Bear with me for the second question, I am practicing to write wikipedia lead paragraph for bio, and my educational question is: Would it be more appropriate that the lead paragraph start with something like
"Martin Luther King. Jr (year-year) is an American civil right leader, minister of..."(slightly changing order of the current version).
My reason is Civil right leader is what he is mostly known and recognized for. Please educate me why this is better or not than the current version. Thank you!
For something that transform the world so deeply, I guess it should have enough reference to pass WP:N to have its own article? Gutenberg Printing as of Johannes Gutenberg is similar to the 95 articles as of Martin Luther. What do you think?
Should Northam's recent comments on third-trimester abortion and non-viable births given during an interview with WTOP be explained in the article using four paragraphs and including an edited quote, or should they be explained with two sentences including a footnote link to a complete quotation/explanation?
I believe the line stating “He is presently under a four-month suspension from the practice of law after a finding of misconduct. [7]” should be removed from the first paragraph along with the removal of the line “It was announced on April 2, 2019 that attorney Adam Leitman Bailey will have his law license suspended for a 4 month term. [10] [11]” in the background section. It is rare to have this sort of information in any introductory paragraph for a biographaphical page. For example Linda Addison [1] or William F. Aldinger III [2], both being former attorneys from New York, only have basic life timeline information in their first paragraphs. It makes sense for this information to be noted in the lawsuit against bailey section, but to have it in 3 separate locations across the page is a bit absurd for such a short biography page noting that the suspension is only for 4 months out of an entire lifetime/career. Cook907 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to request for comments whether it's a good idea to add Dr. King to the first paragraph because the subject Martin Luther King, Jr seems to me very often referred as Dr. King. Per MOS:DOCTOR. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Is one single reference, of debatable quality, really enough for Wikipedia to label someone as 'far-right' without any serious discussion? I know the work of the Vice co-founder pretty well, and as a victim of far-right violence and a target of far-right prejudice all my life, am deeply worried to see Wikipedia pedaling such political bias. How should this be escalated? Leegee23 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The "Spanish club" wording in lede was observed in 2014. it was not objected by one of the member of the party of edit war (Special:Diff/621517408, Special:Diff/629467180), thus i would considered the version with "Spanish club" is the stable version. I started the Rfc was for forming consensus for the lede on this matter (or in case of no consensus, which is the "stable" version). So, should the wording before FC Barcelona was :
*Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so.
2. Does the following sentence give undue weight to the quotation no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case? Richter later described his words as a terrible choice of phrase and apologized.
Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.
I believe the talk section lays out clearly several reasons to believe the article is far from neutral. 206.29.176.51 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the article be named Motus Bank per CDIC or Motusbank per its branding due to the WP:COMMONNAME policy? Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Rocket lab describes itself as an "American" company (Company's FAQ). Most reliable sources describe it as a combination of a "New Zealand" and an "American" company (NYT, Reuters, Gunter's, Fast Company). How should we describe it?
Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.
I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city.
On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I appears to me that the most accurate way to describe the business this company does is a pawnbroker and I have added this link a few times to this article. It is a clear from some of the references that the company does not like this term and there have been a number of attempts to remove this from the lead. It may be this is from users that have connection to the company. To make sure we keep a WP:NPOV it would be good other Wikipedia editors could comment on whether this term describes this business and is fair in this context. Sargdub (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
See the above section #Complaint about reversion. I made an innocuous edit the other day and the User:Epinoia reverted it. When I complained (above) he claimed that I made the changes that he made! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
For something that transform the world so deeply, I guess it should have enough reference to pass WP:N to have its own article? Gutenberg Printing as of Johannes Gutenberg is similar to the 95 articles as of Martin Luther. What do you think?
There is a dispute on how many images should be included in this article, and how they should be placed. A prominent question within this is whether it is appropriate to use image galleries in the various sections/subsections of this article, which was an initial attempt to solve the formatting issues caused by the large number of pictures without removing any pictures, and to which more pictures have subsequently been added. At the time of this comment, such galleries are included in the Prehistory and antiquity and Middle Ages subsections. CMD (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the linked phrase [[Germanic paganism|Historical Germanic religion]] appear immediately below the image in the template (as it is now)? The same issue arises at Template:Slavic Native Faith. –Srnec (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Should Australian Prime Ministers be included as commanders and leaders in the infobox? Please see and read the above discussion thread "Australian Leaders", for previous discussion --Havsjö (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
i propose all "north germanic" ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" chagned back to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.90.106 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
should the intro be "Swedes are a germanic ethnic group" or "swedes are a north germanic ethnic group? North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that both map (A,B) are de jure border. The border of effective control was constantly change due to foreign occupied (semi)-colony area (Outer Manchuria, etc.), as well as Japanese invasion (Taiwan, Manchukuo, etc) as well as self-declared independence (Mongolia, 1921), etc. Matthew hk (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question (town, county, province), we want to answer:
Should the administrative level descriptor be present?
If so, should it be written in uppercase (Chenjiagang Town) or lowercase (Chenjiagang town)?
*Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
discussing whether Ainu is a language isolate or a language family, the article name should be Ainu language, Ainu languages or Ainic languages, and Ainu language should be renamed Hokkaido Ainu language.--ABCEdit (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
i propose all "north germanic" ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" chagned back to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.90.106 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
should the intro be "Swedes are a germanic ethnic group" or "swedes are a north germanic ethnic group? North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Input is needed on how to present information related to decline in insect populations, particularly due weight specific to insects in sources reliable for scientific content. 19:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should Northam's recent comments on third-trimester abortion and non-viable births given during an interview with WTOP be explained in the article using four paragraphs and including an edited quote, or should they be explained with two sentences including a footnote link to a complete quotation/explanation?
Rocket lab describes itself as an "American" company (Company's FAQ). Most reliable sources describe it as a combination of a "New Zealand" and an "American" company (NYT, Reuters, Gunter's, Fast Company). How should we describe it?
This article is currently the longest article we have, and the simplest solution is to split the article alphabetically, unless there is something else to consider. I have tried to do this, but have been reverted by some who are using this article as a directory for automated programs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Rigel has five stars requiring us to call them something in this article. They had been called Rigel A, Ba, Bb, C and D. However the IAU has ruled that the name "Rigel" applies to the main star, leaving some confusion as to the rest. SIMBAD lists as 'Beta Orionis B' here. At least two sources use Rigel B,C and D.[1][2]. The IAU at the bottom of page 5 here says "As these useful nicknames with the form [proper name] [letter component] often appear in the literature, many appear in the SIMBAD database." but notes they are unofficial. Other names - STF 688B for Rigel B, and BU 555Ba, BU555Bb, BC 555C and BU 555 D for Rigel Ba, Bb, C and D respectively - are almost never used, and only rarely seen in journals. So we have a choice - Rigel A, Ba, Bb, C and D....Beta Orionis Ba, Bb, C and D...or...what? Can people denote their choices below. Cas Liber (talk· contribs) 05:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of (or at least severely prune) Category:Films by producer and all its subcategories per WP:NONDEFINING. IMO, a producer's contribution should be, and in the vast majority of cases are, invisible to the audience. Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you who the producer is on nearly all of my favorite films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is disagreement between users on whether an explanatory note is required within the article's Plot section and it looks likely to devolve into an edit war. Additional input is appreciated. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should accusations that Ariana is lying about her sexuality be included in the article? Does including them in the article, even when countered with a defence, violate WP:NEUTRAL (specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID)? Fan4Life (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Should Imagine (Ariana Grande song) be listed as (A) a single or as (B) a promotional single. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
1. Should the lead image for the And Then There Were None article be the UK first edition with the original title, or a cover with the current title?
2. If the UK first edition cover with the original title is not used as a lead image, should the image appear elsewhere in the article? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
What term should NCTV use for shows from the United States and United Kingdom, when disambiguation by country is required? Should such articles use "U.S." and "UK", or should they use "American" and "British"? -- /Alex/21 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Should we add the year release in the season section for the upcoming TV shows that released a season in one day (Netflix for example)? See the original discussion here. Hddty. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
*Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
Should the comparison table in content ratings articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with 9 colors that has improved accessibility than the previous one? Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Should Northam's recent comments on third-trimester abortion and non-viable births given during an interview with WTOP be explained in the article using four paragraphs and including an edited quote, or should they be explained with two sentences including a footnote link to a complete quotation/explanation?
There is a dispute on how many images should be included in this article, and how they should be placed. A prominent question within this is whether it is appropriate to use image galleries in the various sections/subsections of this article, which was an initial attempt to solve the formatting issues caused by the large number of pictures without removing any pictures, and to which more pictures have subsequently been added. At the time of this comment, such galleries are included in the Prehistory and antiquity and Middle Ages subsections. CMD (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I am including the version submitted by Iridescent as Version 1, and am requesting that the community consider it, and any alternate versions. On each version, please provide your opinions and brief comments on the Survey, and extended discussion is permitted in the Threaded Discussion.
If two or more versions are approved, the closers may determine that one of the versions is encompassed in another as a subset, or may relist this RFC to require a choice between versions.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
i propose all "north germanic" ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" chagned back to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.90.106 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
should the intro be "Swedes are a germanic ethnic group" or "swedes are a north germanic ethnic group? North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that both map (A,B) are de jure border. The border of effective control was constantly change due to foreign occupied (semi)-colony area (Outer Manchuria, etc.), as well as Japanese invasion (Taiwan, Manchukuo, etc) as well as self-declared independence (Mongolia, 1921), etc. Matthew hk (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
During a plea hearing on 27 February 2019, Pell's lawyer Richter argued for a more lenient sentence for Pell, accepting the jury's verdict of guilty in order to do so.
2. Does the following sentence give undue weight to the quotation no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case? Richter later described his words as a terrible choice of phrase and apologized.
Richter argued that Pell's offence was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case". Richter later apologized for this remark.
See the above section #Complaint about reversion. I made an innocuous edit the other day and the User:Epinoia reverted it. When I complained (above) he claimed that I made the changes that he made! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the lede contain a statement that Alexander the Great features in the Quran as dhul-Qarnayn and that he entered it through various legends current in the Middle East? PiCo (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the linked phrase [[Germanic paganism|Historical Germanic religion]] appear immediately below the image in the template (as it is now)? The same issue arises at Template:Slavic Native Faith. –Srnec (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
*Is this assertion that John Paul caused up to 40 million starvation deaths adequately sourced: yes or no? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a Request for Comment over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image shown in this article (File:Jewish_Woman_Praying.jpg), which purports to show "Jewish religious clothing." The arguments of pros and cons have been outlined here and in this article's Talk-Page. This RfC comes in compliance with the request of an administrator, who sees the matter as a "straightforward content dispute."Davidbena (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Should we include references to the book excerpt authored by Deloria for the following passage (reference #3)? I'm not seeing anything on page 126 that supports this assertion in this passage. Note, this book excerpt DOES apply elsewhere in the article and should not be removed in those places; this RfC is solely about this usage. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
i propose all "north germanic" ethnic group articles that begin with the sentence from "x are a north germanic ethnic group native to x" chagned back to "x are a germanic ethnic group native to x" it cannot be discussed on any individual article because editors would suggest it is not consistent to make this change only on one article 83.185.90.106 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
should the intro be "Swedes are a germanic ethnic group" or "swedes are a north germanic ethnic group? North Germanic is primarily a linguistic grouping while Germanic is anthropological 83.185.90.106 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a Request for Comment over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image shown in this article (File:Jewish_Woman_Praying.jpg), which purports to show "Jewish religious clothing." The arguments of pros and cons have been outlined here and in this article's Talk-Page. This RfC comes in compliance with the request of an administrator, who sees the matter as a "straightforward content dispute."Davidbena (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
*Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?
Should the unsourced attributes listed in the key (abs, adv, aer, etc.) be retained?
Music genre infoboxes are currently color-coded based on what overarching genre they are a part of. Some of these color combinations do not meet contrast guidelines set out at MOS:COLOR. A) Should these shades be changed, B) should the colors be left alone, or C) should another system be put in place?Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It turns out that SourceWatch (published by the Center for Media and Democracy, formerly Disinfopedia) is already a thing. Since confusing names are bad (and there's a potential trademark issue here), what should we call this project instead of The Wikipedia SourceWatch? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question (town, county, province), we want to answer:
Should the administrative level descriptor be present?
If so, should it be written in uppercase (Chenjiagang Town) or lowercase (Chenjiagang town)?
Should the comparison table in content ratings articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with 9 colors that has improved accessibility than the previous one? Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Music genre infoboxes are currently color-coded based on what overarching genre they are a part of. Some of these color combinations do not meet contrast guidelines set out at MOS:COLOR. A) Should these shades be changed, B) should the colors be left alone, or C) should another system be put in place?Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been quietly observing this drama filled situation about RexxS, and I think the bigger question is, should crats be treating this as a vote where every vote is treated equally regardless, which in turn creates hard limits and ranges, or is this a discussion where crats weigh the arguments and assess the consensus, resulting in flexible ranges? If it is a vote, should we just switch over to a voting platform like secure poll, or should we keep it as is?—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 16:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
In future, should the discretionary range be understood primarily as A) a unit (bureaucrats should close Requests for Adminship based entirely or almost entirely on the strength of the arguments for supporting and opposing, and the raw percentage of supporters should not be a significant factor), or B) a spectrum (the strength of the arguments does matter, but the default expectation should be that RfAs with support near the upper end of the discretionary range are likely to pass and RfAs near the lower end are likely to fail)? Sideways713 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I was shocked when I found that User:NAMDAR56 (contributions) was able to create a (now deleted) portal a mere 3 days after setting up an account. This seems to me an enormous BLP/Vandalism/sockpuppet/other problems risk. Users should have to be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space. (Previously opened and then closed at WP:AN; pinging @Legacypac:, @GiantSnowman:, @Kusma:, @Thryduulf:, @Robert McClenon:, @173.228.123.166:, @CorbieVreccan:, who !voted over there). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.
I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city.
On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I am including the version submitted by Iridescent as Version 1, and am requesting that the community consider it, and any alternate versions. On each version, please provide your opinions and brief comments on the Survey, and extended discussion is permitted in the Threaded Discussion.
If two or more versions are approved, the closers may determine that one of the versions is encompassed in another as a subset, or may relist this RFC to require a choice between versions.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is currently the longest article we have, and the simplest solution is to split the article alphabetically, unless there is something else to consider. I have tried to do this, but have been reverted by some who are using this article as a directory for automated programs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In order to be consistent with the consensus at Flags of New Caledonia that both flags are displayed side-by-side, should the default setting of this template be the "both" setting? Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 15:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Page movers and administrators have the ability to move pages over redirects. However, they can only perform this operation if the redirect has no other edits to it except its creation. This is with good reason, because it prevents abuse e.g. a page mover or administrator could blank and redirect a really important page and then move another page over it, thus deleting it.
I am proposing a change to how the system works. This is the latest example of many requested moves I have closed, hoping to move over a redirect, only to find that a bot, usually User:RussBot or User:Avicbot, have made one minor edit to it, such as fixing a double redirect. These edits are marked as minor, however, it still means that a round robin move is required, which not only makes the page history look more confusing to the untrained eye, but also uses up more moves than is really necessary. The anti-abuse measure would still work because pages with any history whatsoever could not be blanked and deleted in an abusive way due to the "all minor" restriction.
Therefore, I propose that the MediaWiki move over redirect function be changed to allow users with +extendedmover to move over a redirect only if the redirect, or its talk page, has no edits which are not marked as minor in its page history, apart from its creation.SITH(talk) 11:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, the question is whether the above change regarding the DYK parameters is desirable. Any comments are appreciated. Ergo Sum 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
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:
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.
Queeridescent
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: allowed I suppose we can refrain from chargrilling Blade for the moment... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This user showed up, edited the article on performance artist Chris Burden to include descriptions of 7 of Burden's pieces from the 1970s, and was reverted and blocked. The revert (by @Freshacconci:) was done on the grounds that the edits were unsourced; the block (by @The Blade of the Northern Lights:) on the grounds that the edits were unhelpful and also the username is clearly making fun of @Iridescent:. Firstly, two of the descriptions were based on content in sources that were already cited in the article, while the other five were, though unsourced, factually accurate (well, the user slightly mis-described what happened in "Fire Roll", and conflated "TV Hijack" with "TV Ad", but those are good-faith errors). I've filled in sources.
Secondly, the notion that the name "Queeridescent" can only be intended to insult Iridescent seems completely out of nowhere to me. The word "iridescent" is a perfectly common one, and "Queeridescent" is a fairly obvious portmanteau (several people on Twitter use it; it's the annual drag show at University of Wisconsin–Stout; there was a drag ball in Richmond called "Queeridescence"), and TBotNL's assertion (on the user's talk page) that "but it makes no sense as a portmanteau" itself makes no sense (even if you don't pronounce the first syllable in "iridescent" to rhyme exactly with "Queer", it's still reasonably close). Since the edits were not unhelpful, the only remaining basis for a block is whether the username is a bad one. I feel that I have demonstrated that this is not the case. Thoughts? DS (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I see no indication that the editor was aware of User:Iridescent or trying to make fun of them. That said, even if the name was chosen inadvertently, it may be better to have a username that doesn't sound quite as much as that of another well-established editor. Huon (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Huon's comment regarding evidence. There's no evidence to suggest that this username was an attack against Iridescent. That thought aside, I don't see the username as a violation of Wikipedia's username policy. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm aware of this, I can say more if needed but I figure it's best to get fresh perspectives. Certainly I've been wrong before, and while I've definitely never heard of anything event or organization using that name it's just as likely (if not more so) that I missed it. No comment on the edit, I know nothing about the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Procedural Close -- The user in question is currently indefinitely blocked, unless The Blade of the Northern Lights is willing to unblock for the purpose of discussion. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Allow unless there is any evidence that the user behind the account is intending to troll Iridescent (talk· contribs). Although for us Wikipedia insiders the resemblance to Iridescent's username may seem like an obvious jump, the term "Queeridiscent" has an established existence outside Wikipedia (as any Google search easily demonstrates) and "iridescent" is really just some English-language adjective, not a unique identity... barring any evidence of ill-intent, coincidence in usernames-having-similar-etymology seems to be a far more likely and reasonable conclusion here. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this person has ever heard of me, let alone that their username is intended as an attack on me; given the connection between iridescence and rainbows, the portmanteau is a fairly obvious pun. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Itchyjunk
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: general consensus to allow. While some feel it's not in the best of taste, it sounds like the user has been productive and it's not an overtly offensive name. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This user was initially blocked by L235 for being NOTHERE and their username; the NOTHERE seemed mostly tied to their username. Two admins(me and Anna Frodesiak) said we would not unblock unless they agreed to change their username, which they specifically declined to do. Kevin(L235) removed his block and gave the option of either voluntarily changing their username on the grounds that it would be less burdensome to the community or coming here for a community discussion. Itchyjunk has opted for a discussion. "Junk" is often slang for either genitalia or one's behind; as I told him, I don't feel most people want to know anything about his 'junk' when editing. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Innuendo names are not out of bound, this username is not explicitly inciting offence. It is cartoonish and innapropriate at most, and while you can informally request the user to change it, it is up to them. This is not generally offensive. NK (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Is listing a bunch of accounts that have 0 edits or are blocked supposed to support your case? It doesn't. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you must've really dug deep for some of these, without noticing tha most of them are in fact blocked. Of the two that are not blocked, neither have any edits, one was created about a year and the other a decade ago. I don't know how you even found it to be an example but it isn't proof of anything really. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The user AFAIK has never denied that their name wasn't referencing that. I would frankly block usernames with "Fuck" as it is a vulgarity(aside from the sexual meaning); I believe most of those that you cite are not being "allowed" so much as they haven't yet edited. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia not being censored does not mean that there is not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there are certain standards of decorum, however, WP:CENSOR lays out that some things may be objective or offensive. It's all about perception and how we look and deal with things. We're taking up space here because someone's username contains the word junk in it, and it could refer to genitalia. The username policy essentially states usernames are not permitted if they are ...making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g., by containing profanities or referencing controversies. Are you telling me that we cannot allow this user to have this username because we're not adult enough to get past the word junk? I'm not trying to be rude, abrasive, or inconsiderate here - but I've long believed in the policy of WP:CENSOR and the 5 pillars and think that maybe this is just being a little too picky. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with 331dot. This is not a middle school locker room. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
What is and isn't offensive enough to block is one of the more subjective areas of dealing with usernames, I find this one in poor taste and it would be great if the user just changed it to something less infantile. I feel like if this were "itchywiener" we wouldn't even be discussing it, they'd blocked and that would be that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Allow I feel like "cartoonish" is a good way to put it. I find this username funny and as long as the user isn't editing with it in some way that would otherwise make it offensive (i.e. all penis-related articles in order to make some sort of joke point) I don't have a problem with it. Jessamyn (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Even if t hey edited penis related articles etc that still would not be a reason to block them. Unless they do crappy editing or get into edit wars, the editor can edit whereever they like.Resnjari (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I just meant if they were using the sound of their username combined with the flavor of their edits to make some sort of meta-point, that would be less cool and more stuntish. Jessamyn (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Allow - There's a difference between cartoonishly crude and offensive. While of course the ideal outcome is for the user to choose to change it to something a bit more... "serious", I can't resolve to find "ItchyJunk" offensive enough to block on that basis alone. User:Lowblow, User:BigBum, User:HairyJewels or User:DroopingSack would be be a bit crude but not against policy. User:HardDick, User:Cumonyourtits, User:Lickmyasshole or User:FingerbangingYourStepmother are offensive and blockable. Yeah, it's a bit subjective and culturally-dependent I guess, but I think, in the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, we must lean decisions more towards leniency for inoffensive crudeness and less towards an excess of prudishness. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 19:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: As noted below, this is not a NOTCENSORED issue as we are not talking about page content. It also does not mean that there are not certain standards of decorum in this public forum. If I were at work talking about my itchy private parts to co workers, even using euphemisms, I would be disciplined and potentially fired/sacked. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I know NOTCENSORED is a content policy, which is why I didn't invoke it as directly applicable, but the spirit of our core content policies can still be useful to inform our decisions regarding more backstore stuff like usernames. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Allow - its funny and probably a joke by the editor, but its not offensive. If the editor has used direct slurs and inappropriate words (like Fuck etc) in their username, or had their username been "itchydick", "itchycock", "itchypussy", "itchyvag" or something like that then it would not be ok. Plus guys what happens when someone has a username with the word "dick" in it? It can be innocent as Dick is a name or nickname or it can be crude if there are other words side by side it and referring to genitalia. So it depends on the context. Such are the peculiarities of English.Resnjari (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Allow Meh, why not. It'd be nice if they change their username, but it seems as though they use it in a few areas (it's been registered on Freenode for two years). Further, I don't understand the NOTHERE block; their edits have been constructive. It should have been a simple username block, if anything. Vermont (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Disallow Using crude language on Wikipedia, even regularly, is not a problem as long as it is done in a civil manner; the idea is that editors who object to that sort of language can simply not use it. The problem I have here is that usernames must be used by other users, including potential profanity-objectors (if you need to ping etc.). That is the difference between writing letters to a nun with a penis-shaped pen, to which they can answer with a regular pen, and forcing her to write letters with said pen.
Also, there is little doubt about the meaning of the username. I find it just as vulgar as derivatives proposed above as instant-blocks (ItchyPussy, HardDick, etc.).
FTR, I think profanity objectors are a bunch of fly-fucking wimps. But they exist and should benefit from modest accomodations. Also, I do not see how WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant here (we are not talking about page content). And of course that should have been a username block. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If this username is permitted, I would at least like the user to be strongly advised to change it. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe this discussion in and of itself constitutes a strong advisory. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
My preference would be an explicit advisory. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, my input has been requested here. I have been following this talk but have refrained from saying anything here as I've made my point in my talk page already and did not want to repeat it here. My nick was not picked to insult anyone else. A joke at my own expense might be self deprecating but should not be considered malicious. I have made no bad edits on purpose and I have always double checked with #wikipedia-en on freenode about my edits outside of my talk/user pages. The advice I always get is to be bold with my edits yet I have been timid about it. Since different people get offended by different things at different degrees, I think it's more productive to pass judgement based on contributions rather than judging the book by it's cover. I might not be that good of an editor and me being banned might not mean much, but I hope other good editors in future with questionable nick's get judged for their contributions and not the offense taken. Itchyjunk (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for posting here, your input is appreciated. As you've discovered, Wikipedia has tighter rules than many other websites for what can and cannot be in a username. The username policy has evolved over time in response to various types of objectionable usernames that have been used in the past. It is very often the case that any person who make any sort of reference to genitalia in their username is up to no good, and that is probably why an admin kind of jumped the gun and blocked you. I think at this point it looks like consensus is leaning towards allowing your name, but you should be aware that it comes across as a rather infantile "gross out" username and as a result it may effect how other users interact with you. In short, we'd all be happier, and you probably would too, if you just changed it, but if you insist on keeping it then so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.