The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)
Biographies
What should the lead paragraph look like? Should it be one sentence long, as it currently stands. Or, should it be about 3 to 4 sentences long (e.g., as in this version)?
This topic comes up frequently on this talk page, and was recently discussed here, and here. The relevant guidelines are MOS:OPENPARABIO and MOS:BEGIN. |
Is Ulukaya's lede sentence fine, or should it be changed? Currently the lede sentence describes him as a "Turkish businessman, activist, and philanthropist based in the United States", and the second lede section paragraph mentions his Kurdish ethnic background.
Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should information on Rich's rape trial be included in this article? My reasons for creating this Rfc are explained in the "Notable Incidents" section. Chagcharan (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should "purportedly" be included before "racist and misogynist" in the sentence "In May 2020, several purportedly racist and misogynist Twitter posts"?--Jorm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Apologies in advance. I would like some users to look at my discussion above. I wish to make a myriad of stylistic edits to improve the article.
|
Should the lead mention that Romney voted twice to convict Trump in his Senate impeachment trial (becoming the first Senator to convict a president of their own party)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
The post-closure info (i.e. Elystan Street) about Aikens's eponymous restaurant was removed twice as "irrelevant" (version 1, version 2). Shall the post-closure be mentioned again? If neither version, yet you favour reinsertion, how else can the post-closure info be (re)written? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC) |
The below information about the stolen spoon incident in 2004 was removed as "irrelevant".
References
Shall the "spoon" incident be mentioned in the article again? If so, shall the above passage be used? If not, how else can info about the incident be written? George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead of this article identify Tarrio as a businessman and/or activist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
There is a dispute concerning the lead sentence. Should Briones be described as an actor or an actress, and should she also be described as a singer?
i.e. Should the lead sentence state that "Isabella Camille "Isa" Briones (/ˈiːsə briːˈoʊnɛs/;[2] born January 17, 1999) is":
The relevant policies are WP:BLPLEAD, which states "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources"; and MOS:ROLEBIO which states:
|
Should he be referred to as American or American-Canadian in the lead? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should a reference to the Woody Allen sexual assault allegation be included in the lead section? A discussion on inclusion in the lead was commenced a year ago without result, and I think community input is desirable. Please note that the current version of the article does not contain a reference to the abuse allegation anywhere in the lead section. There was an RfC in 2018 on inclusion in the lead paragraph not the lead section, with a consensus finding it should not be included in the first paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Does this sentence violate any of these -- WP:MOSBio ,WP: RECENTISM , WP:LEAD , WP: Summary -- and therefore should it be removed from the lead: "Seven years later, the documentary Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child sexual abuse, led to another media backlash against Jackson" |
Should the COVID-19 section of the body include content on (1) DeSantis organizing and attending rallies with maskless attendees and interacting with the attendees (e.g. high-fiving them), (2) the controversy over Rebekah Jones (who has been in a dispute with the DeSantis administration over COVID-19 data), and (3) DeSantis threatening to withhold vaccines from counties that criticize the distribution? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?
The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[3]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
Currently, the lead says nothing about his career as a commentator (even though he has been one for the last 25 years). Can the lead include the following two paragraphs on his career as a commentator?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?
The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[4]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
History and geography
RfC not yet closed. Boud (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
From the earlier Talk:Goths#RfC and and Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus posted above, it is obvious that there is a clear consensus among editors that the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are too long and complicated, too reliant and focused on Jordanes and his Getica, and that they should be give more emphasis on the analysis of archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence by modern scholars. Much of these sections are my work. I have sought to address the concerns of the community through a proposal. Can this proposal[5], in which the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are simplified and merged into a single Origins and early history section, be implemented at Goths? Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should the introduction of the India article continue to suggest the "dawning of Hinduism" circa 1200 BCE ? ("By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India." [6]). Discussion so far has failed, and is accessible above. Please answer Yes or No, with justification पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Is Ulukaya's lede sentence fine, or should it be changed? Currently the lede sentence describes him as a "Turkish businessman, activist, and philanthropist based in the United States", and the second lede section paragraph mentions his Kurdish ethnic background.
Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Apologies in advance. I would like some users to look at my discussion above. I wish to make a myriad of stylistic edits to improve the article.
|
Yes or no or something else? This article should primarily focus upon the Goths described by Roman historians from the third century. The earlier Vistula Gutones, for example, are relevant, but a distinct topic which should not be simply equated to "Goths".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should the prehistory and early history sections of this article be less focused on controversial origin stories like Jordanes' Getica, and more focused on archaeological, linguistic and contemporaneous historical evidence?--Berig (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead mention that Romney voted twice to convict Trump in his Senate impeachment trial (becoming the first Senator to convict a president of their own party)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should §5 In Europe (see this version) be retained or removed? Srnec (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the |today= parameter, which is described as "Present-day countries that overlap with the territorial extent of the former country. Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries.", be removed and deprecated? 21:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Following from the debates at Talk:Crusades#Requested_move_13_March_2021 and Talk:Crusading#RFC:_Crusading_can_be_used_interchangeably_with_Crusades_if_used_in_a_grammatically_correct_way the question remains what is a suitable name for this article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the historical flag designs be included in the article with descriptions or continue as the page is now (i.e. with all flag-files removed)? (Edited for clarity) (Refer the discussion above or the Comment down below (if you dont wanna read through all that stuff above) for further context) --Havsjö (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
Kindly requesting input from an outside editor who may weigh in on the discussion above about the propriety of using the word "remain" in the main article's body when referring to the region's formal assignation or inclusion within the borders of a newly-created republic over what I contend is a far more neutral formulation ("included").
In its bare essence, I argue that there is no doubt that Karabakh did not belong to either Armenia or Azerbaijan in the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Russian Empire (1918). Armenia (and the local Karabakh Armenians) fought over the territory with Azerbaijan (just like they fought over nearby regions Zangezur and Nakhichevan) and its status was hardly settled when the Soviets established control over both republics in 1920. Neither had firm, legally recognized borders until the imposition of the Soviet settlement (these were supposed to be fixed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, but the Allied Powers never got around to it). In fact, local Armenians chafed at the imposition of an Azerbaijani regime that never established firm roots in the region (even launching an unsuccessful rebellion to topple it) and which is why I argue the word "remain" is highly misleading and inappropriate in this context. I contend my suggestion is far more neutral and faithful to the facts, i.e., saying "inclusion" since from 1918-1921 the region did not have any international legal recognition as belonging to one country or another and that its status was only formalized by the central Soviet administration. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
What specific text should we use to implement the result of the previous RfC concerning description of the Southern strategy in the lead section? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Los Angeles Police Department
Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
Currently, the lead says nothing about his career as a commentator (even though he has been one for the last 25 years). Can the lead include the following two paragraphs on his career as a commentator?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
From the earlier Talk:Goths#RfC and and Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus posted above, it is obvious that there is a clear consensus among editors that the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are too long and complicated, too reliant and focused on Jordanes and his Getica, and that they should be give more emphasis on the analysis of archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence by modern scholars. Much of these sections are my work. I have sought to address the concerns of the community through a proposal. Can this proposal[9], in which the Prehistory, Early history and Movement towards the Black Sea sections are simplified and merged into a single Origins and early history section, be implemented at Goths? Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Yes or no or something else? This article should primarily focus upon the Goths described by Roman historians from the third century. The earlier Vistula Gutones, for example, are relevant, but a distinct topic which should not be simply equated to "Goths".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should the prehistory and early history sections of this article be less focused on controversial origin stories like Jordanes' Getica, and more focused on archaeological, linguistic and contemporaneous historical evidence?--Berig (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC) |
Which of the forms of the Tamazight (Berber) name of the country should be included in the lede sentence and the infobox (in Tifinagh, in the Arabic alphabet, in the Latin alphabet)?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) |
Given that the usage of the word impact is figurative in all instances in the article and is prefaced or otherwise surrounded by language that conveys "significance", should the instances of the word be reworded?
|
Maths, science, and technology
I would like to change the after-onset treatment to the proposal above. Happy to hear any input!
I will then reopen the edit request within three weeks from now. Franzpuntila (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Currently, summary overview in mitigation section in this article mentions Carbon dioxide removal ("Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] and often predict reaching net negative emissions at some point.[211]"). Should we also mention that large-scale deployment of these methods are unproven per IPCC scientists SR15 p. 96? This might be a short relevant point to add, but some editors claimed this is too detailed or not suited to that specific paragraph. Should a brief sentence covering this issue be added into the top 2 summary paragraphs in Mitigation section? 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert:Restored revision 1013861229 by MrOllie (talk): All the same issues laid out for you at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus) I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia globosa» subsection. Any reasonable objections? Feedback on sources is welcome. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert: Revision as of 21:13, March 23, 2021 MrOllie (→Malassezia restricta: we don't report on mouse studies, see WP:MEDRS)) I propose to adopt the changes below but before this can be done here are some questions:
|
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert: Revision as of 21:13, March 23, 2021 MrOllie (→Malassezia restricta: we don't report on mouse studies, see WP:MEDRS)) I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia restricta» subsection. Any reasonable objections here? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
Should the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence article contain a controversy section? —Wingedserif (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Great Barrington Declaration
In § Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,[1]be removed?--JBchrch (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the COVID-19 section of the body include content on (1) DeSantis organizing and attending rallies with maskless attendees and interacting with the attendees (e.g. high-fiving them), (2) the controversy over Rebekah Jones (who has been in a dispute with the DeSantis administration over COVID-19 data), and (3) DeSantis threatening to withhold vaccines from counties that criticize the distribution? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?
The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[10]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which of the following best describes the reliability of thrashocore.com?
--TheSandDoctor Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I've been seeing The California Globe, which is owned by Sea of Reeds Media, showing up in some California political articles (currently 27). They generally cover political news with the occasional opinion columns, however the distinction is not apparent within the articles. Therefore, I am asking for community comment on the reliability of the site for future reference. Which of the following describes The California Globe the best?
— BriefEdits (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should we include the members of the Casagrande family in the list of characters? Image2012 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:MasterChef Australia (series 13)
Should the announced contestants be added this article, prior to the first episode airing?
Happily888 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:South ParQ Vaccination Special
Secondary sources conflict on whether this and the previous episode are considered part of season 24 or standalone specials. A higher number of secondary sources state that the two episodes are standalone, and prior announcements did not mention season 24, but primary publishers (HBO Max and the Comedy Central website) directly list the two episodes as season 24. Which claim can be considered correct? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should a reference to the Woody Allen sexual assault allegation be included in the lead section? A discussion on inclusion in the lead was commenced a year ago without result, and I think community input is desirable. Please note that the current version of the article does not contain a reference to the abuse allegation anywhere in the lead section. There was an RfC in 2018 on inclusion in the lead paragraph not the lead section, with a consensus finding it should not be included in the first paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Currently, the lead says nothing about his career as a commentator (even though he has been one for the last 25 years). Can the lead include the following two paragraphs on his career as a commentator?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
What should the lead paragraph look like? Should it be one sentence long, as it currently stands. Or, should it be about 3 to 4 sentences long (e.g., as in this version)?
This topic comes up frequently on this talk page, and was recently discussed here, and here. The relevant guidelines are MOS:OPENPARABIO and MOS:BEGIN. |
Is Ulukaya's lede sentence fine, or should it be changed? Currently the lede sentence describes him as a "Turkish businessman, activist, and philanthropist based in the United States", and the second lede section paragraph mentions his Kurdish ethnic background.
Clear Looking Glass (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
The application of MOS:JOBTITLES varies across articles relating to a head/chief of defence (see link for list). Most articles tend to open with something to the effect of:
or
Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized? |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
Should the infoboxes in the US gubernatorial election articles contain photographs of individual governors? Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:2021 New York City mayoral election
Should this article use tables for the candidate sections instead of plain-text? Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes
In terms of the inclusion criteria for this list, who should be considered a Middle Eastern Superhero?
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
Apologies in advance. I would like some users to look at my discussion above. I wish to make a myriad of stylistic edits to improve the article.
|
Should the lead mention that Romney voted twice to convict Trump in his Senate impeachment trial (becoming the first Senator to convict a president of their own party)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Should we remove Cultural Bolshevism from the "see also section" to comply with MOS:SEEALSO? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Should this page include the below quote on Weyrich with the sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Should we remove the sources by these two in this article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Should this page include the file File:Ausstellung entartete kunst 1937.jpg? with the captioning and sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
Should this page include the Civitas Institute speech and republication with the sourcing below? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Great Barrington Declaration
In § Sponsor, should the sentence Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them,[1]be removed?--JBchrch (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the |today= parameter, which is described as "Present-day countries that overlap with the territorial extent of the former country. Do not use this parameter if there are more than four such countries.", be removed and deprecated? 21:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Should the lead of this article identify Tarrio as a businessman and/or activist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the historical flag designs be included in the article with descriptions or continue as the page is now (i.e. with all flag-files removed)? (Edited for clarity) (Refer the discussion above or the Comment down below (if you dont wanna read through all that stuff above) for further context) --Havsjö (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
What should we name Abbas's party? ISF candidates are contesting on Envelope symbol of Bihar based RSMP.[2] Indian Secular Front or Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party? -- Manasbose (talk | edits) 09:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:List of people killed for being transgender
Keeping in mind that the current article title is not set in stone, what criteria should be used for potential entries in this list article? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
So some editors decided that this war has "ended" because there is a ceasefire. Not a single reference or media outlet what so ever has been provided which explicitly states that this war is over. Wikipedia editors (even with consensus) cannot end an entire war... Please share your opinions. Sam32421 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal? Springee (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead be written as:
A: B:
I don't have any preference yet, I'll chime in once a few points are made. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
This article is based on the 44 days of conflict. This is not a copy or alternative of the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article that takes a span of 30 years. From start to the end of this war, Azerbaijan only "captured" territory. Using the word "recaptured" for this 44 day conflict is hugely misleading and makes readers believe that Azerbaijan lost territory and then recaptured it in the 44 days of conflict. Not sure how this hasn't come up in a discussion yet. 176.55.64.59 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed
Rfc on neutrality of article, is it a fair reflection of reliable sources, particularly the section on Presidential Term (2017-2021) and the introductory paragraph. Amirah talk 02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Should this paragraph be included under the "Democracy" subsection of the article? soibangla (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
What specific text should we use to implement the result of the previous RfC concerning description of the Southern strategy in the lead section? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should the COVID-19 section of the body include content on (1) DeSantis organizing and attending rallies with maskless attendees and interacting with the attendees (e.g. high-fiving them), (2) the controversy over Rebekah Jones (who has been in a dispute with the DeSantis administration over COVID-19 data), and (3) DeSantis threatening to withhold vaccines from counties that criticize the distribution? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Los Angeles Police Department
Should the lead note include 2-3 sentences that the LAPD has (1) a history of corruption, brutality and discriminatory policing, (2) a 2000 DOJ investigation found rampant racism, police brutality, and police corruption within the LAPD, and (3) the LAPD was subsequently placed under federal oversight from 2001 to 2013? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks
I propose adding that the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert occurred first to both the header and background. Currently, the Stepanakert bombardment is not directly mentioned at all, and is only alluded to in one line ("...claimed that military facilities permanently located there had been targeting civilians in Stepanakert") which makes it appear as if the bombardment of Stepanakert had not actually happened. In the above discussion, I provided numerous sources (including third party ones) of Artsakh politicians confirming that the Ganja missile attacks were the result of this. Here is an attempted DRN. RfC restarted by --Steverci (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC) |
Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?
The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[13]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
Currently, the lead says nothing about his career as a commentator (even though he has been one for the last 25 years). Can the lead include the following two paragraphs on his career as a commentator?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Should the introduction of the India article continue to suggest the "dawning of Hinduism" circa 1200 BCE ? ("By 1200 BCE, an archaic form of Sanskrit, an Indo-European language, had diffused into India from the northwest, unfolding as the language of the Rigveda, and recording the dawning of Hinduism in India." [14]). Discussion so far has failed, and is accessible above. Please answer Yes or No, with justification पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should §5 In Europe (see this version) be retained or removed? Srnec (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Following from the debates at Talk:Crusades#Requested_move_13_March_2021 and Talk:Crusading#RFC:_Crusading_can_be_used_interchangeably_with_Crusades_if_used_in_a_grammatically_correct_way the question remains what is a suitable name for this article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
RfC not yet closed. Boud (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC) |
Currently, summary overview in mitigation section in this article mentions Carbon dioxide removal ("Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C also project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century,[210] and often predict reaching net negative emissions at some point.[211]"). Should we also mention that large-scale deployment of these methods are unproven per IPCC scientists SR15 p. 96? This might be a short relevant point to add, but some editors claimed this is too detailed or not suited to that specific paragraph. Should a brief sentence covering this issue be added into the top 2 summary paragraphs in Mitigation section? 20:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Should we include the members of the Casagrande family in the list of characters? Image2012 (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hello, I want to include the following study and some of its results.
"In 1978, before the AIDS pandemic, a study published by the Kinsey Institute surveyed more than 500 homosexual men and found that around 28% of the respondents reported having more than 1000 sexual partners, and only 26% reported having less than 100.[3]"
Pretty standard stuff, neutral language reporting the findings of a reliable source, but an editor seems to have a problem with it and is reverting it, does anybody else see an issue here?--TZubiri (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:List of people killed for being transgender
Keeping in mind that the current article title is not set in stone, what criteria should be used for potential entries in this list article? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
Which of the forms of the Tamazight (Berber) name of the country should be included in the lede sentence and the infobox (in Tifinagh, in the Arabic alphabet, in the Latin alphabet)?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should a reference to the Woody Allen sexual assault allegation be included in the lead section? A discussion on inclusion in the lead was commenced a year ago without result, and I think community input is desirable. Please note that the current version of the article does not contain a reference to the abuse allegation anywhere in the lead section. There was an RfC in 2018 on inclusion in the lead paragraph not the lead section, with a consensus finding it should not be included in the first paragraph. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
The application of MOS:JOBTITLES varies across articles relating to a head/chief of defence (see link for list). Most articles tend to open with something to the effect of:
or
Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized? |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Should "virtual reality" when used as an attributive adjective, such as in "virtual reality headset", be hyphenated or unhyphenated? --Masem (t) 06:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov
Should the citation notes in the article link to their corresponding citations in the bibliography. I.e. compare
to |
Category talk:Faculty by university or college
Can we rename this category and its subcategories en masse to use a term more generic than the term "faculty" may imply?
There is a substantial amount of ambiguity and/or incongruity with the use of the term "faculty", so it should probably be replaced. There is not much observable evidence to explain what was the true intent of the folks who created this category and its subcategories, so we should reach a new consensus on what the name should be, or a consensus on whether or not to try to enforce some sort of a new standard even. 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) |
Should this article have a hatnote? (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which of the following best describes the reliability of thrashocore.com?
--TheSandDoctor Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
The application of MOS:JOBTITLES varies across articles relating to a head/chief of defence (see link for list). Most articles tend to open with something to the effect of:
or
Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized? |
Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking input about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct.
The goal of this consultation is to help outline clear enforcement pathways for a drafting committee to design proposals for a comprehensive community review later this year. The proposals may integrate with existing processes or additional pathways that may be suggested. For more information about the UCoC project, see Universal Code of Conduct overview. Discussions are happening on many projects and are listed at the 2021 consultations page. Please discuss in the subsections below and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Stable version to revert to
There has been some debate about how long it takes for a change to become stable. There are 2 questions, please indicate which you're answer is for. Things like WP:TITLECHANGES, WP:RETAIN, WP:CFDS and WP:RMCI should be updated if this RFC gains consensus.
(1) How long in general should a version have been in place for it to be considered "stable" for the purpose of obtaining consensus? This isn't intended to be a strict rule but merely give some general rule since sometimes (like with the technical request of Talk:Kereta Api Indonesia#Requested move 8 June 2020) a move made years ago is requested as a revert of an undiscussed move even though the move happened over 2 years ago and in some cases like Omos an unrevert was made that the change was made a month ago even though it had had the same target since 2004 prior to the change. (2) How long should a version take to be stable for the purpose of WP:RETAIN when a page is edited or renamed against this (and one of the exceptions doesn't apply, such as communality, strong ties or ATDAB)? See examples of Humour and Chinese whispers where this has been debated. @SnowFire, FOARP, Necrothesp, and Calidum: who were involved significantly in the chinese whispers debate on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
Should the current cricket notability guidelines be changed? 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Should we refine some of the Entertainer's notability section criteria to be less ambiguous?
--Cs california (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
A discussion about whether any action needs to be taken regarding the current sports notability guidelines. 16:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Can editors request community review of blocks of other editors, particularly problematic and/or out-of-policy ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Copying within Wikipedia: Should hyperlink attribution be allowed?
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Hyperlink says:
Do we want to consider this to be proper attribution? -Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:MasterChef Australia (series 13)
Should the announced contestants be added this article, prior to the first episode airing?
Happily888 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
"(group)", "(band)", "(musical group)", what should it be? (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
Talk:Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed
Rfc on neutrality of article, is it a fair reflection of reliable sources, particularly the section on Presidential Term (2017-2021) and the introductory paragraph. Amirah talk 02:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
The following RfC asks two distinct questions.
Blissfield101 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert:Restored revision 1013861229 by MrOllie (talk): All the same issues laid out for you at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus) I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia globosa» subsection. Any reasonable objections? Feedback on sources is welcome. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert: Revision as of 21:13, March 23, 2021 MrOllie (→Malassezia restricta: we don't report on mouse studies, see WP:MEDRS)) I propose to adopt the changes below but before this can be done here are some questions:
|
Note: This is part of the #wip-what-is-disputed discussion. (Disputed revert: Revision as of 21:13, March 23, 2021 MrOllie (→Malassezia restricta: we don't report on mouse studies, see WP:MEDRS)) I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia restricta» subsection. Any reasonable objections here? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I've been seeing The California Globe, which is owned by Sea of Reeds Media, showing up in some California political articles (currently 27). They generally cover political news with the occasional opinion columns, however the distinction is not apparent within the articles. Therefore, I am asking for community comment on the reliability of the site for future reference. Which of the following describes The California Globe the best?
— BriefEdits (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Question: Should the minor edit functionality be limited to a group of users (such as autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed users)?
This is a follow-up to this RfC on effectively disabling minor edits. As there was no consensus then, this is to establish clearer consensus regarding an alternative proposal. (This is my first time requesting comment, please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.) Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
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.