Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()

Biographies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:

• Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.

I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Juno Dawson

Should the article include the subject's former name, and if so, where?--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:T. V. S. N. Prasad

Should the following sentence be included in the lead section of T. V. S. N. Prasad?

His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society.

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Bella Hadid

Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:

She participated in the Gaza war protests and called Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip "genocide." Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", which called for her death.

FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Justin Barrett

Should he be called a conspiracy theorist in the lead? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "Relationship with the military" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it has now been directed here for broader input.

Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? Titan2456 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Asmongold

The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.

Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;

• Option 1: Full Reversal of the Exclusion
  • Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 2: Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is
  • Maintain existing guidelines.
• Option 3: Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence
  • Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE).
• Option 4: Partial Inclusion with Limits
  • Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 5: Open-Ended Policy
  • Refrain from requiring or excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).

AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.

EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.

This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Economy, trade, and companies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies

History and geography

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Talk:Hugues de Payens

There are two related issues here:

1. Can sources dating from the 16th to 19th centuries be used as evidence that Hugh was from Italy?
2. Can Mario Moiraghi be used as a reliable sources for Hugh's life? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Crusade of Varna

Per [1], should Poland be included in belligerents within this crusade? Setergh (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Emirate of Bari

Should the statement that the Emirate of Bari was perhaps ruled by a Black African be included? Closetside (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

I think this RfC is pretty much needed to decide the design of infobox. Looking at the above discussion, I have encountered reluctant opinions to go with my proposal, but if not trivially then it could be done with general consensus here. The Independent sources hold indefinite and varying values of the Indian casualties:

• France 24 (Debunking other losses but consonant with one Rafale loss): Only one French aircraft may have been shot down.
• Reuters(Based on unknown US officials and written in jargon tone): A top Chinese-made Pakistani fighter plane shot down at least two Indian military aircraft on Wednesday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, marking a major milestone for Beijing's advanced fighter jet...Another official said at least one Indian jet that was shot down was a French-made Rafale fighter aircraft.
• Al Jazeera: Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.
• AFP (Another unknown source with no hard evidence): Three Indian fighter jets crashed on Wednesday on home territory, a senior Indian security source said, without giving the cause.
• The Washington Post (Evidence based report): India’s air force appears to have lost at least two fighter jets, including one of its most advanced models, during attacks Wednesday morning on sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, according to a review of visual evidence by The Washington Post.

Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?

1. Option 1: 1—3 aircraft shot down or lost.
2. Option 2: Omit from infobox.
3. Option 3: 3 aircraft shot down or lost. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Besor Stream

Is the main source of the Besor stream Does the channel designated as the Nahal Besor start in the northwestern Negev (Mount Boker) or in the Hebron Hills of the West Bank? Or should both sources be treated equally (i.e. there is no main source)? Closetside (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars involving the Czech lands

How should the 1030 and 1051 campaign against the Kingdom of Hungary be described in terms of scope and outcome?

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 18:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Language and linguistics

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Henny Penny

This RfC seeks to establish that edits about comma usage should be based on verified rules. All of the sources listed in this thread support the same rule for comma usage when it comes to two full independent clauses. No reference has been provided to justify the comma's removal in the following sentence: "Similar stories go back more than 25 centuries, and 'Henny Penny' continues to be referred to in a variety of media." I correctly added a comma between two full independent clauses with different subjects and different verbs. The clauses have different subjects and verbs, making them full independent clauses.

Examples of how to correctly use commas to separate full independent clauses can be found in these helpful references from sites around the world.
American English:

1. 1 https://east.iu.edu/student-success/coursework/commas.html#:~:text=1.,cat%20tripped%20on%20the%20cord.

1. Use a comma to separate independent clauses
Rule: Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction (and, but, yet, so, or nor, for) when it joins two complete ideas (independent clauses).
He walked down the street, and then he turned the corner.
You can go shopping with me, or you can go to a movie alone.

1. 2 https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation/commas#place_commas_between_principal_clauses_joined_together_with_a_conjunction

Place commas between principal clauses joined together with a conjunction.
Use commas to connect 2 or more principal clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (‘and’, ‘or’, ‘but’, ‘so’).
If they have different subjects, use a comma before the coordinating conjunction.
Example: The Senate debated the Bill at length, but the party whips eventually called for a vote. [‘But’ is the coordinating conjunction. ‘The Senate’ and ‘the party whips’ are each the subjects of a principal clause.]
Australian English:

1. 3 https://www.swarthmore.edu/writing/commas-0

Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction1 that connects two independent clauses.
CORRECT: I want to major in English, but my mother says it's not practical. Conjunctions perform many functions, so make sure they're separating independent clauses before you insert a comma.
British English:

1. 4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zfmmtv4#zx662v4

Commas and clauses
Commas are used to separate some types of clauses in a sentence. Independent clauses that are joined by coordinating conjunctions - and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet - also need a comma before the conjunction.
Malik opened the door**, and** Helen was waiting inside.

As you can see from the sources, this rule about using commas before the conjunction to separate independent clauses is not exclusive to one particular variety of English. Nevertheless, User:Sweetpool50 undid my edit without providing any reasoning or explanation other than the abrupt comment "wrong". Nicholas0 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

This RfC seeks wider community input to obtain a consensus and resolve ongoing disagreements over how Scientology book-articles should generally be categorized within Wikipedia, and how the genre should be listed in an infobox. The options list below has been compiled from suggestions by various editors. There are currently 10 standalone book-articles, which are summarized at Bibliography of Scientology § Books (the ones which are wiki-linked).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Maths, science, and technology

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Talk:UserBenchmark

Following on from the "Discussion on deleted edits" on this talk page, there are three outstanding wp:NPOV edits (numbered 1, 9 and 10 under "Discussion on deleted edits") I propose, that thus far I've been unable to get enough local editors to okay. The proposed edits rely on the references that are already cited in the article. I'd be grateful for your comments.

1) From:

"It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware."

to:

“Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings against AMD products have drawn criticism in the tech press, which UserBenchmark have rejected.

References:

Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.

2) From:

“In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, drastically affecting the ranking positions of CPUs, which penalized AMD processors.”

to:

"In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use. Some found the timing of the adjustments and the results suspicious. However, UserBenchmark responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and have been made more accurate by the change.”

References:

Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.

3) From:

“This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the UserBenchmark website.”

to:

“Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.”

References:

Reason for proposed change: to more accurately reflect the timing of the ban and remove the direct attribution of this action to the CPU index update, as per the original citation.

Thanks in advance. PeteskiPete (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Roseto effect

There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[2] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.

The current version includes:

• Historical peer-reviewed sources describing the phenomenon (Stout et al. 1964; Egolf et al. 1992)
• Modern scholarly analysis of the Roseto case (Coste & Glatron 2024)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health, used to contextualize (not synthesize) the broader topic

It does not include (but has previously):

• A 2024 preprint critique of the original Roseto effect research (clearly labeled as such)

Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [3]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else?

All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [4]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Polyvagal theory

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. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Art, architecture, literature, and media

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media

Talk:List of Tarja Turunen concert tours

Should we move the festivals in the venue columns into explanatory footnotes next to the dates and change the venue to the venue that the festival took place, or should we keep it as is with the festival as the venue in the venue column? HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This is a two part RFC about the reliability of Southern Poverty Law Center and Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch. Please see below for each section.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC for WP:RFCBEFORE. Please also see this search for discussions involving SPLC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mario (franchise)

There is an active dispute on which game is the first entry in Nintendo's long-running Mario (franchise).

• Option A: Donkey Kong (First game featuring Mario (character))
• Option B: Mario Bros (First game with the series name branding)
• Option C: Super Mario Bros (First game of the mainline Super Mario series)

Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard

This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.

Sales information

1. Do not include Veilguard's commercial performance
2. Include unit sales only; e.g., By year-end 2024, Electronics Art said the game had reached 1.5 million players.
3. Include commercial performance in relation to publisher's expectation only; e.g., According to Electronic Arts, the game missed their commercial expectations by around 50%.
4. Include unit sales and publisher expectations; e.g., Veilguard reached 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, missing EA's expectations by nearly 50%.
5. Include unit sales, publisher expectations, and performance against previous EA releases; e.g., Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations.
6. Other; provide proposed content alongside your vote.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard

This RfC concerns subsection headings.

3.1 Early development and challenges

1. Early development and challenges
2. Early development
3. 2015–2017
4. Eliminate the heading entirely & start the 3. Development section without an immediate subheading

3.3 Staff turnover and completion

1. Staff turnover and completion
2. Completion and release
3. Staff turnover and release
4. Staff changes and completion
5. Staff changes and release
6. Staff changes and post-release

Breaking this off into a chunk to generate heading ideas; feel free to update above with suggestions. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this but if not, I assume we'll be able to eliminate a few options & figure out how to structure a more formal discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Forspoken

Should the lead contain the first-week retail sales numbers in Japan? ("In Japan, during release week, it was the third best-selling retail game in the country.")

-61.8.152.180 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Politics, government, and law

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

Talk:2025 Polish presidential election

Edit war regarding "Grand Hotel" controversy, with a candidate for President accused of being a bodyguard for prostitutes. Is this even okay to cover considering they're accusations (with a pending lawsuit for defamation)? And if so, then how to cover it correctly, without breaking wikipedia guideliens? Polish kurd (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:

• Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.

I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This is a two part RFC about the reliability of Southern Poverty Law Center and Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch. Please see below for each section.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC for WP:RFCBEFORE. Please also see this search for discussions involving SPLC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

Looking for further input on the above discussion titled "Preferred prime minister proposal" (from April 2025). Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Bella Hadid

Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:

She participated in the Gaza war protests and called Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip "genocide." Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", which called for her death.

FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the 2025 Polish presidential election

Since there is quite heavy disagreement over this matter here, should the AtlasIntel and OGB polls be included (or maybe only one or the other) in the first round polls section? Polish kurd (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

I think this RfC is pretty much needed to decide the design of infobox. Looking at the above discussion, I have encountered reluctant opinions to go with my proposal, but if not trivially then it could be done with general consensus here. The Independent sources hold indefinite and varying values of the Indian casualties:

• France 24 (Debunking other losses but consonant with one Rafale loss): Only one French aircraft may have been shot down.
• Reuters(Based on unknown US officials and written in jargon tone): A top Chinese-made Pakistani fighter plane shot down at least two Indian military aircraft on Wednesday, two U.S. officials told Reuters, marking a major milestone for Beijing's advanced fighter jet...Another official said at least one Indian jet that was shot down was a French-made Rafale fighter aircraft.
• Al Jazeera: Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.
• AFP (Another unknown source with no hard evidence): Three Indian fighter jets crashed on Wednesday on home territory, a senior Indian security source said, without giving the cause.
• The Washington Post (Evidence based report): India’s air force appears to have lost at least two fighter jets, including one of its most advanced models, during attacks Wednesday morning on sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, according to a review of visual evidence by The Washington Post.

Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?

1. Option 1: 1—3 aircraft shot down or lost.
2. Option 2: Omit from infobox.
3. Option 3: 3 aircraft shot down or lost. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "Relationship with the military" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it has now been directed here for broader input.

Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? Titan2456 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe

This list has been tagged for original research cleanup for eight years now. The criteria section is completely unreferenced, seemingly encouraging original research - instead of being consistent with the lists on the rest of the encyclopedia and depending on reliable sources, it creates this sort of a hodgepodge of various claims. Its basic definition also contradicts the non-list main article on the topic (see above).

There don't seem to be any sources to the list as a whole, it's mostly newspaper articles about individual possibly qualifying items. Given how relatively easy it is to get a political claim published in a newspaper these days, this is a really shoddy basis for an encyclopedia article.

There's a fairly consistent formatting about how some "people" or "ethnic group" has separatist movements, but there's no nuance to it, which may well lead the average reader to arbitrary conclusions about the notability or significance of each of these.

There's a consistent stream of complaints on the Talk page that have been getting largely ignored for many years now. Nobody seems to be seriously reacting to this, so I'm bringing it up as an RFC to try to bring more attention to it. --Joy (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Besor Stream

Is the main source of the Besor stream Does the channel designated as the Nahal Besor start in the northwestern Negev (Mount Boker) or in the Hebron Hills of the West Bank? Or should both sources be treated equally (i.e. there is no main source)? Closetside (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wagner Group

Should the group's far-right association be mentioned somewhere in the article lead? --TylerBurden (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Religion and philosophy

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

This RfC seeks wider community input to obtain a consensus and resolve ongoing disagreements over how Scientology book-articles should generally be categorized within Wikipedia, and how the genre should be listed in an infobox. The options list below has been compiled from suggestions by various editors. There are currently 10 standalone book-articles, which are summarized at Bibliography of Scientology § Books (the ones which are wiki-linked).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Society, sports, and culture

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture

Talk:Sanctioned Suicide

Should this article include an an external link to the website? 117.194.201.67 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 FIFA Club World Cup

Should the article be updated to refer to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as the "1st edition" of a new tournament format, based on the sources and arguments presented? Football2025 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Serbia

Should estimates on the Romani population other than the official 2022 Serbian census be included in the demographics section? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Asmongold

The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.

Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Roseto effect

There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[5] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.

The current version includes:

• Historical peer-reviewed sources describing the phenomenon (Stout et al. 1964; Egolf et al. 1992)
• Modern scholarly analysis of the Roseto case (Coste & Glatron 2024)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health, used to contextualize (not synthesize) the broader topic

It does not include (but has previously):

• A 2024 preprint critique of the original Roseto effect research (clearly labeled as such)

Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [6]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else?

All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Adult human female

Should it say "question" or "rhetorical question"?2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:BC2F:1A76:72ED:55F6 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia style and naming

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

Looking for further input on the above discussion titled "Preferred prime minister proposal" (from April 2025). Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;

• Option 1: Full Reversal of the Exclusion
  • Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 2: Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is
  • Maintain existing guidelines.
• Option 3: Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence
  • Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE).
• Option 4: Partial Inclusion with Limits
  • Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 5: Open-Ended Policy
  • Refrain from requiring or excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).

AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.

EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.

This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Should the text of Wikipedia:Citing sources be changed to prefer templates over hand-formatted citations, while welcoming contributions from editors who continue to format manually? 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

In relation to current discussions on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21, should WP:CAMPAIGN be changed to allow such campaign boxes such as Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns as opposed to being restricted to "battles in a particular campaign, front, theater or war"? Setergh (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history

Should the result parameter allow bullet points as opposed to simply "X victory" or "Inconclusive"? Setergh (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition

Shall we change the extended confirmed user right from 500 edits + 30 days (current setting) to 500 edits + 90 days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)

In 2014, there was an RfC about using definite articles to achieve natural disambiguation. I have copied the proposal almost exactly below (only fixing some links that have changed since then), although I would urge all participants to read the RfC itself.

Is putting "The" at the beginning of an article title an acceptable innovation for WP:NATURAL disambiguation?

Context: Recently, a move request at Hulk (comics) to Hulk resulted in a "no consensus" close. Multiple editors, while perhaps opposing the proposed move, suggested moving Hulk (comics) to The Hulk instead (as The Hulk already redirects there). One editor intelligently noticed that WP:THE currently is directly opposed to that, as per its dictum that The Joker redirect to Joker (comics), and not vice-versa. But should that be the case?

Please respond support if you believe adding "the" is OK in order to disambiguate.

Please respond oppose if you think adding "the" should not be allowed, as is currently the case.

Thanks for helping Wikipedia.

For additional context, the article currently located at Hulk was then at Hulk (comics).

The RfC was closed as follows:

Result: The definite article may be used to disambiguate articles in certain circumstances.

There were 8 supports and 4 opposes. One oppose was based on the objection that the DABNAME guidance would be affected, but how this was the case was not explained and it doesn't seem true to me (nothing stemming from what has been discussed here would mean we would not retain the DAB page Hulk, for example). A second oppose was made on the basis that "the" should only be used if it is part of the formal name of the article subject. However, that argument seems contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. A third oppose suggests that "the" is insufficient disambiguation because we use it in many articles. I can't work out if there is a typo in the comment or not, but this doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The fourth oppose was on the basis that it would be confusing. I don't think any of these are knockout arguments, and so the numerical victory of the supports should be recognised.

There also seems to be consensus that the applciation of the principle should be resticted to article titles where there is genuine natural disambiguation (e.g. one this is commonly called "The Foo", the other is called "Foo" and not normally "The Foo") and a genuine need for disambiguation. There also seems to be consensus that a case-by-case approach should be taken and common sense applied to avoid unnecessary confusion, and so that conflicting considerations can be taken into account.

To the best of my knowledge, no change was ever implemented after the closure of that RfC, and it has not been overturned or overruled by a subsequent RfC.

Should WP:THE include some language that indicates that use of a definite article to achieve natural disambiguation is acceptable?

An example of proposed language (although this is open to change) could be something like this as a third condition, after the first two listed:

3. Use of definite articles is acceptable as a form of natural disambiguation, if the article is not the primary topic for the article title without parenthetical disambiguation.

Here are some articles whose titles might be different if this were to pass (all of these have redirects in the format of "the x"):

Charleston (dance) → The Charleston

Madonna (art) → The Madonna

Roundhouse (venue) → The Roundhouse

Penguin (character) → The Penguin

Politics (Aristotle) → The Politics

Ladtrack (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:T. V. S. N. Prasad

Should the following sentence be included in the lead section of T. V. S. N. Prasad?

His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society.

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

WikiProjects and collaborations

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations

Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Wikipedia proposals

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

Should the English Wikipedia community adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and affiliates?

This is a statement-and-agreement-style RfC. 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition

Shall we change the extended confirmed user right from 500 edits + 30 days (current setting) to 500 edits + 90 days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Unsorted

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted

User names

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

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

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.

---