Talk:2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani is sworn into office Joe1020 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done JJP_Master (she/they) 06:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed not the place for local news. Use 2026 in the United States. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jennyboo24u (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel like the protests in Uganda should be its own event, since it happened on the 16th, rather than on the 15th, as the 15th is when the election took place, not when the protests started. Lemur3215 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

As information slowly begins to trickle out of Iran we’re getting a bit of a clearer picture of what happened/is happening, and when.

I now suggest amending the entry to cover the 2026 Iran Massacres themselves, as opposed to the general protests continuing.

These appear to be dated to around January 8-9th, which is an event that firmly takes place in this year.

Perhaps something along the lines of “January 8-9 - The Islamic Republic of Iran deploys IRGC and Basij forces to suppress the ongoing protests in the country, resulting in the largescale massacres of thousands of protesters in addition to thousands of arrests.”

“On 13 January, Iran international concluded a multi-stage investigation, and based on government sources, eyewitness accounts, field reports, data from hospitals and testimonies from Iranian doctors and nurses, ascertained that at least 12,000 civilians had been killed. According to the report, the mass killings took place during 8–9 January, and were largely perpetrated by IRGC and members of the Basij militia. Planned and conducted in an organized manner, and, based on information obtained from the Supreme National Security Council and the Presidential Office, it was ordered by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself, with the approval of the three branches of government. Furthermore an order was given by the Supreme National Security Council for direct fire.” ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Worthy?

2026 northeastern Syria offensive ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears to be added in. PaulRKil (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

i suggest yall add this on the event of us leaving who: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-set-quit-world-health-organization-2026-01-22/ ~2025-33840-29 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

this is to fit the [better source needed] ~2025-33840-29 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I am really unsure of the importance of this. Right now, it seems like more of a membership club than any type of multinational organization with any true institutional power. Not saying it COULD be down the road, but right now it is doubtful. PaulRKil (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm agree with you. The future governance of Gaza is extremely important, but we know that Trump is heavily influenced by propaganda, so the real usefulness of the Board's functions remains to be seen, despite the call by leaders from many countries to join it, as well as their rejection... _-_Alsor (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s important not to let personal bias about Donald Trump reflect views on this organization’s importance. It’s a multinational organization with 30 signatories as of yet, and potentially a lot more incoming.

Bear in mind he is the POTUS. And he himself is “eternal chairman”, or somesuch position. Many other extremely highranking US government officials (Marco Rubio), and highranking past and present officials from other countries are signed up and serve functions in it.

Granted, its functions and abilities and aims are incredibly opaque as of yet, which I’m not sure actually bodes well for those hoping this organization might just be a grandiose Trump vanity project, but what little we do know of it so far suggest world level geopolitical strategic importance and change.

We are, of course, not soothsayers here and can’t project how things will further unravel and how successful this organization will be. But this organization is clearly making waves and is signaling big geopolitical change and shakeup.

I’d err on the side of including it for now and removing it if it does just turn out to be a grandeur project that fizzles into nothingness, but I suppose it could also be removed and included if the organization does manifest into something of noteworthy geopolitical importance. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be being envisioned and suspected of being a replacement or eventual successor for the UN, which is itself I think pretty stratospheric. Again, we have no way of knowing how successful it will be in that regard, but I think the fact alone that the POTUS has founded such an organization and it is already signed up to by, what appears to be disproportionately autocratic regimes by this point, is fairly noteworthy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8jj228g2vo ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The organization appears to be a way for Trump to create a new international replacement for organizations like the UN or NATO, which seems to be much more topdown in structure with America, and particularly Trump, at the helm of this…

So in essence a Trump dominated NATO/UN without the bureaucracy and limiting factors and processes of the current international geopolitical organizations that Trump has struggled so much with and maligned so much publicly.

This seems quite significant, in stated aim and vision alone. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just thinking objectively, it is not significant until it proves that it is. To take another example, people have talked about how GTA V should be on here because it is going to be the biggest videogame release of all time. That just simply isn't true until it happens and using what it is predicted or aims to be reads to me as WP:Crystal. In the context of this, if this is a plan to rival or even replace the UN, adding it just because those are the aims is not enough to warrant an addition at this moment. If it DID happen down the road, it would definitely be worthy of addition but as of right now it seems equivalent to other large, symbolic orgs with no real power. PaulRKil (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s a bit of a weak analogy, since the organization has actually been created and so forth… but I’m fine with a wait and see approach to this. Due to the vague nature of this organization. I think the alarm it us causing amongst global leaders and organizations does give some weight towards including now, but I can see the logic in not doing so.

To be honest, I would consider the impending release of GTA 6 far more worthy of inclusion. As regardless of how it ultimately sells and is received, the anticipation and wait for the release alone has become a cultural phenomenon. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I actually thought of using the inclusion of the creation of the US Space Force (another Trump venture, coincidentally) in the 2019 article as an analogy yesterday.

That was included when nobody really knew what the Space Force actually was, what its remit and aims would be or how effective it would end up. Other than that it was a branch of the military governing Outer Space. Which is all still largely theoretical and ideological, for now.

That still isn’t particularly clear, even 7 years later, AFAIK… but it may well turn out to be an extremely important branch of government someday. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-35829-97 Space Force creation shouldn't be included in 2019. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, but fair enough. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan appears to have recently passed laws introducing a caste system for crime and punishment, in addition to legally recognizing slaves. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

https://8am.media/eng/reactions-to-the-taliban-penal-code-a-document-declaring-the-conviction-of-all-citizens/ ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Right now, the "Predicted and scheduled events" are mostly elections, mixed with a few other events. I think we could separate them, like this (version A):

Predicted and scheduled events
'-> Elections
    '--> Date unknown
'-> Other events
    '--> Date unknown

Or even (version B):

Scheduled elections
'-> Date unknown

Other predicted and scheduled events
'-> Date unknown

I think it's still okay to be mixed in the events that already happened, since it's likely to have more of other events than elections. It's just the "Predicted and scheduled events" list that I think could merit from the separation.

Could we do this? (And which version?) -- ADTC ^{Talk Ctrb} 08:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to edit this entry a while back and it was reverted. But it is well beyond time the entry for the 2026 Iran Massacres is altered.

We have more specific timeframes and deathtolls now.

The current entry does not come close to covering the scale of these killings.

“On 25 January, Time reported an estimate of about 30,000 protesters killed on 8 and 9 January alone. German–Iranian surgeon Amir Parasta stated to Time a total of 30,304 protest-related deaths from hospital records, excluding protest-related deaths recorded in military hospitals, deaths where the body was taken directly to a morgue, and deaths recorded in hospitals absent from the list. Timealso referred to two senior officials who stated to Time that 30,000 "could have been killed", that the administration ran out of body bags, and that semi-trailer trucks were used instead of ambulances. On the same day, Iran International reported a series of official reports with death tolls to above 35,000. Reports to the Ministry of Interior on 20 January gave a count above 30,000. A 21 January report provided to the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian Parliament gave a count of 27,500. Reports by the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were of 33,000 on 22 January and 36,500 on 24 January.” ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at our article 2026 Iran massacres and it says: "As of 25 January 2026, total death toll estimates ranged from 3,400 to upwards of 30,000 according to a doctor interviewed by Time, although Time was unable to verify this specific claim." In this article, we say "Nationwide protests against Iran's regime continue, with thousands reported killed and thousands more detained amid a severe government crackdown." I think our articles says it well. Only when we have more certain sources, we can change the "thousands" into "tens of thousands". Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think even the Iranian government itself revised its deathtoll upwards of 5,000 recently. Which we can naturally assume is an extreme understatement. Khamenei himself also possibly even referenced it being higher recently, IIRC.

Time has several sources. Many other estimates from organizations and sources inside Iran all are echoing this estimate of tens of thousands of deaths.

Let’s be frank, here, we are never going to get a detailed, verifiable list of deaths for obvious reasons. It’s always going to estimates for situations like this performed by human rights organizations and intelligence agencies.

I think there is a lot of evidence and sources and analyses to support the idea that tens of thousands have been killed. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My main issue is the entry in this article still seems to convey the idea that this was widespread civil unrest that resulted in a few thousand deaths.

As opposed to the dark reality this is slowly unveiling itself to be, of a systematic, mass slaughter of its own civilians on an almost unfathomable scale by a regime. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Following the Khmer Rouge's Cambodian genocide, that some governments may depopulate their own country remains a constant threat in the public's mind. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m confused as to your point? ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the casualty figure. I'm weary of putting an exact figure right now but it seems to be clear that tens of thousands of people have died during these events. PaulRKil (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does seem to be the case that the upper estimates seem to be closer to the true scale of death there. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the higher estimates because they're being released by expat groups that have an incentive to overreport the figures. Conversely, the reports from the Iranian government are absolutely underreported. What is abundantly clear is that the casualty figures are in the five-figure range. PaulRKil (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

What about changing the date to January 8-9? This seems to be when the killings began and/or peaked. The sources seem to repeat this January 8-9 timeframe a lot. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I made the change and tweaked the wording of the entry to reflect the bloodiest days of the protests. PaulRKil (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Since her death provoked mass protests, is it eligible for a topic in 2026? ArionStar (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait is my perspective. If this boils over into something significant like what we've seen with the Gen Z protests, it would warrant inclusion but as of right now, I am taking a wait and see approach. PaulRKil (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I would consider it eligible as is. It’s gone beyond mass protests and seems to be veering into quasi insurrection/sedition territory with the apparent backing of government officials in Minnesota and elsewhere to resisting the operations of a federal agency. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Eh, compared to the nationwide riots that occurred after George Floyd's murder, this event hasn't gotten nearly to that point of volatility. If it did turn into something of that scale, or if it lead to major administrative changes (resignations, dismissals, etc.) then I'd say add it but right now we're not seeing multiple riots in multiple cities across the country.

Even still, I'd say that the killing of Alex Pretti is a more significant event than Renee Good and I'd argue for inclusion of that event over Good as it has drawn far more condemnation from both sides. PaulRKil (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure but that killing is basically a direct result of Good’s killing, no? Am I mistaken? Also, I don’t think it needs to reach the level of the George Floyd protests and riots (which seem somewhat without parallel, certainly in the history of the United States at least) in order to be worthy of inclusion. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No inclusion We will not include a deeply local incident that has received international coverage purely for outrage porn by the media during the administration of a controversial president. The protests are, compared to those included, irrelevant. If they turn into large-scale, mass protests that lead to violent clashes, police repression and/or political changes, we will include them. I doubt that will happen. Protests happens everywhere, policial brutallity too. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There’s a very real possibility the Insurrection Act is about to be invoked. I think you’re drastically downplaying how serious the unrest in Minnesota is right now.

And how it ties into the wider breakdown and Balkanization of American politics and society in general that has been happening over the past decade or 2.

You also seem to be getting incredibly emotional and injecting your own political bias into this. Stay objective, it’s a noteworthy events list for 2026. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

For me, WP:Crystal applies to your reasoning. You're saying there is a possibility that the administration invokes the insurrection act, but that has not happened yet. If it DID happen, that would be significant. And just as an aside, from what I'm seeing, the administration seems to actually be pumping the brakes and changing their tone compared to this weekend.

I'm still not a flat out no, I still think we wait and see. PaulRKil (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I think invoking the Insurrection Act is a reasonable bar here. If they do it, event goes in. If not and it fizzles out, I suppose it belongs more in the 2026 In the United States article.

Assuming of course it doesn’t become noteworthy in some other way regardless of the Insurrection Act. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to take seriously your accusation against me of alleged bias when you talk about the balkanisation of the United States and you are talking about ‘unrest’, which in itself is already a subjective criterion for assessing what is happening in Minnesota. First of all, yes, local protests, with no major national impact, no relevant changes for now. Protests like those happening everywhere. Secondly, this is not the first time Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, and in situations a thousand times worse than this, he did not invoke it. He likes to be inflammatory and controversial. Thirdly, it is not unrest because even the American media are not treating it as such. I understand that you may be American and see this situation from a more dramatic perspective, but that is not the case. Fourthly, per WP:Crystal. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Exclude for now, as it seems too localised. There haven't been large-scale, nationwide protests over this – let alone global protests – as we saw with George Floyd in 2020. Nobody here is doubting the tragic nature of Good's death, but I don't think it quite meets the threshold for 2026. And if we included her death, we'd probably have to include Alex Pretti's death, too, which was arguably even more violent. Having both deaths (and possibly even more, if they occur) just wouldn't be suitable at all for this page. If the situation in Minnesota intensifies and triggers something more significant, such as the Insurrection Act, then we could probably include an entry for that. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

While I’m fine waiting until something like the Insurrection Act invocation or further escalation of somekind, I just wanna address the fact that we keep seeing this George Floyd protests/riots comparison being brought up, which it doesn’t need to reach anywhere close to in order to warrant inclusion.

The protests and riots over George Floyd’s death were astronomical in scale and reach, very little civil unrest is ever going to compare to that particular period of time.

The Minnesota situation is rather borderline right now, but plenty of civil unrest is worthy of inclusion in these articles without reaching the extremes of what happened over George Floyd.

January 6th, for example. In hindsight very smallscale, certainly at least compared to the George Floyd unrest. Few deaths and injuries. Little actual overall impact beyond how it was politicized by both sides of the political aisle.

But absolutely worthy of inclusion. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not civil unrest, nor are we going to include any protests that are not large-scale and comparable to those about George Floyd, the yellow vests in France, or those in Nepal, Sri Lanka, or Iran recently, to give a few examples. Protests happens everywhere, everytime. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Why are those 5 situations the bar? Why is January 6th included in 2021 then? That was objectively significantly smaller in scale and actual, real impact than what’s happening in Minnesota right now.

“Civil unrest refers to acts of violence, public disturbances, or organized disobedience by a group of people, typically acting against authority, policies, or social conditions. It ranges from peaceful demonstrations to riots, looting, and armed insurrection, often resulting in injuries, property damage, and significant social disruption”

Pretty clearly covers the ongoings in Minnesota. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Why are the protests in Uganda included? They were nowhere near the scale of the protests you just mentioned either. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Should this be added? It has severely impacted the reputations of several global figures, such as Bill Gates. And further damaged the reputations of individuals like Prince Andrew. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevnmxyy4wjo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g5490xmkeo ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This debate has already taken place, and it was agreed that it would not be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You just removed the Israeli airstrikes too, which are the most significant escalations since the ceasefire. And during a period of tenuous cessation of hostilities and the general extremely volatile situation in the surrounding Middle East, events like this are certainly noteworthy.

Do you have somekind of neurological issue weighing scale or something?

Why is everything just the most extreme example of a given situation in the world, or a non-event to you? ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I remind you of the following Wikipedia policies: WP:PA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV, as well as the option that exists in the event of aggravation of your attitude: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ll take that as Yes then… ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I lean toward Include on this batch of release. Unlike prior releases, there seems to be a real international reaction to this with multiple European royals and government figures being asked to testify in the US among many other public figures in business and politics. The prior releases we discussed were nothing burgers but this time around is far more significant. PaulRKil (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this is my interpretation too. There have now been high profile resignations for highranking government officials in several countries (Mandelson, for example) in addition to severe reputational damage for many global figures.

Seems like this release has real weight and is bearing real consequences. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Elon Musk appears to be another huge, global figure that has been massively impacted by the release of this latest batch.

I will just log that I think the decision not to include this release in the events list is a poor call. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Extremely damning emails from the Crown Princess of Norway etc. This is pretty big. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I've changed my opinion following this latest batch of files, which are more impactful and implicate some big names – including Musk as you've said – plus there's now a more international dimension.

We should include a mention of the Epstein files on 2026. It makes the Watergate scandal look trivial by comparison. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and tentatively added an entry. I wasn’t sure how to word it and which figures to include, since there are so many. So I just went with what’s there. Obviously though the entry can be edited as people see fit. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I can’t believe there is the very real possibility, if not probability, that this release actually topples the current UK government. At the very least, the PM looks almost certain to be forced to resign soon. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a hyperlink to people mentioned in them and fixed your source. PaulRKil (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I’ll need to figure out the cite thing before adding entries in future. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Over 200 people were killed in a mine collapse in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly381dvnvzo ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! I have added this. Lova Falk (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use past tense. All entries for year articles should be in present tense. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You are quite correct, it is in present tense now. Lova Falk (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lova Falk (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The mine has, unfortunately, collapsed again on March 3, leading to a further 200 deaths (600 deaths total over the 2 mine collapses). ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Significant step on the road to peace and stability in the region and maintaining the ceasefire?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99kdjdj9l8o ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to it but Israel has reopened the crossing in the past only to close it a few days later, I think both in the 2000s and as recently as 2025. If it is permanent, which I think feels unlikely given the situation, it would warrant inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hm, the article said it had been permanently closed since May 2024. Fair enough. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I would include also the end of the hostage crisis. Both are good news and relevant ones. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The end of the hostage crisis is certainly highly significant. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I’d definitely include the end of the hostage crisis. I’d still hold on the border opening. Israel did briefly open it in October but then it was closed a few days later. I’d wait at least a handful of days. PaulRKil (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I didn’t bother including it for now. ~2025-35829-97 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hands off Greenland protest by Christian Ursilva (20).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not add it, it’s scheduled to be held in June? ~2026-72526-6 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Right now, the only notable thing it has going is its unique location. We don't even know the card yet and it would need to include pretty notable fighters and a huge viewership in order for it to warrant being here. Rumble in the Jungle, for example, included the worlds most notable boxers and if it didn't include them, it wouldn't have been notable. Also UFC events on average get 6 million viewers. That's big, but not anywhere near the billions of viewers who tune in for events like the Olympics and the World Cup and even events we don't include like the Super Bowl and the UEFA. I'm not saying UFC events don't deserve to be here but it would need to include notable fighters and bring in large global viewership. PaulRKil (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly seems like more of a ‘2026 In the United States’ entry to me, despite the novelty. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclude. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

2026 Kwara State attacks ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems noteworthy. Thoughts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Internal politics, irrelevant for this page. See 2026 in the United States. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclude. This will add to global emissions, but the ruling itself only affects the USA, and isn't part of any international agreement. I've already posted it on 2026 in the United States. The decision will be challenged in the courts anyway, so isn't definitive yet. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean like you say it really affects the entire planet. Particularly given how heavily emissions are concentrated in countries like America. The reactions from environmental agencies seemed fairly apocalyptic. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems quite big. The Oslo Accords have been in place for 3 decades like the article mentions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl4ne5er5zo ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

A bad routine in Israel. Minor part of a major event. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it’s hard to gauge noteworthyness for these Israel/Palestine events, and they are all happening in a very short space of time this past month or so.

We are clearly moving towards total annexation of the West Bank by Israel, and have been for sometime. But this seems like merely another small stepping stone on that path.

There are a bunch of small, but significant, events that have occurred within the context of the conflict in the past few weeks. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.osvnews.com/pope-sets-jubilee-to-mark-800th-year-since-st-francis-death-saints-body-to-be-displayed/ ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In the article it says "7th year" When It's the 6th ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 11:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

They’re using the erroneous 00s/10s/20s grouping of decades (2020-2030) as opposed to decades which actually conform to the structure of the Gregorian calendar (2021-2030 etc).

For some strange reason though they don’t use 1800s and 1000s, but rather refer to proper centuries (1801-1900) and millennia 1001-2000) which conform to the Gregorian calendar.

Why the Pick N Mix, is what confuses me. Either use conforming decades, centuries and millennia or use the arbitrary groupings for all articles ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my question? ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 13:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re asking why they’re calling 2026 the 7th year. It’s because it would be the 7th year of the 2020s decade (2020-2030). Basic math.

2020 - 1st year

2021 - 2nd year

2022 - 3rd year

2023 - 4th year

2024 - 5th year

2025 - 6th year

2026 - 7th year

2027 - 8th year

2028 - 9th year

2029 - 10th year

Again, basic math. You may be interested to know that 01:00 is actually the 2nd hour of the day, not the 1st. First hour would be 00:00. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Problem is, the Gregorian calendar counts from 1. Not 0. So counting decades from years beginning in 0 makes absolutely zero mathematical sense.

In the same way January being on January 1, not January 0. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, My fault, Sorry ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 14:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Confusing is completely understandable when these articles lack consistency. To adopt Gregorian convention for centuries and millennia and then throw it out the window for ‘popular decades’ is asinine and absurd.

Either stick with populat convention across the board or adopt Gregorian convention. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I mean 2020-2029. I repeatedly used 2020-2030 incorrectly above. The erroneous popular decade is 2020-2029. The correct decade which conforms to the Gregorian calendar is 2021-2030. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4wywnrdd8o ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree to add this too as he was the most wanted drug lord to the most dangerous drug cartel ~2025-41546-35 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Include. El Mencho was the most wanted drug lord in Mexico, and the military operation was international, involving both Mexico and the US. The story is among the top headlines on BBC News, CNN, etc. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also seems to have led to widespread civil unrest and retaliatory attacks from cartel paramilitaries, as these high profile druglord eliminations/arrests tend to. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m thinking we should maybe mention the following unrest in the entry since 25 NGs have now been killed in the clashes. Seems quite severe, I forget how many died in the Sinaola Unrest, but I don’t think it was much more than that, in fact it appears to be less than the current unrest, having checked.

The JNGC is the most militarized and powerful cartel in all of Mexico. They are extremely violent, organized and have (comparatively) highly advanced weaponry and military tech.

Quite a serious situation indeed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lp7xwql4o ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be mentioned. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe @Alsor97 recently added an importance inline on the entry I added regarding the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's tariffs system so I wanted to open the talk page here and offer a chance for us to discuss inclusion.

For me, it feels appropriate to include because of how heavily the tariffs themselves were covered in 2025. This decision kills many of those tariffs and is clearly a major development in this ongoing issue. To add, while it did stop the Trump admin from imposing tariffs via the IEEPA, it lead to them imposing a global 15% tariff via an interpretation of a different law. PaulRKil (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely include. The tariffs have been causing global havoc ever since they were introduced, not least of all on international markets, and naturally have had generally massive global impacts economically. It has also significantly impacted the relationship between the United States and allied or neutral countries. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw the tag last night and almost said something myself. Considering the global implications of the tariffs, I agree this entry should be included. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclude The usefulness of the SCOTUS ruling, and therefore its notoriety, can be seen in the moment when Trump announced and enacted new tariffs. Nothing really changed. Trump's tariffs are notorious, which is why they were included in 2025, not the Supreme Court ruling, which is the subject of debate, no one disputes this. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I should specify I think the ruling itself is noteworthy. That the SCOTUS would intercede and strikedown these tariffs is notable. It’s also a significant development in the overall tariff saga which will itself lead to further rulings and struggles.

My comment above reads as if I’m merely commenting on the general tariffs themselves. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Include. I have heard this described as Trump's biggest setback so far. Lova Falk (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As is customary everywhere, the courts do not always rule in favour of politicians (in democracy), and the SCOTUS ruling should not be included for that trivial reason. I continue to insist that Trump's tariff policy remains in force, which is what is really noteworthy and has already been the subject of discussions, negotiations and amendments between governments. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Destroyed car in Jalisco, Feb 2026.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes and massive spike in tensions. And the discovery of proto-writing in Germany 40,000 years older than Sumerian cuneiform. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

They are now at open war, according to the Pakistan defence minister. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done not by me though. Lova Falk (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Iranexplosions.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I keep seeing claims popping up (including some recent news bits and hearsay) that Artemis II is scheduled to launch around April 1, 2026, or even specifically on the 1st. The infobox right now says 'NET April 1, 2026 with a time stamp, and NASA's own mission availability PDF lists April 1 as one of the prime windows after they rolled the stack back to the VAB and scratched the March attempt due to the helium issue.

But I'm a bit skeptical/confused because NASA usually avoids pinning it to an exact single day this far out unless it's super firm, right? Like, they've said 'no earlier than' April, and the windows are spread across early April (1st, 3rd–6th-ish depending on orbital stuff). Is the '1st of April' thing actually an official target date from NASA?, or is it more like the opening of the window that got rounded up in headlines? Anyone got a direct NASA source confirming they're aiming specifically for April 1 rather than just NET April or the general April window?

However 2026 article says that:

• April – The Artemis II mission is scheduled to launch no earlier than this month, marking the first crewed lunar flyby since 1972.

But it dosen't specify that it could be 1st of april, as it reffers to the whole month. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

While I’m aware there’s currently a vociferous debate on that specific article’s name, this is clearly a war and far surpasses already the Twelve Day War of 2025.

The scale of these military operations in Iran and Iran’s military response are on a gargantuan scale already, within 2 days.

With over 1000 confirmed strikes and 9 ships sunk, you’re looking at tens of thousands of Iranian military deaths already, conservative estimate. Several thousand, bare minimum. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)