Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)Biographies
[edit]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) |
Should the article include the subject's former name, and if so, where?--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC) |
I am requesting community input on whether the following sentence should be included in the lead section of the article on 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 sentence summarizes significant events during the subject’s public service career, as detailed in the "Controversies" section. These events include:
All incidents are supported by reliable, independent sources such as The Tribune, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Indian Express, and court records. I believe the sentence satisfies the following policies:
This sentence aims to give readers a balanced and accurate overview of the subject’s public life. There has been some disagreement about its inclusion, so I am opening this RfC to seek broad community consensus. Feedback from uninvolved editors is welcome and appreciated.
Note: In recent revisions, nearly the entire "Controversies" section, despite being based on reliable, published sources, has also been removed without clear policy justification. While this RfC specifically concerns the lead sentence, the broader pattern of content removal is affecting the neutrality and completeness of the article. I welcome input on how best to address this if it falls outside the RfC's scope. Thouartmylife (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC) |
Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:
|
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) |
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) |
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;
AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE. EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored. 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. |
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
Proposed version
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) |
Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?
See diff and text: On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.[6][7] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]
History and geography
[edit]There are two related issues here:
|
Per [1], should Poland be included in belligerents within this crusade? Setergh (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC) |
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:
Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?
|
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 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) |
Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?
See diff and text: On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.[8][9] 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"?
|
Language and linguistics
[edit]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) |
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. 1. Use a comma to separate independent clauses Place commas between principal clauses joined together with a conjunction. Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction1 that connects two independent clauses. Commas and clauses |
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"?
|
I added [2] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [3] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.
In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]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.[10]" 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.[10][11] References:
Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.
“In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, drastically affecting the ranking positions of CPUs, which penalized AMD processors.[2]” to: "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index[1] 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.[2]” References:
Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.
“This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the UserBenchmark website.[1]” to: “Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.[1]” 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.
|
There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[4] 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:
It does not include (but has previously):
Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [5]) 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 [6]?
|
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.[1] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC) |
There is an active dispute on which game is the first entry in Nintendo's long-running Mario (franchise).
Poll
|
Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard
This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.
|
Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard
This RfC concerns subsection headings.
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) |
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.") |
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
[edit]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. TarnishedPathtalk 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) |
Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:
|
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:
Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?
|
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) |
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) |
Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?
See diff and text: On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.[7][8] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC) |
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
[edit]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
[edit]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) |
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) |
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) |
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) |
There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[7] 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:
It does not include (but has previously):
Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [8]) 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) |
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
[edit]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;
AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE. EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored. 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. |
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) |
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) |
I added [9] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [10] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.
In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]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.
For additional context, the article currently located at Hulk was then at Hulk (comics). The RfC was closed as follows:
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:
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"): |
I am requesting community input on whether the following sentence should be included in the lead section of the article on 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 sentence summarizes significant events during the subject’s public service career, as detailed in the "Controversies" section. These events include:
All incidents are supported by reliable, independent sources such as The Tribune, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Indian Express, and court records. I believe the sentence satisfies the following policies:
This sentence aims to give readers a balanced and accurate overview of the subject’s public life. There has been some disagreement about its inclusion, so I am opening this RfC to seek broad community consensus. Feedback from uninvolved editors is welcome and appreciated.
Note: In recent revisions, nearly the entire "Controversies" section, despite being based on reliable, published sources, has also been removed without clear policy justification. While this RfC specifically concerns the lead sentence, the broader pattern of content removal is affecting the neutrality and completeness of the article. I welcome input on how best to address this if it falls outside the RfC's scope. Thouartmylife (talk) 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
Proposed version
Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]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
Proposed version
Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 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.
- ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference
namerfc
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Adidas drops Bella Hadid from campaign referencing 1972 Munich Olympics". Al Jazeera. July 19, 2024.
- ^ Zhan, Jennifer (October 26, 2023). "Bella Hadid Says Palestine 'Cannot Afford Our Silence'". Vulture.
- ^ Fiske, Gavriel (November 21, 2023). "Hip-hop war anthem reaches number one in Israel". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on December 2, 2023.
- ^ Zitser, Joshua (December 12, 2023). "Israel's Gen Z is dancing to a war song that celebrates bombing Gaza and names Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid as enemies". Business Insider.
- ^ "Israel split by song calling for death of Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid". The Times. February 14, 2024.
- ^ Baker, Peter (2025-01-20). "Biden in Final Hours Pardons Cheney, Fauci and Milley to Thwart Reprisals". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
- ^ Liptak, Kevin; Saenz, Arlette (2025-01-20). "Biden issues preemptive pardons for Milley, Fauci and Jan. 6 committee members | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2025-01-20.