Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)
Biographies
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?:
A: Can belonging to an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group be considered a form of nationality? B: Should MOS:NATIONALITY be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the Ashleigh Barty article reads:
|
I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
Should the three-paragraph version of the Rhetoric section discussed above be implemented? Riposte97 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
For the lead sentence of this article, should this article retain the current version with no note, or should we change it to the version with a note?–06:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...
There are four options:
|
Should the sentence on the Unite the Right rally include more context?
|
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
Should HIV-related deaths be added to §Mass terminations of federal employees? I.e.:
"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID,[3] |
Should B. R. Ambedkar be referred to as the "chief architect of the Indian Constitution" in the article's lead? |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
There was a previous discussion of this source here.
Use of source: This source is mostly used on "List of <airline> destinations" articles to justify inclusion of a current or previous airline/airport route. e.g. List_of_Air_Caraïbes_destinations (3 citations), List_of_British_Airways_destinations (12 citations), and so on. The previous discussion found that it is used in over 807 articles. Why is it relevant? There was consensus in a Village Pump RfC that any airline destinations included in Wikipedia must have a WP:RS citation. RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [1] be designated as?
|
History and geography
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi
Given that the two headers before that discuss events between 1969-77 and 1977-2011 respectively and that the Egyptian-Libyan War started and ended in 1977, should we move the section on the Egyptian-Libyan War in between the Libyan Arab Republic (1969-1977) and Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011) sections for continuity? I don't think readers will like having to skip around in a history article. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC) |
I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
Per the above sources & discussion. If any changes (or not) has to be made regarding their origins, then what it should be?:
|
What should be the result in the infobox for this raid? (see previous discussion)
|
Should the 1911–1912 anthem of the Great Qing, "Cup of Solid Gold", be included in the infobox?
diff with, diff without 129.97.124.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
Which version on the Origins section better reflects the sources neutrally and accurately, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V) policies? Aeengath (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
For the lead sentence of this article, should this article retain the current version with no note, or should we change it to the version with a note?–06:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?
|
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
Should this article focus on all Holocaust victims, including non-Jews, or should it focus solely on and be intended only for Jewish victims? (Edit for clarification: this RfC is about redefining the scope of the article) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the opinions of scholars who dispute that Syria was a totalitarian regime and state that instead it was authoritarian added to this article? I added the opinion of such scholars, but Quetstar, has reverted all my edits on the grounds that there are quantitatively more sources calling Syria totalitarian and demanded to put this topic on RfC. 89.107.138.64 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC) |
What weight should the following viewpoints be given in the Recognition of Israel section, in terms of prominence and proximity to each other? The latest round of the discussion can be found here but there were many related discussions and I believe that at this point we need external input.
Options
|
Language and linguistics
[edit]On the Americans article, I removed religion from the InfoBox, arguing that it oversimplifies it, especially terms like Majority, Minority and Traditionally oversimplify stuff. It was reverted. I am asking fellow editors, what should the article have?
|
An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:
That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process. There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO [number], but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options. Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?
Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language AG202 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Languages of the United States
On March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump has signed and published the executive order "Designating English as the Official Language of The United States". The full text is available here. This has been WP:BOLDly reflected in the article, but since it is likely to be challenged by some editors, I'm creating this request for comment to get consensus on how we should handle this.
The order plainly states that it makes no legal change except for rescinding Executive Order 13166; agencies are no longer required to provide services or documents in languages other than English, but are not directed to necessarily make any changes. The order does designate English as the United States' official language, even if no changes to the legal code have been made. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 01:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:IPA pulmonic consonants
Should the order of the rows of the table be changed?
Specifically, it is proposed that the nasal, trill and tap/flap rows be moved immediately before the fricatives (diff). Kanguole 11:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Trump derangement syndrome
Should a 2021 peer-reviewed research study be mentioned in the article?
|
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Coefficient of relationship
Should this article contain a table of degrees of relationship with calculated coefficients of relationship, such as the one at Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships? relisted - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[5] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films
The following is a list of films that we are discussing should or should not be one the list as requested by User:Braganza |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice
Should bonus tracks or other alternative tracklistings be included in album articles?12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
Should "animated" be linked in the lead sentences of articles for animated films? Example: Toy Story is an animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. —Matthew / (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the label as a 'British' show be removed from the articles opening sentence? IrishReader1996 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Talk:Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia
Should this redirect to Abkhazia or the Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia? Kxeon (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)
Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Does {{Infobox ethnic group}} belong to this article? (The nom was rewritten to address the expressed neutrality concern). --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Which ideologies should be listed in the Five Star Movement's infobox?
Please indicate which ideology to include and in what order to list them. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?
|
On the Americans article, I removed religion from the InfoBox, arguing that it oversimplifies it, especially terms like Majority, Minority and Traditionally oversimplify stuff. It was reverted. I am asking fellow editors, what should the article have?
|
I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
Should the 1911–1912 anthem of the Great Qing, "Cup of Solid Gold", be included in the infobox?
diff with, diff without 129.97.124.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the three-paragraph version of the Rhetoric section discussed above be implemented? Riposte97 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should recent, US-government published maps be included on this and similar pages and why?
|
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
Should opinion polls by pollsters which are not members of the British Polling Council be excluded from this article? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the sentence on the Unite the Right rally include more context?
|
Hello everyone! Should the government type of China be changed from "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" to "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under authoritarian dictatorship"?
In my opinion, it doesnt make sense to label Russia, Belarus and North Korea as authoritarian/totalitarian dictatorships but exclude China despite overwhelming amount of sources calling it an authoritarian dictatorship. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should this article focus on all Holocaust victims, including non-Jews, or should it focus solely on and be intended only for Jewish victims? (Edit for clarification: this RfC is about redefining the scope of the article) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should HIV-related deaths be added to §Mass terminations of federal employees? I.e.:
"Trump and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle most of USAID,[6] |
Should the opinions of scholars who dispute that Syria was a totalitarian regime and state that instead it was authoritarian added to this article? I added the opinion of such scholars, but Quetstar, has reverted all my edits on the grounds that there are quantitatively more sources calling Syria totalitarian and demanded to put this topic on RfC. 89.107.138.64 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the United States section mention Elon Musk? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 17:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC) |
What weight should the following viewpoints be given in the Recognition of Israel section, in terms of prominence and proximity to each other? The latest round of the discussion can be found here but there were many related discussions and I believe that at this point we need external input.
Options
|
An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:
That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process. There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO [number], but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options. Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?
Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language AG202 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:National Socialist Network
In the 2025 section, should they be described as "charged with carrying offensive weapons or articles of disguise" or "charged with possessing articles of disguise"? FoundSquare (talk) FoundSquare (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Languages of the United States
On March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump has signed and published the executive order "Designating English as the Official Language of The United States". The full text is available here. This has been WP:BOLDly reflected in the article, but since it is likely to be challenged by some editors, I'm creating this request for comment to get consensus on how we should handle this.
The order plainly states that it makes no legal change except for rescinding Executive Order 13166; agencies are no longer required to provide services or documents in languages other than English, but are not directed to necessarily make any changes. The order does designate English as the United States' official language, even if no changes to the legal code have been made. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 01:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Trump derangement syndrome
Should a 2021 peer-reviewed research study be mentioned in the article?
|
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Is the article by Miesel [4] a reliable source for the Poem of the Man-God criticism section?
For previous discussion leading up to this RfC, please see the linked talk page.[5]. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)
Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
A link should be added at the top of the article to Wikipedia's crisis resources in the hatnotes section. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Does {{Infobox ethnic group}} belong to this article? (The nom was rewritten to address the expressed neutrality concern). --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Know Your Meme (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their About page, Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members.The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff. Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture. Proposal Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was 5 years ago, though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their Editorial Rules page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content. I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [6]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:
KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their guidelines state that This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC) |
There is a debate in the article whether we should include Azerbaijan as a substantial component of the article or not, you can see in the article history which revisions we are discussing. |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...
There are four options:
|
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
The next preferred option is used to disambiguate two events in the same (part of the) month. Year ranges can be used for December–January events. This RfC does not change the WP:COMMONNAME name/location parts 1–3 of WP:DISASTER. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC) |
This article does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. I would point people to the precedents set by the move request from the name Bangalore to Bengaluru in 2024: Here.
Realistically, Bangalore is far more commonly used name both worldwide and in India. Regardless, that is an essentially anecdotal, subjective statement and there exists a WP standard for this reason. The Bengaluru moves adheres to the standard. This article adhered to the standard when it changed to 'Denali' in 2015. It currently does not. It is factually true that the AP as well as Britannica are following the federal name change. This is not to mention that every map of the world in every textbook and atlas used in US schools from 1896 to 2015 used Mt. McKinley. I don't believe it is unreasonable to assume this to be proof of a status quo. The Obama name change was an obvious deviation from this well established status quo of more than a century – Wikipedia followed it still, as it was in accordance with COMMONNAME standards. I would like to understand why that same standard is not being applied presently. We are either to say the COMMONNAME rules are in need of relitigation, or the article title must be changed to 'Mt. McKinley'. Jibolba (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?:
A: Can belonging to an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group be considered a form of nationality? B: Should MOS:NATIONALITY be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the Ashleigh Barty article reads:
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
Should "animated" be linked in the lead sentences of articles for animated films? Example: Toy Story is an animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. —Matthew / (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability
Can we adopt re-classify this informal essay on notability of newspapers as a formal Wikipedia:Guideline?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability→ Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers) Having a guideline for notability of newspapers addresses the challenge of supporting recent increased interest in developing Wikipedia's relationship with fact-checking, journalism, reliable media, and newspapers in particular. One existing closely related guideline is for books. Here is that, and several comparable essays for media. |
Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Which version on the Origins section better reflects the sources neutrally and accurately, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V) policies? Aeengath (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should AI-generated images be banned from use in articles? (Where "AI-generated" means wholly created by generative AI, not a human-created image that has been modified with AI tools.) 06:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Redirect for discussion
Someone removed {{rfd}} from Joshua Sturm prior to the RFD discussion being closed (not to mention moving that redirect prior to adjudication). I tried to list this above, but doing so did not gain a great deal of traction.
Should "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed" be added to {{Redirect for discussion}}, similar to {{Article for deletion}}? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Unsorted
[edit]
User names
[edit]![]() |
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
[edit]Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
Tales of Arcadia
[edit]
- ^ Evans, Richard (10 July 2021). "Grounded and meticulous Ash Barty writing tennis history of her own". The Guardian.
Barty, a Ngarigo woman and deeply proud of her Indigenous heritage
- ^ Spits, Scott (18 January 2023). "Open hearts: Indigenous kids bring joy for Barty, Goolagong Cawley". The Age.
Ngarigo woman Barty admitted it felt "a bit strange" to be back in Melbourne with a relaxed frame of mind
- ^ Knickmeyer, Ellen; Amiri, Farnoush; Gomez Licon, Adriana (February 3, 2025). "Trump and Musk move to dismantle USAID, igniting battle with Democratic lawmakers". AP News. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
- ^ Lubin, Rhian (March 4, 2025). "Nearly 15,000 will have died already because of Trump and Musk's cuts to USAID, advocacy program claims". The Independent. and "PEPFAR Impact Tracker". Impact Counter. March 4, 2025.
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.
- ^ Knickmeyer, Ellen; Amiri, Farnoush; Gomez Licon, Adriana (February 3, 2025). "Trump and Musk move to dismantle USAID, igniting battle with Democratic lawmakers". AP News. Retrieved February 5, 2025.
- ^ Lubin, Rhian (March 4, 2025). "Nearly 15,000 will have died already because of Trump and Musk's cuts to USAID, advocacy program claims". The Independent. and "PEPFAR Impact Tracker". Impact Counter. March 4, 2025.
- ^ Evans, Richard (10 July 2021). "Grounded and meticulous Ash Barty writing tennis history of her own". The Guardian.
Barty, a Ngarigo woman and deeply proud of her Indigenous heritage
- ^ Spits, Scott (18 January 2023). "Open hearts: Indigenous kids bring joy for Barty, Goolagong Cawley". The Age.
Ngarigo woman Barty admitted it felt "a bit strange" to be back in Melbourne with a relaxed frame of mind