Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

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.

Vera Rubin Observatory The Vera C. Rubin Observatory (pictured) in Chile releases the first light images from its new 8.4-metre (28 ft) telescope. In basketball, the Oklahoma City Thunder defeat the Indiana Pacers to win the NBA Finals. The United States conducts military strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran. In rugby union, the Crusaders defeat the Chiefs to win the Super Rugby Pacific final. In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup. Ongoing: Gaza war Iran–Israel war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Frederick W. Smith Ron Taylor Mohammad Kazemi Marita Camacho Quirós Kim Woodburn William Langewiesche Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (37 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 358 358 Archives 157 157 Sections 215 215 June 24 162 162 June 23 113 113 RD: Mick Ralphs 1,038 1,038 (Closed) 2025 Iranian strikes on US military bases 3,365 3,365 (Posted) Vera C. Rubin Observatory releases first light images 12,183 12,183 June 22 113 113 (Posted) 2025 NBA Finals 1,913 1,913 (Ready) Damascus church attack 3,079 3,079 RD: Raymond Laflamme 819 819 (Posted) U.S. bombs three nuclear sites in Iran 18,209 18,209 June 21 113 113 (Posted) RD: Frederick W. Smith 1,481 1,481 RD: David Boyle (author) 1,060 1,060 (Closed) 2025 Santa Catarina hot air balloon crash 6,018 6,018 (Posted) 2025 Super Rugby Pacific final 2,304 2,304 June 20 113 113 (Reviewers needed) RD: Maria Voce 695 695 (Posted) RD: Marita Camacho Quirós 1,283 1,283 June 19 113 113 RD: Wes Hildreth 589 589 (Reviewers needed) RD: Léon Krier 1,030 1,030 (Reviewers needed) RD: Jack Betts 621 621 June 18 113 113 (Reviewers needed) RD: Lou Christie 660 660 RD: Mark Peploe 680 680 (Posted) Ongoing: Iran–Israel war 25,088 25,088 June 17 113 113 RD: Ali Shadmani 2,592 2,592 (Posted) RD: Alfred Brendel 2,072 2,072 (Posted) 2025 Stanley Cup Finals 5,355 5,355 RD: Lucien Nedzi 1,202 1,202 (Closed) Iran–Israel war 8,689 8,689 RD: Anne Burrell 2,035 2,035 References 830 830 Total 106,573 106,573

Nominator's comments: Founding member of the Mott the Hoople and Bad Company. His death announced on 23 June. 240F:7A:6253:1:98C9:2766:23C2:57ED (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it's in depth, and seems of decent quality, aside from a number of unreferenced claims, which should be cleaned up V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet ready The discography is unreferenced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to post won't develop. ^EF⁵ 21:19, 23 June 2025 (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: 2025 Iranian strikes on US military bases (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Iran launches missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq and Qatar in retaliation for American attacks on its nuclear sites. (Post)
News source(s): https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-us-strikes-06-23-25-intl-hnk https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/axios-iran-launches-six-missiles-toward-us-bases-qatar-2025-06-23/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/06/23/iran-israel-us-strikes-latest-news-nuclear-sites-trump/
Credits:

• Nominated by Jolielover (talk · give credit)
• Created by Rafi Chazon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Viceskeeni2 (talk · give credit)

 jolielover♥talk 18:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is consensus to post this, should it be merged and combined into the existing blurb? Left guide (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose should not be a separate article from the US strikes since this has been said to be retaliation for those. No opposition to adjusting current blurb on the US strikes to add this. Masem (t) 19:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not every beat in this conflict needs to be documented on INT, especially given that this particular set of strikes appears to be a nothingburger. — Czello ^(music) 19:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, speedy close, and a WP:TROUT for User:Jolielover. Adding a couple more words to the blurb is reasonable enough (but can be discussed at WP:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_U.S._bombs_three_nuclear_sites_in_Iran without starting this discussion. But between the blurb and the ongoing, another bump is overboard. No prejudice in relisting if any side uses nukes in the next round. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Czello and others. The Ongoing link is meant to capture less relevant military events such as this one. Khuft (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Vera C. Rubin Observatory (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Vera C. Rubin Observatory (pictured) releases the first light images from its new 8.4 m or 28 ft telescope. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; CNN; NPR; Space
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Simesa (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The BBC describes this as a "revolutionary telescope" while CNN says it's "the largest camera ever built". It has been years in the making and today is its official first light. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice ITN material of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, important event and important new telescope. Artem.G (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a chance to offer readers a look at a prominent scientific achievement. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support; high-quality article with no outstanding citation issues. A certainly remarkable scientific achievement nonetheless, and one definitely worth putting on ITN. - pivotman319 (📫) 10:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Request, can someone edit in the full name of the telescope Large Synoptic Survey Telescope in the infobox caption, it's one of those off-site "edit on Wikidata" boxes and I can't find where the edit would go at its link. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did it. The Wikidata interface wasn't especially difficult but the data structure wasn't obvious. I supposed that the infobox was taking the first entry from the long list of aliases there so I deleted LSST initially and then added it back at the bottom of the list. That made the alias you prefer the first one. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current updated content seems sparse per WP:ITNUPDATE:

  The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

  —Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have expanded the paragraph about today's release so that it's six sentences and six separate citations. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great. Agree with Masem (below) re: unsourced portions.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality Handful of unsourced paragraphs or final sentences introducing new ideas without any source. Support otherwise on significance. Masem (t) 12:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI The first images were teasers for the main ceremonial presentation which is going to be streamed soon. It would be nice to post this now so our readers get a chance to watch it live. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 12:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is still unsourced material, this needs to be pulled until it's fixed. Masem (t) 13:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect it might be OK now, Andrew has worked on fixing some of them up, I can only see one obvious citation needed now. What do you think, Masem?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's still a couple unsourced statements higher up like the polishing of the m3 mirror Masem (t) 14:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me add that there have been improvement ts since my comment about being pulled so at this point, I don't think it needs to be pulled, but this is yet another recent case of rushing to post amid unaddressed quality concerns (which I raised before it was posted) Masem (t) 14:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: You opposed over a "handful of unsourced paragraphs", and I presume the closer gave that little weight because it contravened ITNQUALITY. ("Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable.") This was a good post by Schwede66. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having multiple entire unsourced paragraphs is well below the acceptable quality for main page content, per longstanding practice across the different sections. The guideline you mention allows for one or two citations needed across the whole article but not more than that. I won't speak for Schwede66 but I had rather assumed this was an oversight on his part rather than a deliberate decision to ignore the two objections on quality raised above, generally Schwede is aligned with community expectation in this regard. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: I'm just going off ITNQUALITY as we all wait for someone to codify "longstanding practice[s]". In the meantime, on main page customs I'd invite you to review Pierre de Coubertin, Air India Flight 182, and even June 23, which are all currently bolded and linked in OTD. :-) On balance, this 4k+ word ITN was well referenced. The percentage of unreferenced content was not a real problem. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I've just pulled those first two from OTD and replaced them with Featured Articles. Unfortunate that no-one pointed it out earlier. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Interestingly, both articles easily met the guidelines set out at WP:OTDRULES #4. One could argue that your removal was out of process. So, once again, we're all waiting for someone to find consensus for and codify these longstanding practices. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Missing citations, even if they aren't tagged, would seem to violate the intent of #4, in that OTD items should represent good quality, though are not required to be GA or FA. Masem (t) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: Our B-class criteria does not say 'all content must have an attached citation.' It actually says It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." Quite frankly, I don't know how you can read the plain text of OTD #4 and come away with the interpretation you gave above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is it said that "b-class" is considered good quality? None of OTD, ITN, nor DYK make this claim that b-class is equivalent to good content. OTD and DYK do spell out that that any content likely to be challenged must be sourced, so like here, that would read to me that a couple unsourced statements are understandable. But when I first commented on this, there were around 7 or 8 such statements, and that's just far too many to consider "good quality" for posting to ITN. Masem (t) 03:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it would have been good if I had documented my rationale with the "Posted" note. For a very long article, a couple of unreferenced sections isn't a dealbreaker in my view. Sorry for that. Schwede66 22:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that is incorrect. While ITNQUALITY allows for "one or two" citation needed templates, full unreferenced paragraphs are always a deal breaker for ITN/OTD/DYK entries. The quality concerns always need to be addressed or at least agreed by consensus to be moot before the item is posted. Thankfully this was sorted out quite quickly afterwards. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: I can only reiterate that I would love to see that codified. I'm not a fan of unwritten customs. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITNQUALITY says one or two 'citation needed' tags may not hold up an article, while Masem opposed for Handful of unsourced paragraphs or final sentences ..., which I also seconded. While we can discuss enhancements and clarifications, ITNQUALITY as written didn't exactly green light a pass of the "handful". —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What about posting File:Trifid and Lagoon nebulae.jpg as the main image? Bremps... 05:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fascinating. Grimes2 18:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support with a note, the blurb should state the observatory is in Chile. --Bedivere (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur on that point and have added it to the blurb. - Fuzheado | Talk 09:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 NBA Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, the Oklahoma City Thunder defeat the Indiana Pacers to win the NBA Finals (MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander pictured). (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, One Sports
Credits:

• Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Zzyzx11 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Iafca09 (talk · give credit)

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

 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR Scuba 11:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: ITNR event that meets WP:ITNQUALITY with a large amount of referenced prose. Left guide (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sufficient quality and breadth.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: IS suicide bombing of a Greek Orthodox church in Syria. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another one. ArionStar (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support first major ISIS attack since 2024, mass casualty event. Scuba 11:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. First suicide bombing in Damascus since the fall of the Assad regime in 2024 and one of the deadliest attacks in years. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Extremely short without the "Responses" filler. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid concern. Isn't there more that can be recorded about the event? What's there is good, but it's not very much. Schwede66 00:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a 2-paragraph background section. I don't think there are more details to put in the attack section. 174.138.212.166 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to article quality & death toll. A567Z (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Eminently notable and newsworthy. schetm (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Significant and blurb-worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Leading researcher responsible for many breakthroughs in quantum computing. Connor Behan (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well sourced and in depth V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: (Updated) Target article in my blurb rated “Start” class Jusdafax (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - everybody’s bombing everybody, why focus on one single bombing? Plus, not ITNR. ^EF⁵ 00:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the US wasn't bombing or directly attacking Iran until now. Wqwt (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s my point. Everyone’s bombing everyone now. I retain my oppose after reading the supports below. ^EF⁵ 14:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related to the following nomination: Ongoing: Iran–Israel war --Super Goku V (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The blurb should be rephrased, "The US joins Israel's war against Iran by bombing several nuclear sites" or some variant. In addition, the ongoing item Iran-Israel war is going to be added to ongoing soon and this is covered by that. Departure– (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add an altblurb. Jusdafax (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for current blurb reason and because it's way too soon. It also shouldn't have a new article written just for three strikes - it can be covered in the current Iran-Israel war article. Further, I don't see why this is marked as ITN/R at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Major escalation that would justify posting even if there was an ongoing item (which there isn't). Agnostic on whether this should be its own article or merged into the parent article at Iran-Israel war. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Until more information is confirmed. Bremps... 00:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US claims to have taken out Fordow for good, if this is confirmed, absolutely mention in the blurb. Bremps... 00:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I felt Fordow was important enough to add to the blurb, but confirmation of the level of destruction will likely take awhile. Jusdafax (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above, as this article will be added to ongoing anytime now. Left guide (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Front page news on all major news outlets. Important world event.  selfworm^Talk) 04:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - will hopefully be added to ongoing, as these articles will be highly viewed. Angusgtw (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for more update

QalasQalas (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major escalation and major news. Even if this was already in ongoing, I’d still support it because the most powerful country bombed another country. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait in case the Israel-Iran war ongoing item is added. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• List under ongoing as Iran–Israel–United States war. BD2412 T 01:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At first glance this implies the United States is part of the war as its own separate combatant when it's joining it on Israel's side Dyaquna (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) x 3 Wait for more details. This is likely to get posted, but there is no rush. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, support if escalates. From what I can see in the article, no major damage has been done, there are no casualties and no injuries. I would instantly support otherwise. For now, wait. Thesogra (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Thesogra, I'm in agreement if there is an escalation. Marks the entry of the US as an active participant in the conflict. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ornithoptera: Which part of that is your vote? Renerpho (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Restored removed parts of Thesogra's comment. Ignore my question. Renerpho (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support. The USA joining in the war is very significant, and the Iran aspects of this are now off the tracker. Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And support alt-blurb. Nfitz (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think a reasonable read of the situation is that this represents either a finishing blow (if Iran concedes) or a major escalation (if it doesn't). Either would be major news. Tisnec (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support this is a happening of all time APFSDS-enthusiast (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major escalation. Thriley (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This doesn't seem like "business as usual". A president's unilateral and unauthorized entry to a major conflict is highly newsworthy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, leaning support Clearly this has the potential to be a big deal and result in major escalation. Watch the situation, and reconsider in a few hours. Renerpho (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are air alerts active all over Israel right now.[1] Renerpho (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A major and significant escalation. Even if we do add the Iran/Israel war to ongoing, the United States becoming involved in such a dramatic fashion merits its own blurb. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 03:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. This is a major escalation. IDB.S (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support obviously a massive world development and potentially epochal event. Certainly something people will want to come to wikipedia and read about. Arguments claiming this should be subsumed under Ongoing are meritless as there is currently no Iran conflict link under ongoing. DangOrangatang (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: this is newsworthy enough to warrant a blurb independent of the Iran-Israel war going in the ongoing section.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Tensions between Iran and the US have been continuous since 1979, and finally they have exploded into direct contact. This is a new war in the Middle East, this is a big deal. 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:8146:C20D:493B:2D86 (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we adding this as ongoing item nomination. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet we haven't. And that ongoing doesn't even mention USA. Some discussion in that ongoing about blurbing this instead, including withdrawal of support votes. Blurb this now, and worry about ongoing later. Nfitz (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Jahaza (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, User:Jahaza, what criteria you would use to set a bar for the "In the News" section, given that this unprecedented attack doesn't seem to do it for you. Nfitz (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, potentially wait Definitely a huge deal and deserving of an addition. Personally, an immediate blurb is appropriate considering this will have meaningful implications for the conflict at large, whether it be a decisive end or escalation. A brief period of waiting isn't amiss, however, if the consensus is that a follow-up event as aforementioned is deemed necessary for the blurb. Additionally the Israel-Iran war is not a current ongoing mention, and even so this specific event constitutes enough significance to warrant its own addition. Xanblu (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as it is featured quite prominently in the news. Sahaib (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb. It is a major development. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for posting this but the alternative blurb should be used Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Support. In what world is "USA bombs nuclear sites in Iran" not notable enough for a blurb? Prefer altblurb to original blurb. Khuft (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major event. Noon (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There is no world where the preeminent global superpower starting airstrikes on another country is not major enough to make ITN. Bluepanther512 (User talk:Bluepanther512) 9:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support alternative blurb, potentially linked to Iran–Israel war. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Posted. While opposition to posting a blurb is not insignificant, I weigh there being at least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS in support of doing so. El_C 10:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @El_C It's missing a full stop at the end of the sentence. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed. El_C 11:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think only waiting 10 hours was way too short period since it was nominated when the vast majority of Europe was asleep and later posted when people were just waking up. There is absolutely no need to rush to post ITN since we're not a news ticker 83.187.176.82 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I found that, in this case, there was sufficient input and that enough time has passed relative to it; time zones of prospective participants is not something I factor into such evaluations. El_C 11:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Europe and did have the possibility to comment. Khuft (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't really fathom anyone even considered opposed this posting from a not-quality place. That this was not a snow post ("happens everytime", "not a newspaper") suggests something is wrong here when it comes to America-prominent items. 2001:8F8:172B:3F78:D860:EEB5:8CE4:F879 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also from Europe and also commented. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I first saw this ITN listing early in the morning, and was flabbergasted to find that a not-insignificant number of editors opposed. For me, this is perhaps the most obvious blurb we've ever had. How could it ever possibly not qualify? The U.S. launching airstrikes on a country following a decades-long diplomatic stalemate is as major a development as can be imagined. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The opposes seem mostly to come from the fact that an ongoing nom is already open below. And while both a blurb and ongoing can co-exist, it isn't unusual for editors to be vary of blurbing items relating an ongoing topic as the purpose of the latter is in most cases then nullified, I for instance have opposed most such blurbs. The problem in this case is that the ongoing topic wasn't live as of this nom and we certainly have to consider the notability of the bombing of nuclear facilities. Gotitbro (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a fair argument, but the significance of this singular event supercedes our usual considerations, such as whether it's gratuitous to include it as a blurb alongside an ongoing. The US bombing Iran is a major, major deal. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome to ITN, the show where everything's made up and the points don't matter. </sarcasm> Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder what the responses would be if the prompt were, "Things you can say about an ITN nom, but not your girlfriend."

  "I guess there is such a thing as 'too much coverage' if it's in all the wrong places." Kurtis ^(talk) 17:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Too Amerocentric. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After decades, User:Kurtis? The US did an infinitely more deadlier aerial attack in a civilian area of Baghdad already this decade. I don't think a single oppose wanted nothing. Some were just about wording. Some was that it was already covered by one ongoing or another ongoing that was about to be posted. And after all that, it only took 10 hours to be posted - far quicker than something about countries that aren't as self-obsessed. Meanwhile the blurb is already twice out-of-date with the retaliation and the announcement of the ceasefire. There was nothing exceptional about this - there's been missiles flying in each and every direction during this conflict by at least 10 different countries (between Iran and it's proxies) for almost 2 years! I think you doth protest too much! Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American business magnate, investor, and aviator. Founder of FedEx, owned shares of NFL teams too. Article looks in good shape and to post. RIP. ~ Tails Wx 20:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support not seeing any problems with this article, also saw a bunch of news outlets mentioning it. Scuba 12:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well sourced, and in depth V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 00:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: British author and journalist. Death reported 21 June. Thriley (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose orange-tagged due to insufficient referencing and whilst not a purely quality issue or requirement an infobox would be nice too. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, very lacking referencing and no early life section V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose broken citation in other works section too. Secretlondon (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 Super Rugby Pacific final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, the Super Rugby Pacific season concludes with the Crusaders (captain David Havili pictured) defeating the Chiefs in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In rugby union, the Crusaders (captain David Havili pictured) defeat the Chiefs to win the Super Rugby Pacific final.
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:

• Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Not really a fan of rugby union, but I tried my best to add match prose. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 14:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support once the two cn tags are addressed, good work. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: CNs resolved, ITNR event that meets WP:ITNQUALITY with a sufficient amount of referenced prose. Left guide (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked ready. Left guide (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted the ALT blurb. This event and the United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites are of the same date, but I couldn't bring myself to post a photo for the rugby game. In the big scheme of things, that seems rather insignificant compared to the US starting a conflict that may well spiral out of control. If nothing newer comes up in the next wee while, we can reconsider that. Schwede66 00:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Italian lawyer.  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Quite a lot can be said, but was First Lady of Costa Rica, oldest known Costa Rican, and supercentenarian. Some sourcing help is needed, but its close. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Renerpho (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 10:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Geologist of the California Volcano Observatory, dead at 86 years old. Article meets ITN quality standards. BhamBoi (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Luxembourgish architect, architectural theorist, and urban planner. Death announced 19 June. Thriley (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once the orange tag issue is solved. Krier is also famously associated with Poundbury, then Prince Charles's venture into architecture. Khuft (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as there is a legit wikibio, "famously", etc. don't matter here. Any comments regarding WP:ITNQUALITY, please? Orange tags are show-stoppers. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:F1ED:1AE:BE6F:E3F7 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American pop and soft rock singer-songwriter. 240F:7A:6253:1:F1ED:1AE:BE6F:E3F7 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Academy award winning British screenwriter. Thriley (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose List of awards is unsourced and article is very much a stub. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Previous nomination discussions in recent days have suggested adding the Iran—Israel War article to the ongoing section. The article has been updated since then, with it continuing to receive updates as events happen. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at a minimum wait until the current blurb rolls off, then reevaluate since it is entirely possible this will end up being a 1 week war with nothing more than airstrikes till a pause occurs Ion.want.uu (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for now as there are daily updates on the conflict. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the article is terrible and needs a lot o work.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still on ITN as a blurb. ArionStar (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Support Blurb off. ArionStar (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We could've put the Syrian Civil War as ongoing when the major HTS offensive begun, but that would've been a mistake because by the time it would've been up the war had largely concluded. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the blurb falls off of ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NorthernFalcon Just FYI, the blurb has now rolled off, if that makes you want to change your !vote. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 13:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Isn't the conflict basically over already? Last I heard, the good guys had full control of the situation and were giving the hiding dictator the choice of unconditional surrender or being blown to pieces. Cambalachero (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are good guys? (Or to put it more directly: that's an unacceptably partisan presentation of an admittedly complex and painful political crisis in which many people have died.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Core idea: I oppose adding this as an ongoing item because it does not seem to be ongoing for much longer. The good guys have to finish the job, and that'll be it, the news story will be over before we get around to post it as ongoing (except for the aftermath, but that is usually part of all news stories that are big enough). Background idea: yes, in a conflict between a democracy and a ruthless dictatorship there are good and bad guys (besides, I'm from Argentina and remember the AMIA bombing), but that's incidental and not part of the argument. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The war is between Israel and Iran, and (not to be partisan) but both have aspects of "bad guys". Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares. As I said, the core idea is that this news story is basically over, so unless Ali Khamenei suddenly shows up with ships from Exegol or something to unexpectedly turn the tides, it is not needed to make this ongoing. Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us care; these sorts of partisan comments should be avoided on ITN and Wikipedia more broadly, especially for highly controversial subjects. I won't leave further replies in this chain to avoid derailing this nomination, but I encourage you to be reminded of WP:ITNCDONT.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is comparing this to a good/bad guy thing and generic pop culture bad guys really acceptable for ITN? 2001:8003:1C44:7600:DB92:C06A:A973:FA15 (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a nobody now, because I care about the language being used. You should voice an Oppose in a more proper wording. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict is definitely not over, Iran seems to me to be trying to employ an attritional strategy against Israel, although mutual strikes could possibly subside soon V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - seems a bit premature for ongoing. I doubt this will last a month. And is throwing things at each other really a war? If so, what about the Pakistan-Iran war last year? Seems more like an aerial battle or terrorist attacks at this stage. And why put Iran first? Looking at good sources, BBC puts Israel first, and calls it hostilities - not a war. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From my understanding of the talk page discussions, there is (apparently?) a policy for article titles regarding conflicts that you put them in alphabetical order. So, Iran before Israel. (Granted, I don't think I have seen the policy linked to, so I am starting to question if there is a policy or if it is a preference confused as one.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that makes sense, User:Super Goku V. But Sino-Japanese War, Soviet-Finnish wars, Italo-Ethiopian War, Spanish–American War, Spanish–American War, Mexican–American War, ... Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've also never seen or heard of a policy stating that wars should be in alphabetical order. There's nothing about this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Kind of thinking the alphabetical rationale was made up whole cloth in that move discussion and a lot of well-meaning editors were duped.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME, not an "alphabetical policy". But unsure if such a policy actually exists. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be CommonName that should drive this. And all the sources I see say Israel-Iran not Iran-Israel. Someone should move it. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - premature and duplicated by a current blurb. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose for now as it's already on ITN, no prejudice against renomination at a later date if the target article is continuously updated with new information after the blurb rolls off.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing position to support now that it's rolled off. Still very much in the news and very much being edited.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Israel air-strikes blurb is the bottom blurb now and may scroll off at any time, Its wording hasn't been keeping up with developments while this new article title seems better as a catch-all for current hostilities. This is the third nomination now and we shouldn't need a fourth one to get this into Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Andrew Davidson. Seems like an obvious step given the magnitude of this topic. Jusdafax (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that we should wait for the blurb to roll off, but that will no doubt happen soon. In future, the way this item was nominated has lead to a lot of procedural headache with the frequent repeat nominations. Ongoing noms come after the blurb has rolled off, and subsequent corrections to the phrasing of a blurb should be addressed either at WP:ERRORS or as a post-posting comment on the original nomination. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Israeli strikes have rolled off, being displaced by ice hockey. There's no procedural headache here – all that's needed is some common sense per WP:NOTBURO. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Common sense would be that we have a single ongoing for Israel's various wars against Iran and it's proxies. What the target would be I don't know. If we were dealing with WWII, I'd think the target would have been World War II - but it would hardly have been updated with day-to-day details. And we have many timelines - List of timelines of World War II. Any suggestions for an overarching target that references the 2023 Israeli attacks on Syria, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine (and do we include the ongoing West Bank ethnic cleansing), and whatever other country I've missed. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was recently proposed that all the Israel/Middle East-related ITN listings be consolidated into Middle Eastern crisis (2023-present) but this was rejected, partly because some editors felt it would be synthesis to group them all together as the same conflict and partly because it would be less helpful for the reader as it would take them more clicks to find the info they're looking for if they just wanted to read about one conflict or another. I'm not so sure we're at the point where we can confidently say that all the conflicts in the Middle East can be thought of as a single war like World War I or World War II. In the case of the world wars, there was actually a domino effect of countries declaring war on other countries because those countries were at war with their allies, so even at the time, each world war was viewed as one single war with many theaters, not just a collection of related yet distinct conflicts. But not everyone would agree that the Gaza war, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Israeli invasion of Syria, and Iran-Israel war are one single event, and there's not 1 umbrella term that describes all of them (aside from the vague "middle eastern crisis" term).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that would be the target! Somehow I forgot all about that - even though I voted support. It was snow when I looked, and then a few hours later it had been closed prematurely. That still seems to be the most sensible thing to me. It's unfortunate that it was closed ... a very odd trend - seven consecutive supports, and then 9 consecutive opposes. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, as I said in the pervious discussion, while this is a major escalation, it can really either continue, or de-escalate like similar to other mutual strikes. Besides, there's really no point in being hasty regarding this anyway. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I still feel labelling this as a "war" is far too hasty, but now the US is party to this conflict I can only really see it continuing for a while V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now that the other blurb is off. Sovereign nations launching airstrikes/missile barrages at each other as a one-off would meet the threshold for blurbing, so an ongoing is appropriate given the continuation. The fact that an ongoing situation may suddenly end (which is true for any non-scheduled ongoing event), isn't a sufficient reason to bar an item (which is very easy to remove or supercede with a new blurb) from being posted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Should be superseded by a blurb about the US entry into the war via its airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Edits Looking at the stats for yesterday, what I notice is that the nominated article, Iran–Israel war, is getting far more edits than most – 456 edits on 19 June. Most articles in Ongoing are just single figures for daily edits: Gaza war got 5; Russian invasion of Ukraine got 2 and Sudanese civil war (2023–present) didn't get any. Articles at Ongoing are supposed to be "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". Andrew🐉(talk) 06:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the blurb has rolled off now and the conflict is ongoing right now, the article receives day-by-day updates. Saying that it's premature and we don't know how long it will last is WP:CRYSTALBALLing in my opinion. Brandmeister^talk 08:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support From a reader perspective, featuring ice hockey and motorsport championships, but not this much bigger news in another part of the world, makes Wikipedia look biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.230.135 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that the blub has rolled off. Awsomaw (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't need two ongoing for two theatres of what is essentially the same war. Gaza would not have happened if Iran wasn't funding and arming their Gazan proxies. Other articles should be improved to become a more suitable overarching target- such as Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC) Striking oppose - oops, I voted twice. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with that article is that is effectively synthesis by WP editors to combine multiple different conflicts and treating it as one. Israel's attack on Iran has little to do with their actions in Gaza, for example, so its inappropriate to consider that all as one larger conflict. Masem (t) 15:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with Masem on this. Media and commentators are treating the two conflicts separately, and so would we. Creating a Frankensteined overarching article is OR, and is not very helpful for users who want a quick link to either the Gaza war, or the Israel-Iran conflict. Khuft (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The event is still going on for a week, without any pause in hostilities. --cyrfaw (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with cyrfaw.

174.193.132.193 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose largely per Nfitz. There are many conflicts in the world right now; we shouldn’t give 100% of focus to the stuff Israel’s doing. Would support a larger article detailing the Middle East crisis. ^EF⁵ 19:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Iran is not Hamas (or Hezbollah, or the Houthis), and this is a conflict between two states. Banedon (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find it a bit ridiculous that the "In the news" section mentions the assassination of Melissa Hortman in the blurb but this Iran-Israel war is not mentioned anywhere after it rolled off the blurb. It's obvious that the war still has much more global impact and newsworthiness (and the potential for even more impact) than a localised, domestic US event, but it doesn't appear anywhere at all on the main page. Even major US newspapers are currently dedicating "Live" coverage of the war. --219.75.85.239 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Netanyahu says the war will continue as long as needed to eliminate the nuclear threat, and the Trump sets a two week deadline to take action in the war. There does not seem to be a surrender on Islamic Republic's side and therefor it looks like the fire exchange will continue. Jeeputer ^Talk 07:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, there are other conflicts that have not or could also be highlighted (for instance, I don't think the Kivu conflict has been featured despite the major implications it has across Africa) but come on, a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel would obviously draw major notice and significance across the globe. MSG17 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obs.: Timeline of the Iran–Israel war was created. ArionStar (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both duplicative of the content in the article as well as excessively detailed. Masem (t) 20:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The war is ongoing, it is escalating, and it is a massively news-worthy in every international outlet on the planet. Perfect fit for ongoing, any argument that it might "end soon" is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. RE: "we already have Gaza on there", you can easily have the same country involved in two wars at once. The two have nothing directly to do with one another, beyond one of the belligerents. BSMRD (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is one of the main news items users might be looking for. As per my comment above and others, this should remain separate from the Gaza war, which users are likely separately looking for. Khuft (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is very clearly consensus for Support to add to ongoing; what's taking so long? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some article issues should be dealt with first. The move discussion; I don't think casual readers expect a move tag at the top of an article. The merge history that's discussed in the talk page, etc. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion started after this nomination was created, and the move being discussed is a simple switch of Iran—Israel war to Israel—Iran war; not a major or disruptive issue that interferes with this older nomination.

Also, I’d like to mention that you’ve made 2 seperate !votes under this nomination, just in case you did not notice/realise. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, User:IiSmxyzXX, with all these Israel nominations, I lost track. Sorry! Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now the US has entered! JayCubby 00:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support especially after US strikes on Fordow etc. Angusgtw (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. With US strikes announced, this conflict definitely deserves to be listed. If it's seen as redundant because Gaza is already listed, I suggest replacing them both with Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Spjag (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked ready: Seems to be a consensus to post this. Left guide (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, USA just joined in.:History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the US joining in on the "war", then the entire ongoing wording is redundant. We should lose this until the US bombing rolls of the tracker. Nfitz (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With American bombs landing on Iran, it looks like this conflict will last a while. This should be in Ongoing, at least for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. IDB.S (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted for now. As some editors have commented, a case can be made for omitting this item (temporarily) if or when we post about the American strikes in Iran. Schwede66 09:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, there's space for both. The war has had plenty of individual updates separate from the headlining American strikes. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Iranian military official. The most "senior military commander" of Iran. Thriley (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This person's article currently reads as present tense and has a section delineating that he is, in fact, not dead. AtomicKelbo (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is in past tense and does indeed say he is dead. Thriley (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article is long enough and in past tense. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins willing to post ITN: I think this is ready to post. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be me; I'm nervous about this item. There are four sources that report the death. Three of them state that their reporting is based on Israeli sources. The fourth source is the Indian Times Now. It says about that newspaper in the lead that it has been criticised for reporting misinformation, and one of the references for that statement is from Newslaundry (which is considered a reliable source). The other source, Alt News, isn't listed at perennial sources, and neither is Times Now itself. Hence, I would want to see his death reported by a more reputable news outlet than what we've got. Schwede66 23:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Schwede66 point above. Better quality and independent sourcing is needed to verify the death. Thats not to say Israel is lying or anything, most likely he is dead, but I think WP:V policy isn't fully met here. Removing "Ready" for the time being.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Famous pianist known for his recordings and interpretations of Beethoven and Schubert NeoGaze (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support well-written and everything seems to have sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will still add, but ran into edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  update: Guardian obit and FAZ added, after Grimes sources all the books and awards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Article looks good, well sourced, with infobox and photo, subject and his death are notable. WP:ITNQUALITY is met. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the greatest. There were some cn tags earlier today but now the article looks very good. Yakikaki (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lede could be expanded a bit though. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 04:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Sam Bennett pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals (Panthers captain Aleksander Barkov pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals for the second consecutive year (Panthers captain Aleksander Barkov pictured).
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

• Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Conyo14 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: back-to-back championship by Panthers 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: ITNR event that meets WP:ITNQUALITY with lots of well-referenced prose throughout. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. I can try to take care of any outstanding cites tomorrow. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The game scoring summary tables need sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bagumba: Citations added for all game scoring summary tables as requested, please re-consider. Left guide (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Would be nice to have a key somewhere to the abbreviations in scorecards (as not everyone will know what pp, sh mean- though I do), however that is not something that prevents it from being posted at ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting to others that the abbreviations concern has been addressed. Left guide (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting but the pic is very, very low quality. I wouldn't post that pic. schetm (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added an altblurb/image option showing the team captain. Left guide (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth noting in the blurb that the Panthers won the Stanley Cup for the second year in a row, and against the same team as before? Kurtis ^(talk) 16:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: I’d probably call it notable enough to include it in the blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt2. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Marked ready: Regardless of the image concern, there seems to be consensus that the target article is of sufficient quality to post. Left guide (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It’s ITN/R & it has enough details & references to merit posting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt2 Per Kurtis and Blaylockjam10. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Alt1. Per longstanding convention, we don't usually add extra detail to sport blurb so I've gone with the simple statement of who won.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former U.S. representative. Death first reported on this date. A few CN tags, but these may be resolved with the DFP article linked. Curbon7 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The materials on his career seems a bit thin. The title of his WaPo obituary indicated that he was a "lawmaker who expanded CIA oversight", but there is no mention of CIA in his wikibio at all. Gap in coverage? Mistaken identity? --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Food Network celebrity chef  ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in depth and well sourced V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready Some sections missing citations. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready per Natg 19 AFlamingIcicle (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one section does not have inline citations, but is cited in text. –DMartin 02:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added inline citations to that section and removed the template. I cited two other tagged statements and removed another. Article now has no citation problems. –DMartin 02:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Natg 19 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were only used for basic information, which is permitted by Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. –DMartin 06:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review that page, the only two allowed uses of IMDB is for writing credits and MPA ratings. Masem (t) 12:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've placed some cn tags. Schwede66 10:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: