Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
| Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
Two questions:
|
| Should the infobox use A: 1942 photo, B: 1961 photo, or C: 1961 (zoomed in)?
For background, please see discussion above: #Lead_photo. The two images are included below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
| (RFC per previous discussion)
In the opening sentence of the lead section, it is claimed that the subject is known " These are examples of sources stating someone is actually known for their lyricism:
Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
Does the following sentence provide the appropriate context that is understood the closing of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141#RfC Russian Bounties claims?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we describe Zelenskyy in the lead as a "politician" or a "statesman"? Векочел (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox for Jim Henson include a cause-of-death field?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the lead sentence mention Jimmy Savile's sexual abuse? Popcornfud (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
Should this article include |death_cause=? 01:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
This RFC has two questions that can be answered separately, asking whether:
04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
On 9 February a non-fungible token auction organized by Julian Assange and cryptocurrency artist Pak raised more than $52m for Assange's defence. Should Assange's article mention this? See
|
| Should the media paragraph in the English version of the biography of Jeffrey Dahmer mention also music of significant artists that was inspired by the life story of Jeffrey Dahmer (as seen on the German version for example)? Background is the discusion in the Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022?H8eternal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Which musical genres should we list in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
Which of the following statements (all verifiable and due) about the critical reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League should be included in the article? And should the consensus here establish a precedent for future discussions about which sentiment to include on the film's other starring actors' BLPs (e.g., Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, etc.)?
|
| Is the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book in the article due? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
| The page is a mix of contents between IVECO brand and Iveco Group holding company. I suggest to create a new holding page and edit the current page in order to make clear that this is the page of the brand (IVECO). Gianmaria V (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should Good Articles for similar companies to Freshpet be used to determine article structure, such as typical section headers and the implied choices of relevant content? NJ0220 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the page mention allegations that Moderna engages in tax avoidance? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
History and geography[edit]
|
Two questions:
|
| Hi everyone. My original request was to include Afghan in the origins. Afghan origins have the most support among other two origins (as you can see in talk page). I have provided both primary and multiple secondary sources (both old and new). The article have very few historical documents of which the Afghan one is the most common, the least we can do is to mention it in origin section. Hope you guys agree with me.
Do you agree? 84.211.45.132 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox use A: 1942 photo, B: 1961 photo, or C: 1961 (zoomed in)?
For background, please see discussion above: #Lead_photo. The two images are included below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident
| Should the infobox contain the fishing boat whose net ensnared the submarine in the 'strength' section? — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 03:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:The Royal Canadian Regiment
| I found that User:Footwiks keeps editing "Kowangsan Day" as holiday of this Regiment, but I think this is quite controversial to put whether this is actually right to put holiday which is not verified with any resources, so I want to hear other people's opinion. Wendylove (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
| The Kayastha caste of Bengal formed as a group in the medieval era, where many Purans and literature gave their different views regarding their varna.Purans and literature played a significant role in Bengal's caste system. In this article, we already have a section regarding their varna status with two different subsections Colonial and Modern but there is no mention of their Medieval varna status. So is that not necessary to add their medieval varna status (by using modern academic sources) where kayasthas played a huge role? Nobita456 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
Which of the following should be the first sentence in the lead?
|
| Should the media paragraph in the English version of the biography of Jeffrey Dahmer mention also music of significant artists that was inspired by the life story of Jeffrey Dahmer (as seen on the German version for example)? Background is the discusion in the Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022?H8eternal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the lead include history in the list of types of writing found in the Bible? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Confederate States of America
| Should the article use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves", or should it use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans"? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Is there any and what valid reason per WP:NPOV to exclude from citation Croatian and other international sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of political parties in Italy
| Which of A, B, C, or D (below) should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties?
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals
| This RFC affects the following articles: cattle, aurochs, taurine cattle, zebu, Bos.
Currently, these articles show contradictory and inconsistant information about the taxonomy of cattle. This is due to the fact that the different types of cattle were recently re-established as separate species after previously being considered sub-species of a single species. Both taxonomies are contentious and neither is universally accepted by reliable sources. Wikipedia, however, needs to choose one or the other and implement it consistantly. Please indicate which taxonomy you believe Wikipedia should follow: Taxonomy A
In this case, the cattle article would correspond with the taxon Bos taurus. Taxonomy B
In this case, the cattle article would correspond with the subgenus Bos (not to be confused with the genus Bos). This RFC does not affect the classication of Bison and does not serve as a referendum on the overall use of MDD or MSW3 on Wikipedia. It's scope is limited to domestic cattle and aurochs. |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should the above colors for the maps also be adopted for infoboxes and other weather templates using the same scale? Should the timeline background color be changed for all weather articles?
It has been brought to my attention that the above RfC may not have been clear about the entire scope of the changes. Given that consensus was achieved above to remove links from infoboxes for colored regions, that contrast aspect is no longer an issue. However, two issues still remain. Some people have mentioned above that they want to keep consistency between the maps and the infoboxes as it could be confusing if there are differences between the two. Additionally, the color blindness issue still remains for those who use colors to tell apart different statuses as the same contrast issue between colors exists, especially when multiple statuses are in an infobox for different agencies. This proposal increases the contrast between colors in infoboxes and other templates which use the same scale to match the maps which were changed in the above RfC. I recently also discovered a serious breach of MOS:ACCESS on the timelines where the TS color blends in with the background for folks who possess a color blindness. Another header is added below to provide a change that in conjunction with the new colors will fix that issue as well. NoahTalk 15:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19
Please give your opinion as to which is a better first paragraph:
Adoring nanny (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Effects of climate change
We've been discussing the use of WP:excerpts a lot, but haven't really come to a conclusion about when their advantages outweight their disadvantages. I'm starting an RfC to establish consensus about when to use them, to get a broader input. I hope that we can develop best practises, that may also be used outside of this particular article.
|
| The edit has been reverted twice, the first time with the summary "Already covered in COVID-19 section" (there has been none before) and the other saying that it fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and notability ("not a substantial part of history").
Should the information about the research on the drug about COVID-19 and the rise of popularity of the drug in Poland be included? The model text is quoted [4] [5] in these two diffs (for the visual version, see here). Some minor modifications are of course possible. See also Polish Wikipedia. I am able to provide translations from Polish, if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Is the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book in the article due? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
| I propose to replace the following statements concerning Dermatitis and dandruff (D/SD) diseases and related to Malassezia info (Revision of 01:44, March 25, 2021):--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
|
Two questions:
|
| Which version should we use ?
Version 1 :
or Version 2 :
Referring to the footnotes of references 97 and 98 which both include the entire quotes of the musicians, inside the brackets: [97] : "[Peter Murphy:] We were more aligned to The Clash than anything else that was going around. The Cure and those people really solidified what became goth, I suppose". [98] : "[Kevin Haskins:] I’ve always felt though that Siouxsie and the Banshees, who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock". Woovee (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
| (RFC per previous discussion)
In the opening sentence of the lead section, it is claimed that the subject is known " These are examples of sources stating someone is actually known for their lyricism:
Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the BBC World Service be described as propaganda in the infobox? — Newslinger talk 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should New Zealand Listener record charts from 1966 to 1975 be considered suitable for inclusion in WP articles? The relevant guideline and Listener info is highlighted in green:
WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts includes:
The Listener info page includes:[7]
Please indicate Include, Don't include, or Comment along with your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
On 9 February a non-fungible token auction organized by Julian Assange and cryptocurrency artist Pak raised more than $52m for Assange's defence. Should Assange's article mention this? See
|
| Should the media paragraph in the English version of the biography of Jeffrey Dahmer mention also music of significant artists that was inspired by the life story of Jeffrey Dahmer (as seen on the German version for example)? Background is the discusion in the Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022?H8eternal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Which musical genres should we list in the infobox? Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
| (WP:RFCBEFORE was already completed at Talk:Nicki_Minaj#The_PinkPrint_reviews)
With the amount of reliable media sources that describe it as such, should The Pinkprint be described as critically acclaimed? shanghai.talk to me 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we (A) Should we keep cases filed by Prince Charles and his family against either the Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) or MailOnline here, or (B) should we try to be as accurate as possible and simply move them and other cases that do not necessarily involve Daily Mail to a new subsection on the Mail on Sunday, ANL or MailOnline articles? Keivan.fTalk 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
Which of the following statements (all verifiable and due) about the critical reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League should be included in the article? And should the consensus here establish a precedent for future discussions about which sentiment to include on the film's other starring actors' BLPs (e.g., Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, etc.)?
|
Talk:List of fictional characters with disabilities
Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page. A previous discussion happened above in this section, but an involved editor disputed the consensus from this discussion based on how few editors were involved. Thus, I have started this RfC to gain more involvement as low participation is a valid concern.
Notifying previously involved editors: @Historyday01, Trystan, Tamasys, Dodger67, Erik, Dimadick, and Ɱ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox comics character
| Should there be an epithets parameter in the infobox?
I think there should be, since most comic book characters have epithets, and also to prevent people from mistaking epithets for aliases and putting them in the aliases section, a mistake I have seen frequently in character articles. Any thoughts? |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Should this sentence be appended at the end of Republican Party (United States)#The Trump era?
soibangla (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
In relation to the lede that currenlty states "is an American attorney who is the second son..." The article subject is primarily known as:
Ok to choose multiple choices. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC) |
Does the following sentence provide the appropriate context that is understood the closing of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141#RfC Russian Bounties claims?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we describe Zelenskyy in the lead as a "politician" or a "statesman"? Векочел (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the BBC World Service be described as propaganda in the infobox? — Newslinger talk 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Some content is under dispute, with me, @AllSaintsNext and @80.6.178.12 disagreeing on various sentences, as per discussions above. The proposed content has been slightly modified for readability and suggestions made above.
|
Which of the following should be the first sentence in the lead?
|
On 9 February a non-fungible token auction organized by Julian Assange and cryptocurrency artist Pak raised more than $52m for Assange's defence. Should Assange's article mention this? See
|
| Should we include Welsh independence in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the page mention allegations that Moderna engages in tax avoidance? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we limit the infobox to the party's key/main ideologies, which I propose as: environmentalism, animal rights and animal welfare. Helper201 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19
Please give your opinion as to which is a better first paragraph:
Adoring nanny (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2022 Hungarian LGBTQ in education referendum
| What evidence do we have of the reliability of Századvég as a pollster? Do they fairly poll respondents across a broad range of all ages and demographics, weight age and sex of respondents etc and ask questions in a neutral manner? For example, if the questions were worded exactly how they are set to be in the proposed changes set out in the referendum, then there could be accusations levelled against their neutrality and wording. Do they have any links to the Hungarian government? I think it is also important that we note how the questions in the poll were worded, the number of people polled and the demographics of those who were polled. Preferably we should also include polls from more than one pollster/polling organisation. Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
| The edit has been reverted twice, the first time with the summary "Already covered in COVID-19 section" (there has been none before) and the other saying that it fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and notability ("not a substantial part of history").
Should the information about the research on the drug about COVID-19 and the rise of popularity of the drug in Poland be included? The model text is quoted [9] [10] in these two diffs (for the visual version, see here). Some minor modifications are of course possible. See also Polish Wikipedia. I am able to provide translations from Polish, if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of political parties in Italy
| Which of A, B, C, or D (below) should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties?
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
| The Kayastha caste of Bengal formed as a group in the medieval era, where many Purans and literature gave their different views regarding their varna.Purans and literature played a significant role in Bengal's caste system. In this article, we already have a section regarding their varna status with two different subsections Colonial and Modern but there is no mention of their Medieval varna status. So is that not necessary to add their medieval varna status (by using modern academic sources) where kayasthas played a huge role? Nobita456 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the lead include history in the list of types of writing found in the Bible? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the "Religions" section contain a sub-subsection on Mormonism, under Christianity? --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
Does the following sentence provide the appropriate context that is understood the closing of Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 141#RfC Russian Bounties claims?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
| Following these two discussions (1, 2): should there be a note, which lists the cups, next to "National cup" and "League cup" in a player's club career statistics table? Nehme1499 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox for Jim Henson include a cause-of-death field?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)
| Propose implementing new language for article titles of relocated North American sports teams, which would limit the use of "History of" article titles as being too precise. --Bison X (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
| There have been two sections now discussing Shane's status in WWE and whether or not we should say he was fired after the 2022 Royal Rumble. These discussions do not appear to have reached a consensus nor a conclusion, and there seems to be a bit of a stalemate. As this is a WP:BLP I think we should formalise this discussion as an RfC and reach a definitive conclusion.
I haven't participated in the discussions above and am presently undecided on the matter, so the very neutral question is, what should we write regarding Shane McMahon's status with WWE?. — Czello 20:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should Good Articles for similar companies to Freshpet be used to determine article structure, such as typical section headers and the implied choices of relevant content? NJ0220 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
Template talk:US Census population
| CTF83! 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| I was surprised to discover that we have Category:Swiss footballers with a subcategory of Category:Swiss women's footballers yesterday, since this seems to contradict Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Gender, specifically "sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition". I think that we need to have "men's" subcategories to match "women's". It seems that this is a systematic problem with footballer categories, and the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Category:Swiss footballers had a lot of procedural opposes since this needs a wider discussion. Hence this RfC - should we have "men's footballers" categories to match the "women's footballers" categories that already exist? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
| Should flagicons (for Opponent and Location) be removed from all boxing record tables, including professional and exhibition? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the media paragraph in the English version of the biography of Jeffrey Dahmer mention also music of significant artists that was inspired by the life story of Jeffrey Dahmer (as seen on the German version for example)? Background is the discusion in the Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022?H8eternal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of political parties in Italy
| Which of A, B, C, or D (below) should become the rule for the listing of Italian political parties?
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
| For each of the sports below, should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability? There is one survey for each sub-guideline that includes this presumption, in order to allow each sport to be treated individually.
This is a follow up to the 2021 RFC that removed the general presumption of notability for Olympic athletes, and will have no impact on Olympic athletes who medalled, as they are presumed notable under NOLYMPIC. 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Is the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book in the article due? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of fictional characters with disabilities
Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page. A previous discussion happened above in this section, but an involved editor disputed the consensus from this discussion based on how few editors were involved. Thus, I have started this RfC to gain more involvement as low participation is a valid concern.
Notifying previously involved editors: @Historyday01, Trystan, Tamasys, Dodger67, Erik, Dimadick, and Ɱ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
| Should the MOS guidance about pronouns for ships be changed to prefer "it" over "she"? 16:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
| Multiple reliable sources (see sources there) and even Apple prefer lowercase "iPod touch", rationale: MOS:CAPSACRS, [11] at "iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch" section. However, I am somewhat unsure, as this can cause confusion to people who think the word "touch" is a common noun, so I would like to have some input. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
The maintenance templates {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} are unique because their documentation pages state they are allowed to be placed at the bottom of articles. Should {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} be included in MOS:ORDER? If so, where?
–Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
| Should the first paragraph of MOS:LABEL be changed to the following? –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC) |
Which of the following should be the first sentence in the lead?
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
| Should the MOS say that a space is required (or suggested) between each section and the content below it and sub-section and the content below it? Firefangledfeathers 03:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]
Should WP:NATURAL and WP:NCDAB be rewritten to reflect that natural disambiguation should generally only be used to settle titles where there are near equal choices such as Chinese whispers v Telephone (game) (RM) and Handa Island v Handa, Scotland (RM) and not generally allow significantly less common titles trump the most common such as Bus (computing) v Computer bus (RM) and Fan (machine) v Mechanical fan (RM)? In the 2nd sentence at WP:NATURAL I propose to change "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."to "Natural disambiguation can generally be used where there are titles that are near equal choices (such as French language v French (language)), where its otherwise disputed such is best (like Chinese whispers v Telephone (game)) or where adding a qualifier is difficult or impossible like Sarah Jane Brown where plain Sarah Brown is ambiguous. In general qualified titles are preferred to natural disambiguation if the choice is not near equal even if the title would be understood, thus New York (state) is preferred to New York State and Bray, Berkshire is preferred to Bray on Thames, in particular do not, use obscure or made-up names".I don't mind if all or some of this is in a footnote if this is too long and I welcome any suggestions for better examples. @Born2cycle, Amakuru, and RGloucester: Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
| Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
Two questions:
|
| Should articles related to Ukraine and Russia currently be eligible to appear on the main page through DYK? This is only about DYK and no other Wikipedia projects or even other language Wikipedias. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
| I want to establish a consensus regarding removing CorenSearchBot from tools section. The bot is no longer active, and it has last edited almost 6 years ago. There is also no chance that the bot will become active in the future. If it does, then we can add it back to the tools for detecting plagiarism. I want community consensus before removing its name. Or, there can be another alternative as well. Instead of removing it completely, we can strike it off, and give the reason for striking it off as a comment. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
The maintenance templates {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} are unique because their documentation pages state they are allowed to be placed at the bottom of articles. Should {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} be included in MOS:ORDER? If so, where?
–Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)
| Propose implementing new language for article titles of relocated North American sports teams, which would limit the use of "History of" article titles as being too precise. --Bison X (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should New Zealand Listener record charts from 1966 to 1975 be considered suitable for inclusion in WP articles? The relevant guideline and Listener info is highlighted in green:
WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts includes:
The Listener info page includes:[12]
Please indicate Include, Don't include, or Comment along with your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should the above colors for the maps also be adopted for infoboxes and other weather templates using the same scale? Should the timeline background color be changed for all weather articles?
It has been brought to my attention that the above RfC may not have been clear about the entire scope of the changes. Given that consensus was achieved above to remove links from infoboxes for colored regions, that contrast aspect is no longer an issue. However, two issues still remain. Some people have mentioned above that they want to keep consistency between the maps and the infoboxes as it could be confusing if there are differences between the two. Additionally, the color blindness issue still remains for those who use colors to tell apart different statuses as the same contrast issue between colors exists, especially when multiple statuses are in an infobox for different agencies. This proposal increases the contrast between colors in infoboxes and other templates which use the same scale to match the maps which were changed in the above RfC. I recently also discovered a serious breach of MOS:ACCESS on the timelines where the TS color blends in with the background for folks who possess a color blindness. Another header is added below to provide a change that in conjunction with the new colors will fix that issue as well. NoahTalk 15:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| Should a separate subpage of Wikipedia: Reliable sources be created for perennial databases, such as Olympedia, GNIS, and Soccerway? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
This RFC has two questions that can be answered separately, asking whether:
04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
| Should the clause and sentence that mention "attribution" be removed from the RD1 criterion? Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
| For each of the sports below, should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability? There is one survey for each sub-guideline that includes this presumption, in order to allow each sport to be treated individually.
This is a follow up to the 2021 RFC that removed the general presumption of notability for Olympic athletes, and will have no impact on Olympic athletes who medalled, as they are presumed notable under NOLYMPIC. 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Is the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book in the article due? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations[edit]
|
Two questions:
|
Wikipedia technical issues and templates[edit]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should the above colors for the maps also be adopted for infoboxes and other weather templates using the same scale? Should the timeline background color be changed for all weather articles?
It has been brought to my attention that the above RfC may not have been clear about the entire scope of the changes. Given that consensus was achieved above to remove links from infoboxes for colored regions, that contrast aspect is no longer an issue. However, two issues still remain. Some people have mentioned above that they want to keep consistency between the maps and the infoboxes as it could be confusing if there are differences between the two. Additionally, the color blindness issue still remains for those who use colors to tell apart different statuses as the same contrast issue between colors exists, especially when multiple statuses are in an infobox for different agencies. This proposal increases the contrast between colors in infoboxes and other templates which use the same scale to match the maps which were changed in the above RfC. I recently also discovered a serious breach of MOS:ACCESS on the timelines where the TS color blends in with the background for folks who possess a color blindness. Another header is added below to provide a change that in conjunction with the new colors will fix that issue as well. NoahTalk 15:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox comics character
| Should there be an epithets parameter in the infobox?
I think there should be, since most comic book characters have epithets, and also to prevent people from mistaking epithets for aliases and putting them in the aliases section, a mistake I have seen frequently in character articles. Any thoughts? |
Wikipedia proposals[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
| I want to establish a consensus regarding removing CorenSearchBot from tools section. The bot is no longer active, and it has last edited almost 6 years ago. There is also no chance that the bot will become active in the future. If it does, then we can add it back to the tools for detecting plagiarism. I want community consensus before removing its name. Or, there can be another alternative as well. Instead of removing it completely, we can strike it off, and give the reason for striking it off as a comment. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source for facts?
|
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| Should a separate subpage of Wikipedia: Reliable sources be created for perennial databases, such as Olympedia, GNIS, and Soccerway? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Which of these best describes the reliability of ANNA News? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
This RFC has two questions that can be answered separately, asking whether:
04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
| Should the MOS say that a space is required (or suggested) between each section and the content below it and sub-section and the content below it? Firefangledfeathers 03:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed [13] to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.
My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Can_we_use_blogs_to_show_that_a_subject_is_discussed_in_cyberspace?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should a bot that adds AFC templates to drafts be made? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:
Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (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 "Afghanistan war: US spies doubt reports of Russian 'bounties' for troops". BBC News. April 16, 2021.
- ^ a b c "White House: Intel on Russian 'bounties' on US troops shaky". Associated Press. April 16, 2021.
- ^ a b c Forgey, Quint. "'A lot of people said it's a fake issue': Trump confirms he didn't raise Russian bounties with Putin". POLITICO. Retrieved 3 March 2022.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
doi10.1038d41586-022-00191-7was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Science-Tian-2020was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
wsj11578485668was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
nyt20201219was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
bbc55355401was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
ap24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
pbschinas-covid-secretswas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
NYT 2020-04-22was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
doi10.37016mr-2020-025was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Lancet-ID-Burki-2020was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Policy Design and Practicewas invoked but never defined (see the help page).