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.

Mojtaba Khamenei Mojtaba Khamenei (pictured) is elected Supreme Leader of Iran following the assassination of his father, Ali Khamenei. Flooding in Kenya leaves at least 43 people dead. The Winter Paralympics open in northern Italy. Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing senior officials and sparking a wider war. A Lockheed C-130 Hercules of the Bolivian Air Force crashes into a road in El Alto, killing more than 20 people. Ongoing: Russo-Ukrainian war timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Philip Trusttum Andrew Watson Alvin Greene Ian Huntley Bernard Lafayette Käthe Menzel-Jordan More current events Nominate an article

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.

To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

• Archives of posted stories

Nominator's comments: Whilst I understand that this is a side-effect of war, this particular event has a direct effect on the world's oil prices, which is now being felt by almost everyone in the world given global supply chains and that the cost of fuel has a direct impact on the cost of living. This is being just as reported on as the war itself as a result and is causing economic and political turmoil across the globe. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Maybe we can bracket this in with the Iran war at ongoing. But separately while a blurb's still up, don't think so. Gotitbro (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: I only cited one, but the story is being coverd by many big news outlets and is very much in the news. Amiri1383 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not notable, ITN is not for those kinds of stories. May be better suited for DYK   Jalapeño   (u t g) 16:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, on what basis is ITN not "for these kinds of stories"? It has its own article.AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As @Masem pointed out, ITN doesn't post those kinds of unusual stories, and the precedent on this probably won't change anytime soon. This event isn't significant enough for ITN anyway. This would probably be better suited in DYK though.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 17:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalapeño Masem hadn't expressed a view when you made this comment and their subsequent comment is actually saying wait. So I'm unclear what you're talking about. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See his statement in the section "German fireball".   Jalapeño   (u t g) 18:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the fireball seems like basically a one and done event with no death or damage we know of, barring any discoveries from analysus of the residual. this is still a possible developing story that might impact relations between AU and Iran, but too doon to tell. its definitely not a curiousity as the german fureball waa. Masem (t) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, receiving sustained coverage from multiple WP:RS sources, rather unprecedented situation. — Knightoftheswords 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait not ckear yet how much of an international relationships issue this will be particuoar with the war dominating coverage. Masem (t) 17:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, scale of significance unclear The article is fine in quality, and it does have some notability in reputable sources and has some separation from the Iran war. What's unclear is the scale of significance. Is this a minor diplomatic incident or is it a major international incident? CastleFort1 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is the difference between a major incident and a minor one determined? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it sometimes takes days to weeks to be certain, but id then nk things like evicting embassies or the like to be at the starting point. Masem (t) 20:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already expelled the Iranian ambassador and closed our embassy in Tehran last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is a minor knock-on effect of the ongoing war, which is already posted as a blurb. While it's clearly momentous for the 8 women who have claimed asylum (calling that a 'defection' is a bit odd), I can't see any broader significance or implications. Modest Genius ^talk 19:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Note on defection: I think its part of a cold war-ism about 'defecting' to the west Yorked (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Article looks like WP:NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. As in, breathless over detail about a recent event, when it should be integrated into a previous article on either the tournament or Iranian sports. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Good faith nom, but I feel this is too tied to the war, and since we already have a blurb on that, I feel this is already covered by that blurb, similar to the "covered by ongoing" reasoning for ongoing events. ~2026-15314-17 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cannot blurb every insignificant happening related to the war. Gotitbro (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (also maybe wait a little so the story develops a bit) - Quite significant act of protest from an Iranian group, here in Australia we've seen a lot of coverage, and has been covered by multiple Wikipedia:RS's. Yorked (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Covered by major international RSes, and significant in the Iran-Australia relationship. It has more ramifications than just another incident in the war, and there is more to unfold, no doubt. I'd give it another day, perhaps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, seems pretty minor in the context of global repercussions relating to Iran et al. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Serial killer in New Brunswick, Canada B3251_(talk) 16:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: This really needs a good picture or video like this but I haven't found a CC image yet. Many eyes may help. Note that, in these troubled times, such lights in the sky may be misinterpreted. See Meteor’s fiery flash in skies above US bases in Germany raised fears of incoming attack, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close Not notable in the slightest.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 09:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I wouldn't phrase it as harshly as Jalapeño; I love this story and found it genuinely interesting. But this isn't ITN material (for lack of notability). Renerpho (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, close and TROUT Andrew, should know very well ITN is not for stories like this. Masem (t) 11:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to start an argument. Blaming the nominator as if this was a frivolous nomination isn't called for though. Having an idea for an unusual news story is nice, and shouting this down only leads to less diversity in the proposals we can expect. Vote oppose, fine. Close it early, okay, since there's little chance it will pass. But don't blame the nominator. Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ITN doesnt really doesn't do "unusual" stories, we've long established thats better for DYK where the purpose is to have interesting hooks to new or expanded articles . Abdrew is not a newcomer here and knows this very well, and along with several similar candidates that they should know likely fail significance, and part of recent POINTy behavior. Masem (t) 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Very cool, and might meet ITNSIGNIF quickly googling it. However, the article is a stub, so it's not suitable for a feature yet. Not sure what other editors mean with ITN not being for "stories like this." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a particularly unusual event. Impacts like this happen maybe once or twice per year. The one aspect that is genuinely unusual is that it hit and damaged a house, but the blurb doesn't mention that. Maybe an alternative blurb that does may get more support, I don't know. Renerpho (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  replying as article's creator; besides what Renerpho mentioned, there is a chance that this meteorite could become notable if lab analysis of the fragments turns up anything interesting/notable. however, on top of being WP:CRYSTAL territory, analysis will probably take a few weeks, and given that it seems like an ordinary chondrite i wouldn't get my hopes up. ArkHyena_woop! (she/they/it) 13:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that kind of analysis of a subject's significance is helpful for us. We shouldn't editorialize and should just follow WP:ITNSIGNIF. We can't decide whether or not it hitting a house is a reason we should blurb this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does this meet ITNSIGNIF? A random meteor striking the Earth and causing minimal damage is not significant in the slightest. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This seems to have been a fairly large fireball, but not abnormally so. There are thousands of fireballs reported every year. This one was seen by more people than usual but that's about it. One damaged roof is not sufficient impact for ITN - this isn't another Chelyabinsk meteor. The media coverage is brief and our article covers most of the available material, but is still only one paragraph long. Take this to DYK instead. Modest Genius ^talk 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on both quality and significance. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and snow close due to lack of quality/significance and a clear consensus forming on not posting. ~2026-15456-55 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose besides being relatively insignificant, the article is barely above the level of a stub. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Rock singer who the lead singer of the classic rock band Boston thrashbandicoot01🐉(talk) 22:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work orange tagged and multiple unsourced paragraphs. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: A Thai national artist in such styles as luk krung. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs work, wait, there's a lot of red links and the Singing tab of the article looks weird. I'll try to help it. RoyalSilver 17:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for multiple reasons: article is poorly sourced, poorly written, and not notable. All references are Thai-language, which isn't necessarily disqualifying but also means that this article would fare better on the Thai Wikipedia. No point in attempting to improve article, as there are almost no good sources that will help. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 19:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that editors who speak both English and Thai can help us with that. This is a very odd !vote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

en.wiki does not discriminate topics jusy because the sourcing may only be in a fireign language. but it dies nean we should look to that version of Wikipedia to help build oit the en.wiki version. Masem (t) 22:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thai sources are fine per WP:NONENG policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2026 Iranian Supreme Leader election (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ Mojtaba Khamenei is elected Supreme Leader of Iran following the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ Mojtaba Khamenei is elected Supreme Leader of Iran.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Mojtaba Khamenei is elected Supreme Leader of Iran.
News source(s): Al Jazeera France 24
Credits:

• Nominated by Interstellarity (talk · )
• Updated by Jollyrime (talk · ) and Andrew Davidson (talk · )

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.

Nominator's comments: New supreme leader elected Interstellarity (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an update to the blurb, addressing the issue below. "In the Iran war, Mojtaba Khamenei is elected Supreme Leader following the death of his father in U.S./Israel strikes." Masem (t) 21:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Interstellarity (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• wait orange tag and only one sentence on his appointment. Updated now and locked. Support combined blurb as an updarte and bump.Psephguru (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when ready - Though, keep it as a separate blurb from the current iran war one. Considering how the current nomination for making the Iran war ongoing proves how heavily people want the blurb to just roll off already so they can place it in ongoing and also with complaints of how complicated the Iran war blurb seems to be I'd rather have this be separate. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support as not much has been mentioned in the Appointment sec. but notable on coverage and relevance due to the ongoing war in Iran and the Middle East. I'd suggest to separate Iran war's article in 'ongoing' per my reply below. ACMehta (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb - Sufficiently ready for ITN/R. Oppose combining. This is independently notable and ITN worthy blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new blurb, oppose retrofitting into existing blurb. This event is sufficiently independent and notable to warrant its own blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Its the same larger event, we don't post multiple blurbs for that reason. That said, I don't see a problem with resetting the timer for an updated blurb and making this the most recent (as of now) Masem (t) 00:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see it that way. The ascension of a new head of state warrants its own post. We do not have to wait for this to roll off too to add the war to ongoing. The olympics is a nice spacer between. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support its own blurb. Per above, this is its own event, I don't support combining it with the strikes and death of Khamenei blurb. Just one thing though, the BLP should not be linked, only the election. So alt blurb 2 above. See the election of Donald Trump for similar case where Trump himself is not bolded.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose separate blurb, they should be combined somehow. Both events are directly connected. - Indefensible (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Admins willing to post ITN: — Knightoftheswords 05:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate blurb Can't just keep stuffing that up. The longest serving leader in the Middle East replaced by a successor, as notable as they come. Gotitbro (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Separate blurb, but shift the reference to his father to this blurb from the general war blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support split blurb as described by 331dot. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Split Blurb per above TheFellaVB (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted as a separate blurb, with the original Iran war blurb adjusted accordingly. Schwede66 09:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Schwede66: please unbold Mojtaba Khamenei per my comment above. The election itself is the ITN/R event, and in general we don't bold the individual too... See Macron and Trump for precedents. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Sorry, must not have read the above properly. Schwede66 11:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schwede66 please remove the image, as it's currently being deleted on Commons on basis not only of its copyright but also AI generation suspicions. ~2026-15099-19 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  

  That image is being used by Tasnim which seems reasonably official. Anyway, there are plenty of other images such as his article's current lead image. (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schwede66: The blurb for Mojataba does not make it clear that his father was killed in the same US/Israeli strikes listed separately. Need to add this to the assassination bit. Gotitbro (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please make a specific phrasing suggestion that editors can discuss. Schwede66 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  

  A suggestion for picture: ArionStar (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schwede66: Since we already have a blurb for the strikes, I believe merely appending "in the strikes on Iran" should do the trick. Gotitbro (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2026 Men's T20 World Cup final (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ ​India defeats New Zealand and defends their World Cup title by 96 runs. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ ​In Twenty20 International cricket, the Men's T20 World Cup concludes with India defeating New Zealand in the final.
Alternative blurb II: ​ ​In cricket, the Men's T20 World Cup concludes with India defeating New Zealand in the final (player of the match Jasprit Bumrah pictured).
News source(s): SkySports
Credits:

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · )
• Updated by MNWiki845 (talk · ), Sush150 (talk · ) and Vestrian24Bio (talk · )

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.

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support but needs work - The blurb should read "India defeats New Zealand by 96 runs to win the Men's T20 World Cup and successfully defend their title." Otherwise the article meets WP:ITNCRIT. woaharang (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we generally report score details in sports blurbs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have a standard sports blurb style just to avoid that sort of thing wrt score and to get around ENGVAR problems. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the standard blurb as ALT2. Vestrian24Bio 02:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an empty "Aftermath" section. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support but change the blurb and hide the score part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14896-83 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality due to empty "Aftermath" section and extremely sparse prose on the match itself. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability but only after the 'Aftermath' section is completed. The T20 World Cup is a prominent International Cricket event with the top 20 ranked nations participating based on rankings and continental/regional qualifications and has recieved coverage from multiple revered international media sources too like the Reuters, BBC, ToI, Al Jazeera etc. ACMehta (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No prose write up on the match, and aftermath empty. Also only the final should be bolded, not the tournament itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a prose write up on 2026 Men's T20 World Cup final woaharang (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No there isn't, the 'New Zealand innings' and 'India innings' sections are empty. Modest Genius ^talk 17:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sport must be mentioned by name. Many lay readers will not know what sport it is. As such, I would only support altblurb 2. ~2026-76480-5 (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work such as a good picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. There's no prose summary of the match, those are empty sections. They need a full paragraph of referenced prose explaining what happened in each innings. If/when that has been addressed, alt2 follows our standard blurb format, so use that. Modest Genius ^talk 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added an image of the man of the match. Modest Genius ^talk 17:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There's now a paragraph on each innings, but they're completely unreferenced. Fix that and then this could be posted. Modest Genius ^talk 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Ongoing war (the RM to change the wording to conflict will almost certainly lose) South Asia, receiving daily updates. Should only be put there once blurb rolls off tho, in line with the prior nom. — Knightoftheswords 00:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work The timeline hasn't been updated since 5 March. More generally it seems that there's still bad blood but that both sides are not going all out because they have plenty of other headaches. So, it's still a tit-for-tat limited conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support but needs work Timeline not updated. Squalwer (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now Timeline not regularly updated at present. Spencer^T•C 17:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - literally no references in the nomination! Nfitz (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the current blurb rolls off + the timeline hasn't been updated in three days. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above as the timeline hasn't been updated since some days and it's a less intense and stalemate-ish conflict for now (unlike the one in Iran and ME) nearby. ACMehta (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: World's largest landfill, weakened by rainfall, suffers an avalanche that killed 7 people. ~2026-14366-36 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article quality is not sufficient for posting on the main page. But also this does not seem to meet our significance requirements either. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Major floods, affecting Nairobi and other areas, with more deaths likely sadly  — Amakuru (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although expanding the article wouldn't hurt. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article is good quality, maybe add an Aftermath section in time Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, article and references are good Versions111 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Per Brazilian precedent (supporting the addition of "more than 4,800 others displaced" too). ArionStar (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no "Brazilian precedent", there's a far greater number of blurbs that follow the usual practice of just reporting the deaths. Stephen 02:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Death reported 7 March. Thriley (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unusual subsections, and even after reading the article the reader does not really have clear picture of her biography. Needs major re-ordering and re-writing to a more reader-friendly and chronological article. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An interesting article. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: There have been several blurb nominations related to the 2026 Iran War, some of which have been opposed because one blurb related to the war has already been posted. The war is certainly in the news, and the article is being updated frequently. MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This might help with reader navigation as the blurb is piping the article name currently. And it looks like the conflict is going to be ongoing for some time. Meanwhile the blurb is under active discussion and amendment at WP:ERRORS and elsewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this looks set to go on for a while, though I would suggest "War in Iran" as the name This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only on the basis that while the current blurb is present, it is not appropriate to include it in ongoing. Once the blurb rolls off, obviously it will likely be appropriate for ongoing, but we have a clear link to the page in the box, we don't need to duplicate it right now. Masem (t) 00:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If the concern that readers will not recognize the text in the blurb to the article, then the blurb can be rewritten to be like "A war in Iran breaks out following strikes by Israel and the U.S., killing Ali Khamenei and other senior officials." Masem (t) 01:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support because this is a clearer link to the conflict than the bloated blurb and ITN blurbs are moving slowly right now Omnifalcon (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In favor of rewording current blurb; Ongoing should not duplicate existing blurbs. Spencer^T•C 03:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems odd to me that WP:ONGOING, as it is currently phrased, allows for a simultaneous blurb/ongoing item for a ceasefire in a conflict listed in ongoing, but not for the reverse situation (the commencement of a war). In any event, ongoing items regularly coexist with blurbs about that same topic in situations where there has been a significant development in an ongoing event. The strange exception to that for blurbs which "commence" the ongoing item (like an opening ceremony or a war declaration) seems to lack a strong logical basis and creates unnecessary confusion. I struggle to see the benefit of it. In this case, others above have made strong arguments that it is resulting in unnecessary confusion for readers. Calls for an application of WP:IAR. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 05:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The current blurb isn't going to be up forever, clearly makes sense to add the conflict to ongoing. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The breadth of the current war has advanced beyond what the blurb, already excessively wordy, can convey has happened in the past week; it would be unreasonable to keep grafting on new events to the existing blurb given the strikes against the Ayatollah and other high-ranking Iranian figures on 28 February 2026 are not currently in the news anywhere near as much as the escalating consequences of those strikes. News coverage has moved on to the wider ramifications of the conflict beyond Iran, including more recent events that have taken place in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and all across the Middle East. ITN should give attention to the breadth of the article as the war progresses, not just the strikes on the Ayatollah causing something afterwards. Oppius Brutus 06:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The war has expanded beyond the original blurb. Indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this article being in Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, we can remove the blurb if it's necessary to meet Wikipedia policies. Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the blurb focuses on the assassination of Iran's leader, in itself a newsworthy event. In response, Iran attacked its neighbors sparking a war. That war should be listed in ongoing. The blurb should link only Assassination of Ali Khamenei. The "sparks wider conflict" can be deleted from the blurb and moved to ongoing. I don't care what the process rules say. The ITN box looks broken as it currently stands. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The arguments of other supporters have swayed me - the war has so many facets by now that the blurb (which focuses on Khamenei, and should remain so) can't realistically cover all the details. Ongoing therefore makes sense. Khuft (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In favor of rewording the blurb. ArionStar (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - literally at the top of the blurbs. Support rewording the blurb. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the existing blurb rolls off. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, the war blurb rather than the supreme leader blurb. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now that Iran has selected a new Supreme Leader, we can update the blurb with that but lead in with "In the Iran War...". See the newer nomination (above) for that entry. Masem (t) 21:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This blurb has been tortured into fitting half a dozen stories within it, I think the existing blurb should not be updated with the appointment of Mojtaba Khameini Omnifalcon (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Iran war has moved on way too much than the old but current blurb. ACMehta (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support there's quite a lot of updates happening with the war, unless the blurb is reworked to a full paragraph, it just won't cover it all. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Wait until the blurb rolls off and then add to ongoing. We don't remove blurbs. If there is something that overshadows the US and Israel starting a war, I have yet to see it nominated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Until Iran war blurb rolls off. It's been a precedent to wait until a blurb rolls off until we put it into ongoing and I don't see any reason to break it right now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the current blurb rolls off per others above. ~2026-15018-42 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support jolielover♥talk 08:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wait until current blurb rolls off. We literally already have two blurbs relating to the actual war blurbed, if the war keeps going for longer (e.g. when the two blurbs roll off), revisit idea. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't understand the support argument on a mechanical level: a blurb is more prestigious than ongoing. It commands more space higher on the page, and contains more detail. Ongoing is the little brother of the blurb; this proposal is a demotion. The event qualifies for blurb based on the start date. It clearly qualifies for ongoing once it rolls off, but there is no reason to push it. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Wait Current blurb now mentions the war, we can let it roll off and put this in ongoing.

Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current blurb is no longer mentioning the war. ~2026-14977-84 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing senior officials, and sparking a wider war." - this pretty clearly mentions the war, and it is this blurb whose departure from ITN should trigger the addition to Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought the "election" blurb was an update to the original one, however the original one is still there but rephrased. ~2026-14977-84 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding this, as it is clearly major international news, provided that it is still happening when the blurb for the outbreak of war (not the one for the election of the new Supreme Leader) rolls off the main ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it has expanded past the original blurb Scooglers (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now since the war blurb is still in the ITN box. When it rolls off, I’ll support an Ongoing item. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 08:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Yogwi21 (talk)

• Support everything is sourced. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unsourced discography and filmography.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Murderer killed in prison. No blurb. User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi 10:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The target article is mainly about some murders back in 2002. Putting this in RD would be too much of an Easter egg. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: May I suggest basing your comments on a correct interpretation of policy and guideline? Thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a practical matter. If you put Soham murders into RD then it's misleading because they happened over 20 years ago and so are not recent. If you pipe it as Ian Huntley then it's an Easter egg as it's not a regular biographical article and contains much other sordid material plus BLP material about other people such as Maxine Carr. Which of these options is proposed? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already mentioned, we posted Ian Brady to RD without his own articles, by piping it to Moors murders. This is not an EASTEREGG issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did there with Hindley (who died in 2002 before ITN and RD existed). The Brady case was more complex than this as he was nominated for a blurb and so the RD was a fallback from that. And the Moors murders is a former featured article by Malleus Fatuorum so there's a lot of baggage associated with that set of topics. Huntley doesn't have the same level of notoriety and name-recognition IMO and so I still reckon it's an egg. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I said (re: notoriety and name recognition) seven hours ago, but the EASTEREGG and article quality stuff isn't relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The EASTEREGG guidelines are especially relevant here because there's no context to warn the reader that they will be dropped into the middle of an article about sordid murders. Note also that there's a better account of the death at Anthony Russell (murderer)#Prison attack on Ian Huntley. It's odd that there's a separate article for one murderer but not the other. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone created it yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see less than two years ago. 13:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That was a blurb which provided some context and so prepared the reader. An unexplained link does not. I find that we have this covered in multiple places including: WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:EASTEREGG. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support We have RD'd murderers who don't have a separate bio before using their crime article (we featured both Ian Brady and Hindley under Moors murders) but I'm not completely convinced that, notorious in the UK as Huntley may have been, that he rises to this level. YMMV, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sourced and seems ready. Was one of Britain’s most notorious killers. BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - RD criteria is not met. There is no stand-alone article about Ian Huntley. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact: per WP:RD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry, as you know. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna is right. Especially in this category of articles. We have earlier posted deaths without stand alone articles.BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is nowhere near "substantial" - one subsection of an article with seven sections. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about the life of Huntley.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Fortuna. Article is in good shape. It’s invidious to have a league table of murderers but he’s one of the most notorious in the United Kingdom and is second only to the Iran War in coverage today. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 22:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull WP:ITNRD requires a biographical Wikipedia article; the link is about murders and is not a biography. For example, this has precluded "Killing of ..." pages and the like from being posted on RD (example).—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support per BK; no EGGs are involved and thanks to Bagumba for drawing my attention to the precedent that this is at worst an WP:IAR to post. —Fortuna, imperatrix 22:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, technically, anything is at worst an WP:IAR. —Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Really don't see what the problem is here - the Soham murders article contains a complete biography of Huntley, easily satisfying the RD standards. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• With so much of the article about Huntley, I don't understand why there is not a separate biographical article about him, as it seems like too much detail in the murders article. Natg 19 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Much like the far more notorious Moors murders where a discussion decided this, I suspect that was a deliberate plan. I actually don't know why people keep creating separate articles for murderers when by their very nature 95% of them are going to be WP:BLP1E. Ironically someone has now created an article for the murderer who didn't have one before he killed Huntley. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull Consensus did not exist for posting and does not exist now. I suspect the arguments opposed were disregarded as invalid, which is improper as the presumption of importance does not apply to RDs without a standalone article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The section Soham_murders#Ian_Huntley is a biography of Huntley, of sufficient quality to post in RD, and the section Soham_murders#Death has been updated with the latest events. That's sufficient to post. The RD section was changed years ago to post everyone who qualifies, without subjective judgements about their importance or pleasantness. I don't particularly agree with that policy, but it's the one we have in place. This article meets it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Happily888 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Needs work. Several cn. Grimes2 12:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Lafayette was one the four remaining giants of the American Civil Rights Movement (others are Diane Nash, Andrew Young, and Fred Gray). His contributions to that movement were enormous. I'm not familiar with all of the requirements of nominating, sources exist at the page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC) Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I added a bunch of refs, so referencing issues should be resolved. Appropriate depth. Spencer^T•C 05:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 9765 characters (1554 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 12:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Counterculture musician. Article seems in reasonably good shape but not sure I have much time to edit it myself. Blythwood (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Interesting article with a good picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Discography and filmography needs more sourcing. Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready several statements unsourced, support once fixed. ~2026-15018-42 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Happily888 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready, filmography section uncited, career section undercited. ~2026-15018-42 (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles: 2026 Winter Paralympics (talk · history · ) and 2026 Winter Paralympics opening ceremony (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ The Winter Paralympics open in Milano and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2026 Winter Paralympics open in Milano and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy.
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (talk · )

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

 --BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work Lots of predictions with phrases like "will be" and "are expected". And this should be an ongoing item while it's running. The opening ceremony article seems weak and there were only 45 athletes there due to a boycott and logistical issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leave opening ceremony article unbolded The main 2026 Winter Paralympics article should be the bolded focus. CastleFort1 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like the main Olympics, the opening ceremony is the ITNR item, we'll put the event for ongoing otherwise. Masem (t) 02:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb 1. The Paralympics are a huge event, the article is well sourced. Guz13 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support The Opening Ceremony has happened (live). We blurb/ongoing this every time and it has high global notability like the Olympics. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this item is ITN/R, so !votes should focus on quality as the article is automatically considered important enough to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 22:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The tense isues that I highlighted above don't seem to have been touched. And Schwede66 is himself tagging the main article with {{cn}}. With all these quality issues, how is this ready? Note also that the posted blurb is erroneous and so I've reported it at WP:ERRORS. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to read WP:ITNQUALITY, where it states: "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article". Schwede66 02:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American actor. Worked with Mike Nichols and had starring roles in some films and on TV. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Portuguese writer; often considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2026 Nepalese general election (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ The Rastriya Swatantra Party and its prime ministerial candidate Balen Shah (pictured) win a landslide victory in the 2026 Nepalese general election, called after the 2025 Gen Z protests. ()
News source(s): [5], [6], [7], [8]
Credits:

• Nominated by PtolemyXV (talk · )

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: INT/R event. Results are in for 164 out of 165 constituencies with the RSP confirmed as the winner in 91 (which is a majority already) according to the Election Commission. PtolemyXV (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Second Gen Z protest-inspired election to happen (varies by definition), article looks good. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Election victory following protests, pretty obviously notable enough for blurb. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with additional comment The quality of the article appears to be expanded enough for posting. Also shouldn't the blurb be in 7 or 8 March? A solid portion of the preliminary results were revealed by Nepal's Election Commission on those days. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Support article still needs work on results Scuba 18:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Balen Shah article is not even close to postable quality as of writing. Bremps... 19:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is the bolded article, not the article for Balen Shah. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I've struck your vote, Bremps. We only evaluate articles shown in bold font. Schwede66 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support the article is of good quality compared to a lot of others that've been posted, results prose should be expanded, but to me it's not a deal breaker. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Hawaii congresswoman and state senate president. Article may need some work. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine to me. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Multiple statements unreferenced, including Colleen_Hanabusa#Law_career section. Remove "ready". Spencer^T•C 16:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fine, sourced and ready? Many lines are unsourced. Time to fix them. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 UCinternational (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work The target article was created by Doc James and so I suppose it has a sound foundation but it has had multiple orange tags for some time -- one of them since 2010. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since this is not even the first case of leprosy being eradicated in a country. Also the linked article doesn't mention the fact that either country eradicated leprosy either. NotKringe (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article needs work before it can featured. Guz13 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, article is in poor shape though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too small scale in scope. The elimination of leprosy in the world would be notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but our top blurb's a week old, and positive news is pretty rare Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per NotKringe. Not the first in the world, and the first in the Americas feels like a weak rationale for blurbing. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Green Bay Packers executive. Classified as a good article on Wikipedia. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support GA. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ready article is a GA.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 13:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NON-ADMIN CLOSURE

WP:SNOW close, consensus seems unliekly develop.–DMartin (talk) 20:00, 6 March 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.

---

Population below sea level after 1 metre rise

Article: Sea level (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ Global sea levels are found to have been underestimated, especially in SE Asia and Oceania. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ A meta-analysis reveals that global sea level rise has been underestimated by an average of 25cm, due to a lack of use of local direct measurements.
News source(s): CNN, FT, Nature, New Scientist, NYT, PBS, Science News, Turkiye Today
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · )
• Updated by Pol098 (talk · )

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The story is rather technical but we're here to help explain such topics to the general reader. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - trivia. The attached image is also confusing and wouldn't be helpful to readers.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  

  The image comes from the Nature paper. It is rather busy but it highlights the impact on populations, which seem to be non-trivial. Note also that we are currently blurbing a flooding story in a comparatively small region.

  There are other global charts in the paper and we have other options such as a simple image from our article (right).

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Trivia, not suited for ITN. I'm by no means that informed about how people at DYK handle their trivia/noms, but this could maybe be a possible nom for them. TwistedAxe [contact] 08:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated numerous articles at DYK and so am very familiar with their criteria. The sea level article does not qualify as it's not new, having been created over 20 years ago. It was created early in the life of Wikipedia as it is considered level-4 WP:VITAL – a fairly fundamental topic for the encyclopedia. The flooding article that we're currently blurbing would have been eligible for DYK because it's new. And it's more trivial because it's not vital per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's very very clear, @Andrew Davidson, that you absolutely do not understand their criteria, based on the number of times you repeat the same mistakes. Your contribution here is a net waste of time for the project. Are you the only person who doesn't see this? Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Nice work to Pol098, but the article update is not appropriately significant to warrant featuring yet. Especially if, subjectively, the blurb is so vague. I do like a blurb that is more specific. I proposed an alternative. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt gives an average global figure of 25 cm which doesn't sound like much. But note that sea level rise explains that Between 1901 and 2018, the average sea level rose by 15–25 cm ...  This was faster than the sea level had ever risen over at least the past 3,000 years. So, the revision is over a century's worth of comfort room. And it's just an average so some areas, such as SE Asia, get the sea lion's share. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I am bewildered by the "trivia" !votes, as this discovery/reveal has enormous implications. An additional 25 centimeters on top of any other estimates already in play is huge. This is why this news story meets WP:ITNSIGNIF so easily, as shown by the sources listed in the nomination. I don't know what to make out of these "trivia" comments, they seem to come out of nowhere. I'm not familiar enough with the field or with this new paper to know if this is the biggest climate news story of the past decade, but I expect it's in that domain. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - trivia. ^EF₅ 15:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as trivial. The Kip ^(contribs)
• Oppose - This sounds like trivia. Guz13 (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone please tell me what "trivia" means and how we measure it for ITN nominations? To me, these !votes straddle a line between absurd and in poor taste. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• They seem to be the sort of dismissive one-word comment which WP:ITNDONT advises against: curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. The actual reliable sources don't seem to use the word "trivial". Instead they indicate that there are significant implications for over 100 million people. For example,

  Torbjorn Tornqvist, a geology professor at Tulane University in Louisiana who was not involved with the study, said the findings were a real “wake up call,” with wide implications. “We finally have a really full blown, robust effort to sort this out and the result, it’s somewhat dramatic,” Dr. Tornqvist said.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the blurb were to include the reaction/impact of this finding (not implications) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just trivia! Squalwer (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Trivial. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm not sure that this is actually trivia - there's a bigger issue in this nomination. Read the article in Nature. This is not saying that sea level rises are higher than previously estimated as much as sea level rises have not been correctly considered for the purposes of evaluating coastal hazard assessments, based on the assumption of the geoid model for the earth's shape, when reality is more complicated. It's not saying that sea levels have been rising globally faster than previously measured. I think the OP and several of the news agencies reporting on the Nature article have not understood what the paper is saying. I'm not seeing the egregious nature of this particular nomination, compared to most of those by this nominator. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as not breaking news, things are the same as they've awlays been, only the observations are new.–DMartin (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's comments: New Zealand figurative expressionist artist Schwede66 03:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2126 characters (355 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 13:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]