The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)Contents
- 1 Biographies
- 2 Economy, trade, and companies
- 3 History and geography
- 4 Language and linguistics
- 5 Maths, science, and technology
- 6 Art, architecture, literature, and media
- 7 Politics, government, and law
- 8 Religion and philosophy
- 9 Society, sports, and culture
- 10 Wikipedia style and naming
- 11 Wikipedia policies and guidelines
- 12 WikiProjects and collaborations
- 13 Wikipedia technical issues and templates
- 14 Wikipedia proposals
- 15 Unsorted
- 16 User names
Biographies
RfC: Which version of this article better serves the public, the subject and Wikipedia?
There have been major revisions to this entire article in the past week. The current version is completely different than everything before it. There were multiple arguments in the talk page, the editors are too close to the product. It may be helpful to have the community weigh in to decide which product is better serving. There are three major versions: Before the edit battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=922359595 Diff 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930248600 Current: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930434324 Everettstern (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
Which of the two versions of a paragraph in the lead section is more suitable for the article?
A. Chalamet's breakthrough came for his lead role as Elio Perlman in Luca Guadagnino's romantic drama Call Me by Your Name (2017). It earned him a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor, making him the third-youngest nominee in the category. He portrayed a drug-addicted teenager in the drama Beautiful Boy (2018), earning a nomination for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, King Henry V in the period drama The King (2019), and collaborated with Greta Gerwig in the coming-of-age films Lady Bird (2017) and Little Women (2019). B. In 2017, Chalamet gained wider recognition for his portrayal of Elio Perlman in Luca Guadagnino's romantic drama Call Me by Your Name, after which he appeared in the coming-of-age films Hot Summer Nights and Lady Bird as well as the western Hostiles. His performance in Call Me by Your Name earned him an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, making him the third-youngest nominee in the category. He then portrayed a drug-addicted teenager in the drama Beautiful Boy (2018), for which he was nominated for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. In 2019, Chalamet starred as King Henry V and Theodore "Laurie" Laurence in the period dramas The King and Little Women, respectively. Please enter your votes under Survey and conduct any discussions under Comments. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 01:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960)
Do two opinion columns in minor publications in response to a BLP subject's tweets constitute an event worthy of inclusion in a BLP article? Should the content added in this DIFF be included in the biography of James Martin (priest, born 1960)? --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
This RfC is about the inclusion of the phrase "local independent record label", releasing Aphex Twin's first record, in the lead. It follows a sentence about the artist starting to perform as a DJ in the area in which they grew up. As most featured/good articles about musicians or bands include in the lead salient summary details of how an artist went from unknown to becoming a notable musician (e.g. 1, 2, 3), this aspect of how the artist achieved that is relevant, but other editor feels it is important not to include it in the lead for space reasons.
In the lead section, per WP:MOSLEAD, part of the aim is to "cultivate interest in reading on", and expanding this section slightly from merely a list of the records and various aliases that the artist has used serves that end. More detail about the launching of the artist's career is given in the body. A version was arrived at after editing by Acousmana, with the word "local" added to give narrative continuity from the preceding sentence here, but editor GentleCollapse6 feels it is important that a reference to his widening DJ career, and specifically any reference to the label which began his career and its place in the local techno community, be removed completely. This RfC seeks comments on ways to resolve these conflicting views. Cambial Yellowing❧ 04:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
This discussion, as you can see from above, does not appear to be going anywhere, and I think we need some more voices in here. Copied from above (as yet no other options offered, but please add if you have one). As far as I can see, our options here are:
And/or
Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should the section “Sexual Harassment Allegation” be removed from the article Tristan Pollock because it is an unsubstantiated criminal accusation about a not WP:WELLKNOWN person? Tristanpollock (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [1] which read:
As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?
|
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
What should be the scope of this article? This article has long suffered from WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV, and WP:BLP issues. Although most of the article is stable, the subsections on the current president and to a lesser extent the previous president are targets of nearly all edits. The vast majority of these edits are reverted as they are based on what one commentator or comedian called a president and are unlikely to stand the test of time. Should we change the scope of the article as follows:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
In the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, there is a dispute over a recent edit. There are two main aspects to the edit: the amount of material cited to newspaper and internet sources was reduced in proportion to the amount of material cited to academic sources, and some of the material in the article was moved to subarticles (reducing readable prose size from 95kb to 75kb) pursuant to Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. One user prefers that the edit stand, and the other seeks to revert it in its entirety. Orser67 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
In the Max Blumenthal article, this text has been proposed to replace the Venezuela section:
References
What should be done? |
:What date of birth should the article use if any? At present Wikipedia is saying 1904 with a note (see [Note1 1] for sources and note on 1904). However many many publications cite 1906 as listed below. Question is what date has more credibility and does our note represent the proper weight according to conflicting publications.--Moxy 🍁 00:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this template contain a link to the adult film Who's Nailin' Paylin?? 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this article be in the "Journalism scandals" category? Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Per the above discussion, should the template be modified to accommodate collapsible offices to alleviate excessively long infoboxes? Ergo Sum 01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Jennifer Aniston performances
Do we really need a table for the commercial's she's been in? Seems a little unnecessary - she's not known for her commercials, she's known for her movie and television work. I would like to remove. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)
Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, label Miller a white nationalist? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should the label "Criminal charge" be changed to "Criminal charge(s)" (or "Criminal charges") and should the parameter |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
At issue: inclusion of Attkisson's self-sourced repudiations of criticism of anti-vaccinationist themes in her reporting. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Given that this article "survived" AfD as "no consensus," is it appropriate to leave the notability tag on it? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
Should the maintenance template be removed from the article based on recent edits and clean up? Justin Goldsborough (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
How should this article, particularly the lede sentence and the "Type" parameter of the infobox, describe the tax exemption status of this organization? ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.
|
A discussion that has been taking place for quite some time, and that had been nearly settled - originally on the "right-libertarian" talk page, and now on this discussion site - has stalled due to two editors (one of which was recently banned from editing - no doubt for similar conduct). It involves the confusing use of the term "right-libertarian" to describe an ideology that is admittedly not identified with the political right. Self-described "left-libertarians" have a nuanced definition of "capitalism" that distinguishes it from the "free-market" with which the group in question identifies. The "right-libertarian" page was to be renamed with a term that is more understandable, and this page was to incorporate a clarification of the usage of the term.
JLMadrigal @ 20:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
The source cited is a The Verge article authored by Adrianne Jeffries.[1] The alternative formulations are:
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
History and geography
This is a two-part RfC convened as the result of this discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The RfC concerns the addition of claims regarding various source's views on the location of White Croatia. The first issue concerns the addition of claims attributed to 19th century sources, and the second issue concerns the interpretation of the source Živkovic (2012). A third dispute identified at DRN is contingent on the outcome of the Živkovic dispute, and thus there may be a need for a further RfC once this one is closed. signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should we include a brief summary/a summary of the pre-Seljuk Turkic tribes and dynasties and the formation of pre-Seljuk Turkic states in the article about the crusades? Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
I have been involved in an edit war with @Doc James: over the question of whether alcoholism should be included as a complication of alcohol intoxication. My position is that our own article on Alcoholism provides sufficient language to justify the notion that alcohol intoxication leads to alcoholism: subsection Alcoholism#Warning_signs states that "warning signs of alcoholism include... frequent intoxication," and subsection Alcoholism#Definition states that "the drinking will increase as more intoxication is required." The other editor insists that listing alcoholism as a risk factor is sufficient, despite the fact that language published by Wikipedia makes clear that additional alcohol intoxication is just as much of a complication—in other words, my position is that alcohol intoxication is BOTH a risk factor for, AND complication of, alcoholism. I'm saying that we should, at the least, classify it as both. Rowsdower45 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong
Thus, for the sake of Rfc, which more easily to handle multiple choice question. Should geo articles of Hong Kong have a "main" article (i.e. put all Education topic to Tai Po District, instead of copy the content partially to each concentric circles, i.e., if the school is located in the New Town in Tai Po Market, wrote the same content again and again at articles Tai Po Market and Tai Po New Town and Tai Po or not? Multiple hatnote on Tai Po District to ask people to navigate to the sections that spread in several neighbourhoods article?)? -- Matthew hk (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
The purpose of this RFC is to decide whether to replace the existing article Donji Kraji in its entirety. Please review the two versions of the article:
A. This is the version that is protected until December 14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donji_Kraji&oldid=928638356 B. This is the version that I have moved to user space from the sandbox of Ceha: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ceha/Donji_Kraji&oldid=929430815 Which version should be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
What should be the scope of this article? This article has long suffered from WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV, and WP:BLP issues. Although most of the article is stable, the subsections on the current president and to a lesser extent the previous president are targets of nearly all edits. The vast majority of these edits are reverted as they are based on what one commentator or comedian called a president and are unlikely to stand the test of time. Should we change the scope of the article as follows:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
In the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, there is a dispute over a recent edit. There are two main aspects to the edit: the amount of material cited to newspaper and internet sources was reduced in proportion to the amount of material cited to academic sources, and some of the material in the article was moved to subarticles (reducing readable prose size from 95kb to 75kb) pursuant to Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. One user prefers that the edit stand, and the other seeks to revert it in its entirety. Orser67 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of states and territories of the United States
In the article List of states and territories of the United States, there is a dispute about which map should be used in the article. One map features only the 50 states and District of Columbia (with Alaska and Hawaii in insets), while the other map features the 50 states, District of Columbia, and 5 major U.S. territories in insets. There is also a dispute about whether to include a map of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S. within the "Territories" section, alongside (or replacing) the world map currently in that section. Also, there is a dispute about whether to include a short section describing Native American reservations (which in some cases are considered first-order administrative divisions like the states and territories). 15:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this detail: [2] on Dennis Fuji be retained? Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should the pushpin map in the Infobox be retained? Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this article be in the "Journalism scandals" category? Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:
|
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
Source statement in this part of the article [7]: "After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who supported Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse."
Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 Article states: "After the war, in 1920-1921, approximately 100,000 Ukrainians, and Jews as well as people of other ethnicity who had supported Ukrainian independence, were placed in concentration camps by the Polish government, where they were often denied food and medicine; some of them died from starvation, disease or suicide." One editor keeps removing the words "concentration camp" and references to Jews as being among the victims. 1. Is this an accurate statement based on the source? 2. Should it be changed to remove reference to Jews and to remove the words "concentration camp."Faustian (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area
Should Palestine be numbered? Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
Article section:[8].
Here is the statement being removed [9]: "In a memorandum to the allies during the Paris Peace Conference, an official note written by Volodymyr Temnytsky, foreign minister of the Ukrainian National Republic, and Joseph Burachynsky, justice minister included a partial list of crimes allegedly committed by Poles. These alleged crimes included: that in the village of Yesupol near Halych sixteen Ukrainian peasants were hanged without a trial by Polish forces; that the peasant Jasko Bondar's eyes were gouged out by Polish soldiers because he refused to give them his last cow; that in Labye a widow and mother of seven children was hanged because a rifle had been found next to her house; that a twelve year old girl was raped by numerous Polish soldiers; and that near Sudova Vyshnia seven villages were burned down and their inhabitants killed. Link to original source: [10]. Reference: Polish Atrocities in Ukrainian Galicia: A Telegraphic Note to M. Georges Clemenceau. New York: The Ukrainian National Committee of the United States Year, 1919. Written by [[Volodymyr Temnytsky]], foreign minister, Ukrainian Republic, and Joseph Burachinsky, minister of justice of the Western territory of the Ukrainian Republic." The editor who insists on removing this information states that he does so because it is a primary source. Is this report considered to be a primary source? And even if so, does it have to be excluded from the article, or is notable enough to warrant inclusion into the article section?Faustian (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:
|
Should this article reflect version A[15], version B[16], version C[17], or version E[18]? 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
Should the maintenance template be removed from the article based on recent edits and clean up? Justin Goldsborough (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Concealed carry in the United States
Which version of the bolded text should be in the lead: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
This RfS primarily concerns terms and definitions of Unicode standard. Which version of definitions of «codespace» and «code point» you like the most?:
Please, take a note that counting starts from zero and revisions are listed in chronological order. The discussion may be found here: #Definitions 2. Any of three versions going to have at least 3 sources. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Can belgian-wings.be can be considered as reliable source for belgian-related aviation to be used in article of Belgian Air Component, or just a self-published website? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
The issue at hand is whether the article should be about the three specific platforms built for the Apollo program and later used for Shuttle, the specific implementation of the "Integrate-Transfer-Launch" concept in the MLs and MLPs of LC-39, or the general concept of a "mobile launcher" or "mobile launch platform" as used by some vertically-integrated rockets. - Jadebenn (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
The source cited is a The Verge article authored by Adrianne Jeffries.[1] The alternative formulations are:
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
At issue: inclusion of Attkisson's self-sourced repudiations of criticism of anti-vaccinationist themes in her reporting. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone began as the Grayzone Project of Alternet (see WP:RSP).
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive.
Thanks again.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Which of the two versions of a paragraph in the lead section is more suitable for the article?
A. Chalamet's breakthrough came for his lead role as Elio Perlman in Luca Guadagnino's romantic drama Call Me by Your Name (2017). It earned him a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor, making him the third-youngest nominee in the category. He portrayed a drug-addicted teenager in the drama Beautiful Boy (2018), earning a nomination for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, King Henry V in the period drama The King (2019), and collaborated with Greta Gerwig in the coming-of-age films Lady Bird (2017) and Little Women (2019). B. In 2017, Chalamet gained wider recognition for his portrayal of Elio Perlman in Luca Guadagnino's romantic drama Call Me by Your Name, after which he appeared in the coming-of-age films Hot Summer Nights and Lady Bird as well as the western Hostiles. His performance in Call Me by Your Name earned him an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, making him the third-youngest nominee in the category. He then portrayed a drug-addicted teenager in the drama Beautiful Boy (2018), for which he was nominated for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. In 2019, Chalamet starred as King Henry V and Theodore "Laurie" Laurence in the period dramas The King and Little Women, respectively. Please enter your votes under Survey and conduct any discussions under Comments. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 01:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
This RfC is about the inclusion of the phrase "local independent record label", releasing Aphex Twin's first record, in the lead. It follows a sentence about the artist starting to perform as a DJ in the area in which they grew up. As most featured/good articles about musicians or bands include in the lead salient summary details of how an artist went from unknown to becoming a notable musician (e.g. 1, 2, 3), this aspect of how the artist achieved that is relevant, but other editor feels it is important not to include it in the lead for space reasons.
In the lead section, per WP:MOSLEAD, part of the aim is to "cultivate interest in reading on", and expanding this section slightly from merely a list of the records and various aliases that the artist has used serves that end. More detail about the launching of the artist's career is given in the body. A version was arrived at after editing by Acousmana, with the word "local" added to give narrative continuity from the preceding sentence here, but editor GentleCollapse6 feels it is important that a reference to his widening DJ career, and specifically any reference to the label which began his career and its place in the local techno community, be removed completely. This RfC seeks comments on ways to resolve these conflicting views. Cambial Yellowing❧ 04:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
This content was removed by SolarFlash on the grounds that the source verifying the content is "in dispute" (although the only evidence of dispute is SolarFlash's undoing of the addition), and that one should "obtain consensus before adding any additional genres", even though SolarFlash had removed a genre themselves without obtaining consensus. So, as I am left to interpret their remarks as expressing a desire or demand for consensus if changes are to be made against their preferred revision of the genre content, I have listed this RfC. Given the fact that there are reliable third-party sources in both the lead and in the body of the article verifying journalists who've claimed this album is of those two certain genres, should this content be removed, as SolarFlash attempted in their edit? isento (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea
Should a section listing concerts/tours be included in articles about notable Korean musicians?
(NOTE: This only refers to major performances where the musician is the headline act, not where they just perform a few songs along with many other musicians.) Hyuny Bunny (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Writers Guild of America Awards
What should the standard color and layout for pages about the WGA Awards be? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I recently found the Sixth Tone, which is owned by a mainland Chinese media company. Although Chinese media is sources which should be with catious when it comes to political issues in China, should we include the Sixth Tone as a realiable source to discuss Chinese society and culture (especially when there is no other source to fully describe a non-controversial Chinese events such as introducing a Internet personality and Chinese government-accused controversy on Chinese Internet service, since state-run media and popular western media)? Mariogoods (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency the best as a reference?
|
The 1982 album Coda |
On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [19] which read:
As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?
|
Talk:Top Gear (1977 TV series)
The article in question has a large number of television presenters listed within the Infobox under the section "Presented By". While there is certainly relevance to listing them, should the list be amended to highlight the more prominent presenters who worked on the programme, such as those who worked the longest on it, and those who presented it when it first premiered? GUtt01 (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
See https://www.cnsnews.com ![]() ![]() Which of the following best describes the reliability of CNSNews.com?
-TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series)
Season articles for this programme at present contain a selection of information pertaining to each series of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series), but what information should be in it and the general style/presentation is now a major question. There are three areas with problems - the result and elimination tables; information on challenges; and lack of episode listing. Questions regarding each are listed below. Please respond to each with either a Yes or No, followed by reason for answer. GUtt01 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
In the Max Blumenthal article, this text has been proposed to replace the Venezuela section:
References
What should be done? |
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
In response to recent edit warring by StatsFreak at several articles, in which the editor disputes the presence of the Everything Is Love album in the chronology and discography, I am posting this to determine a consensus that will affect all affected articles, including the discography articles and album articles for each artist -- Beyoncé and Jay-Z, who were officially credited as the duo The Carters for Everything Is Love (but also credited as "Jay Z and Beyoncé" on the physical edition packaging). isento (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Jennifer Aniston performances
Do we really need a table for the commercial's she's been in? Seems a little unnecessary - she's not known for her commercials, she's known for her movie and television work. I would like to remove. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should crossover titles use italics or "quotes"? 12:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory
There is currently a dispute over whether facts about demographic change in majority white countries, such as the fact that the United States is projected to be minority white by 2045, should be included on this page. There are several sources relating to the topic that mention demographic change as a major part of the belief. The words "demographic", "demographics", and "demographic change" appear ten separate times in this article in direct relation to the idea of white genocide. However, no details on these demographics or demographic change are given whatsoever. Should this article include any details about demographic changes in majority white countries? |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
Which of the following formats should Taiwan election articles follow? Ythlev (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
There has been a recent discussion and small edit war ongoing on this page about whether or not to include any material related to to the 2019 Jersey City shooting on this page. It appears that at least one of the suspects in the shooting was a member of the movement, and expressed his ideological attachment to it on social media. Should this article include any mention of the Jersey City shooting, which may have a connection to this religious movement?
Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone began as the Grayzone Project of Alternet (see WP:RSP).
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive.
Thanks again.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Concealed carry in the United States
Which version of the bolded text should be in the lead: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong
Thus, for the sake of Rfc, which more easily to handle multiple choice question. Should geo articles of Hong Kong have a "main" article (i.e. put all Education topic to Tai Po District, instead of copy the content partially to each concentric circles, i.e., if the school is located in the New Town in Tai Po Market, wrote the same content again and again at articles Tai Po Market and Tai Po New Town and Tai Po or not? Multiple hatnote on Tai Po District to ask people to navigate to the sections that spread in several neighbourhoods article?)? -- Matthew hk (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections
There has been an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of each House race and associated details at 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, as well as other articles. Some editors have raised concerns regarding the size of the article, but others have argued that cutting down the information in the article is not justified. Here are some of the options that have been discussed:
|
Should the lede of the page Trump-Ukraine scandal, which deals with whether Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky, include Zelensky's position on the matter? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?
Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.
|
Should the section “Sexual Harassment Allegation” be removed from the article Tristan Pollock because it is an unsubstantiated criminal accusation about a not WP:WELLKNOWN person? Tristanpollock (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency the best as a reference?
|
I believe this book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt is given undue weight. I believe it is worth mentioning, but not citing throughout (especially not in the lede) nor dedicating a full paragraph to promoting the views of the authors - there's already an article on the book. The book has a clear and strident bias, it is an ideologically driven work written from libertarian stance. Authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt are well known libertarian culture wars pundits, shouldn't we be looking to more neutral sources? |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Can belgian-wings.be can be considered as reliable source for belgian-related aviation to be used in article of Belgian Air Component, or just a self-published website? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders
This article exhibits clear bias on the part of supporters of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by the talk page and the content of the article itself. The main article for Bernie Sanders already contains a section dedicated to how he / his campaigns have been covered by news outlets. This page has no reason to exist other than to satisfy the agenda of Sanders supporters.
Bernie Sanders receives a good deal of news coverage, and the coverage he gets tends to be somewhat positive. His supporters have created this article to abuse the clout of Wikipedia and justify their narrative that Sanders's current standing in the polls is due to outside forces rather than simply having less support than his opponents. The existence of a separate article also allows them to avoid the higher scrutiny they would face when editing the main article for Bernie Sanders. In addition, this seems to be the only page on the entirety of Wikipedia dedicated to the media bias against a single person. It is for these reasons that I believe this page should either be removed entirely, rolled into an existing section of the main Bernie Sanders article, or added as a new section of the main Bernie Sanders article. At the very least this article should be held to the same standard as any other political article, as political subjects are very easily affected by bias. I apologize for any misuse of the Wikipedia editing process. I don't have any experience with this community, but had to speak out against what I feel is a clear abuse of the platform. Ellie.Michaels (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
What should be the scope of this article? This article has long suffered from WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV, and WP:BLP issues. Although most of the article is stable, the subsections on the current president and to a lesser extent the previous president are targets of nearly all edits. The vast majority of these edits are reverted as they are based on what one commentator or comedian called a president and are unlikely to stand the test of time. Should we change the scope of the article as follows:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
See https://www.cnsnews.com ![]() ![]() Which of the following best describes the reliability of CNSNews.com?
-TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
In the Dwight D. Eisenhower article, there is a dispute over a recent edit. There are two main aspects to the edit: the amount of material cited to newspaper and internet sources was reduced in proportion to the amount of material cited to academic sources, and some of the material in the article was moved to subarticles (reducing readable prose size from 95kb to 75kb) pursuant to Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. One user prefers that the edit stand, and the other seeks to revert it in its entirety. Orser67 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of states and territories of the United States
In the article List of states and territories of the United States, there is a dispute about which map should be used in the article. One map features only the 50 states and District of Columbia (with Alaska and Hawaii in insets), while the other map features the 50 states, District of Columbia, and 5 major U.S. territories in insets. There is also a dispute about whether to include a map of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S. within the "Territories" section, alongside (or replacing) the world map currently in that section. Also, there is a dispute about whether to include a short section describing Native American reservations (which in some cases are considered first-order administrative divisions like the states and territories). 15:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should As'ad AbuKhalil writings about Eli Cohen be included in the article, or not? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
In the Max Blumenthal article, this text has been proposed to replace the Venezuela section:
References
What should be done? |
Talk:2019 Romanian presidential election
Should more pictures about Elections added in the article?Krishna's flute (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this article be in the "Journalism scandals" category? Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Per the above discussion, should the template be modified to accommodate collapsible offices to alleviate excessively long infoboxes? Ergo Sum 01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC) |
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)
Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, label Miller a white nationalist? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area
Should Palestine be numbered? Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Given that this article "survived" AfD as "no consensus," is it appropriate to leave the notability tag on it? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members
Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960)
Do two opinion columns in minor publications in response to a BLP subject's tweets constitute an event worthy of inclusion in a BLP article? Should the content added in this DIFF be included in the biography of James Martin (priest, born 1960)? --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should the article mention that the Knights' lobbying for the phrase "Under God" to be inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance was successful, or not? Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should the article use the term "evangelization" (1) or "evangelism" (2) to refer to the KofC's participation with the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Gospel? Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC) |
Sorry, I seem to be one of very few who chime in to this article. Regrettably, I can't take that role alone. I need help to try to maintain neutrality around here. PPEMES (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should criticism of this sect by Dayananda Saraswati, which he wrote in Satyarth Prakash, be included? --Krishna's flute (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
Talk:Writers Guild of America Awards
What should the standard color and layout for pages about the WGA Awards be? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should the section “Sexual Harassment Allegation” be removed from the article Tristan Pollock because it is an unsubstantiated criminal accusation about a not WP:WELLKNOWN person? Tristanpollock (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
On October 26 Ericacbarnett blanked a section of this article [20] which read:
As of this datestamp, the lines in question are not part of the article. Should these lines be restored or omitted?
|
The source cited is a The Verge article authored by Adrianne Jeffries.[3] The alternative formulations are:
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Sports in the United States
This section would more accurately be titled "baseball vs. football vs. basketball". In this article, it is said that 11% of Americans prefer basketball as their favorite sport, versus 9% who prefer baseball or softball. And in the same table, it is said that 30 million Americans (~10% of the country's population) are basketball players, surpassing the figure for baseball/softball (29 million) and football (9 million).
In the article it is said that "Certain teams of both sports...have cultivated famously loyal fan bases across the country." The same can be said of basketball teams: the Lakers, Clippers, Warriors and others. This section gives the impression of America as a two-sport nation, when it is really more of a three-sport nation. At the college level, football and (men's) basketball are by far the most popular sports. In addition, this entire section is based off a post on WrestleZone Forums, which isn't exactly a reliable source for this sort of information (especially since it has nothing to do with wrestling). It is a forum, written by random people. The only other sources are a couple articles about the NFL's concussion problem and the "best fanbases" in the NFL. No reliable sources relating to baseball.Sanjay7373 (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Islanders–Rangers rivalry
Finally, my questions:
Yes, as detailed above, head-to-head records are tricky when it comes to the NHL. Yes, as detailed above, they’re made harder by editors purposely pushing a misrepresentation of facts. Again, purposely. That said, should the Islanders-Rangers rivalry record be a singular "W-L-T" format as seen in most other Wikipedia head-to-head rivalry records? Should two separate “W-L-T-OTL” records (one for the Rangers and one for the Islanders) be listed instead? Or should we just stick with the "W-L-T-OT/SO-L but only for the Rangers and not for the Islanders” disingenuous format being advanced by both Sabbatino and GoodDay? PrideMatters (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:
|
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the ‘proposed content’ in the sections directly above replace the NAMBLA-related content in the Harry Hay article; and by WP:Lead, and WP:Undue should there be *any* mention in the lead. If so, what would satisfy NPOV, and WP:Lead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
At issue: inclusion of Attkisson's self-sourced repudiations of criticism of anti-vaccinationist themes in her reporting. Guy (help!) 09:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should this article reflect version A[25], version B[26], version C[27], or version E[28]? 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television
With regards to this section of MOS:TVIMAGE:
I propose to replace it with:
My reasons for the proposal are thus:
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:
|
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks
Currently, administrators are only technically able to prevent users from editing the entire site via a block. In 2018 and early 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team worked on implementing partial blocks. Rather than the entire site, this functionality would allow administrators to prevent a user from:
As of December 2019, this functionality has been deployed on most large- and medium-size wikis—specifically the Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Telugu Wikipedias, as well as on Meta Wiki, MediaWiki, and all Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource wikis. There are plans to deploy the functionality to more projects in the future as well. More information on partial blocks can be read at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Partial blocks. An example of a partial blocks policy modeled off of other wikis can be found at Meta:Partial block model policy. The purpose of this request for comment is to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. 05:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Background: In February 2007, before we had our 200-character limit, ‘shorter hooks are preferred' was added to WP:DYKHOOK
In December of 2007, length restrictions were codified to a 200 character max. In current practice, within our 200-character limit, we don't seem to actually favor shorter hooks over longer hooks. We tend to prefer good hooks, which sometimes translates to shorter and sometimes requires longer. For the sake of main page balance, we need a variety of hook lengths. However, we had a recent argument about a problematic short hook being replaced with a longer, better hook in which the main reason for keeping the shorter hook was our ‘short hooks are preferred’ policy. My feeling at the time was that 13-year-old policy stating a preference for short hooks was probably obsoleted 12 years ago when we adopted a length restriction, and that in current practice, a 197-character hook that is good is preferred over a 100-character hook that is not as good. I made a change, but it was reverted, so I asked this question a couple of weeks ago but didn’t get much response, so I made a change, and Yoninah thinks we probably need an RfC. --valereee (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
WP:CANVASS should list some notifications as best practice to send, as well as its current 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider audience...' for the appropriate notifications it lists. Dmcq (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
A question has come to the fore as to whether Wikipedia policy permits us to add a broad definition of "Textus Receptus" to the lede paragraph, a phrase defined in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary as: "a text of a work that is generally accepted as being genuine or original [1855-60]." Some editors here have felt that since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a broad definition of the term cannot be used, particularly since the article treats of ancient Greek Christian texts. The problem, however, is that other articles also make use of this term when referring to ancient Hebrew texts (e.g. Mikraot Gedolot, Masoretic Text, Damascus Pentateuch, and Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll). As can be seen, the term "textus receptus" is used for ancient Hebrew manuscripts as well. What's more, they all link to the article "Textus Receptus"! Since the term is broadly used, should it be restricted only to Greek Christian texts? If we should give its broader definition in the lede, would it take away from the general scope of this article?Davidbena (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Per the above discussion, should the template be modified to accommodate collapsible offices to alleviate excessively long infoboxes? Ergo Sum 01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC) |
Should the label "Criminal charge" be changed to "Criminal charge(s)" (or "Criminal charges") and should the parameter |
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks
Currently, administrators are only technically able to prevent users from editing the entire site via a block. In 2018 and early 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team worked on implementing partial blocks. Rather than the entire site, this functionality would allow administrators to prevent a user from:
As of December 2019, this functionality has been deployed on most large- and medium-size wikis—specifically the Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Telugu Wikipedias, as well as on Meta Wiki, MediaWiki, and all Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, and Wikisource wikis. There are plans to deploy the functionality to more projects in the future as well. More information on partial blocks can be read at Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Partial blocks. An example of a partial blocks policy modeled off of other wikis can be found at Meta:Partial block model policy. The purpose of this request for comment is to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. 05:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
See https://www.cnsnews.com ![]() ![]() Which of the following best describes the reliability of CNSNews.com?
-TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
Per the discussion found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Sandra Lerner (Q7549), there seems to rough consensus to prevent "Wikidata-style" titles from being created, specifically in makeshift disambiguators in titles. I have an idea of how to accomplish that in this blacklist, but fear there may be a few false positives that appear every so often. Here is my idea:
|
Unsorted
User names
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Staff 5-24-16
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Stranger2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Jeffries, Adrianne (12 April 2018). "THE ONE TRUE BITCOIN - Inside the struggle between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash". The Verge. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note1>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note1}}
template (see the help page).