongoing until "the first touch of the ball". Gotitbro (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing refers to news. Not feet on the ball. Nfitz (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree, otherwise we could've added this in ongoing weeks ago - this has been "in the news" as an upcoming event (and with lots of controversy) for weeks. But the event does not start until the kickoff (or until the opening ceremony as a compromise). Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate FIFA, but this is a massive event nonetheless Setarip (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support will obviously get many updates. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
>It's about to start in several hours
Why do ITN nominators post these so early? Even if the event hasn't started yet or if the article obviously doesn't meet ITN quality, they always seem to post it prematurely. ~2026-34433-06 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Planned events are usually nominated a few hours in advance so that a consensus can be achieved and quality issues fixed before the scheduled time, so it can then be immediately posted when the event starts. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 11:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A few hours early is fine, because the ITN process will still need to review for quality and that gives some time to prep. And in a case like this, where there's only a tiny change to make it flip from "pending" to "ongoing" we don't have to worry about the update. It would be different nominating, say, the Super Bowl a day ahead before we can even write about the game itself. Masem (t) 11:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not early. The page has existed since 2012 and has had over 50 million views in that time. It was posted by ITN previously in 2018, which is 8 years ago now! Note that it is formally a contentious topic and so should be treated correspondingly carefully. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Greentext on Wikipedia? I shiggy diggy... Oppius Brutus (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I'm getting le (You) on Wikipedia.
>shiggy diggy
Alright pops, it's time to forget those obscure words of yours and learn newer ones.[FBDB] ~2026-34531-31 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the first match begins at 1pm UTC-06 Okso1 (talk, contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why the first match, and not the beginning of the opening ceremonies. For the Olympics, with the first events preceding the opening ceremonies, the ITN consensus was wait for the opening ceromonies. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

edit

(New) RD: Jean Ziegler

edit
Article: Jean Ziegler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Swiss sociologist. ~2026-35203-29 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sagrada Família

edit
Proposed image
Sagrada Família
Articles: Sagrada Família (talk · history · tag) and Visit by Pope Leo XIV to Spain (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Spain, the last tower of Sagrada Família is inaugurated by Pope Leo XIV after 144 years of construction. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Spain, the last tower Sagrada Família is inaugurated by Pope Leo XIV after 144 years of construction, making it the tallest church in the world.
News source(s): NBC, The Telegraph, WSJ, NYT, Forbes
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Effective completion of the tallest church in the world, as well as one of the longest built in history. The topic has been receiving sustained coverage for literal decades, and will intrigue readers aware and unaware alike. Seems like a no-brainer. — Knightoftheswords 22:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The claim that the Sagrada Família has been officially opened is incorrect. It was consecrated for worship in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI (in fact, I have attended a few masses held there), so it was ‘inaugurated' 16 years ago. Pope Leo XIV has consecrated and blessed the basilica’s tallest tower. The international coverage has not only been due to the protagonist and his historic visit to the country, but also because of the apoteosic ceremony, which has been widely reported in the global media and on social media. The mere fact that it is the tallest Catholic church might be ITN-worthy, but I’m not a fan of ITN reports on Guinness World Records. The Sagrada Família still has a few years, or a few decades, to go before it is fully completed: the main façade, the grand entrance staircase, the square in front (which would involve the demolition of several blocks of inhabited flats) and a few other details. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is supposed to highlight the finishing of the core structure, which the building of the tower is supposed to mark (hence why neither of them stated that construction has finished). Most of the work are relatively minor interior design work and the grand entrance that might not even be constructed due to the controversy its generated (it prolly will require re-routing of traffic and/or demolition of many of the buildings in front). I mulled over this decision for some time because of your concerns, but for the above reason (as well as the extensive coverage and the possibility [given how discussions here often work] that if nominated in 2034, it won't get posted under arguments relating to trivia [since as you stated, services are already occurring, and the remaining work are either touch-ups or may not even be built]), I think we should post now to be safe. This is not even to mention that said touchups will be buttressed by upkeep and renovations that could further extend the timeline. — Knightoftheswords 23:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Sagrada Família Construction Board has already clarified that the missing façade will be built, they expect it to be completed by 2035. The grand staircase is another matter altogether, as you say, it is controversial. The blurb needs to be rewritten because it implies that its construction has been completed, although it is clear that this is not what you meant. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Alsor--per sources, only the tallest tower of the Sagrada Familia has been consecrated and finished. The church as a whole has not been, and as such, both blurbs are inaccurate. Departure– (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither blurb says that the church has been finished, though they should prolly be re-worded to better illustrate that. — Knightoftheswords 23:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the full opening. ArionStar (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be rewritten as tallest tower, because there are still remaining the ones of the Glory façade. Srbuti (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New 110 metres hurdles world record

edit
Article: Ja'Kobe Tharp (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In athletics, Ja'Kobe Tharp sets a new world record in men's 110 metres hurdles. (Post)
News source(s): Olympics.com, ESPN, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

 UCinternational (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article is brief but well referenced and has been updated. The time is a substantial improvement over a record that has stood since 2012. Although the article says 'pending ratification', the IAAF lists it as the current record on their website , so it seems to be officially recognised. All looks fine to me. Modest Genius talk 12:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Modest Genius, also this is a proper record rather than one for the sports stats book. 3142 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not significant. I don't know anything about hurdles but couldn't you just find a different distance to beat? 110 meters sounds arbitrary to me. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
110 metres is the standard sprint distance for hurdles, akin to the "regular" 100m dash. Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken. Feeglgeef (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have we ever blurbed new world record made during the Olympics? I don't remember that there was any blurb like that cuz it was treated as a part of a major sporting event, wheas this one is the story of the new record being made in an otherwise not notable but recognized event. NotKringe (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is relevant, but yes: we have posted numerous world records in athletic sports, both during the Olympics and at otherwise non-blurbed competitions . That's just two examples; there are dozens if you search the archives (see above) for "world record". Modest Genius talk 10:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like there is enough here. Scuba 06:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US military strike on Settebello

edit
Good faith nomination, but there is a clear consensus to not post + this is covered by 2026 Iran war in Ongoing. (non-admin closure) Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 16:07, 13 June 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: List of ships attacked during the 2026 Iran war (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States military fires precision munitions into the engine room of the Palau-flagged oil tanker Settebello in the Gulf of Oman, killing three Indian sailors and rescuing 21 others after accusing the vessel of violating the 2026 Iran War. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Three Indian sailors are killed after the United States military strikes the Palau-flagged oil tanker Settebello in the Gulf of Oman; India summons the US Deputy Chief of Mission and the IMO Secretary-General condemns the attack on civilian seafarers.
 AnkS (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comments. A US military strike on a civilian vessel in international waters killed three Indian sailors — Aditya Sharma, Shivanand Chaurasiya, and Patnala Suresh — while 21 of 24 crew were rescued. India summoned the US Deputy Chief of Mission and addressed the UN Security Council. IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez condemned the attack as "simply unacceptable", noting 46 confirmed strikes on shipping in the region since February 2026. AnkS (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Target article bears no relation to the matter at hand, either proposed blurb is far too wordy, and the "United States Military" are not an entity - their actions are those of the United States. 3142 (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed link to "Settebello" to List of ships attacked during the 2026 Iran war, as Settebello links to an Italian sports team. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Covered by ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a strike in an active war zone that is already covered by ongoing. Also, the article has only an entry in a table, that's not enough for WP:ITNQUALITY. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The US has declared a blockade and enforced it. We have consistently refused to blurb any ceasefires related to the Iran war, so it is still sitting there in ongoing. If this were the same as Iran_Air_Flight_655 (where the US navy got confused and thought a passenger plane was coming in for a bombing run on them), then we could talk. However, this looks like the US knew exactly what it was doing, albeit its accusations might be wrong. Also, as others have mentioned, there isn't an article worth pointing at here. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, already covered, doesn't even have its own article. Scuba 06:29, 13 June 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.

References

edit

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1359766603"