How should UK churches be sorted in categories in en.wiki? For background, including links to previous inconclusive discussions, please see the section #DEFAULTSORT for churches above. Note that articles on UK churches have a wide variety of title formats. Consider St Chad's Church, Far Headingley, but also:
(It is of course possible that some of these should have other article titles).
The practice of expanding "St" or "St." to "Saint" is mandated by WP:SORTKEY and appears uncontroversial, so "Sort by article title" or similar, in this RfC, can be taken to mean "Sort by title with "St" expanded to "Saint" (and with a leading "The" removed in rare cases)".
The only existing guidance on sortkeys appears to be that at WP:SORTKEY, which includes the option that "Systematic sort keys are also used in other categories where the logical sort order is not alphabetical (for example, individual month articles in year categories such as Category:2004 use sort keys like "*2004-04" for April). Again, such systems must be used consistently within a category.". There is no one Wikiproject dedicated to UK churches, though they come within the interests of many Wikiprojects: Christianity and its denominational subprojects; Architecture; United Kingdom; and UK geography and its country, county or regional subprojects. Categories is also relevant. There seems no obvious place to record the consensus with which this RfC will close, but an archived RfC lodged in the wiki-memory of a variety of editors will be useful. If agreement can be reached, we can (a) move towards consistent sorting within categories and (b) avoid conflict between editors and time wasted in changing DEFAULTSORTs. PamD 06:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure why this section has been included. There has been limited media coverage on this topic but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia and not very notable so I think it should be removed from the article or be shortened and moved to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section of this article. I previously made the mistake of deleting this section without trying to gauge pre-existing consensus or seek one so I would like to recieve input from any interested parties.Originalcola (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Reactions section be present in the article (as in diff)? Please answer Yes or No and why. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should the subject's nationality be described in the lead and short description?
A) Lead: Timothée Hal Chalamet is an American actor. Shortdesc: American actor (born 1995)
B1) Lead: Timothée Hal Chalamet is an American and French actor. Shortdesc: American and French actor (born 1995)
B2) Lead: Timothée Hal Chalamet is a Franco-American actor. Shortdesc: Franco-American actor (born 1995)
C) Lead: Timothée Chalamet is an American actor with dual French citizenship. Shortdesc: American actor with dual French citizenship (born 1995)
It will be nice to have a solid consensus derived from an RFC on this point, as it has been a frequent topic of disagreement. I've taken the three most recent wordings, and as the second and third options are still in favor of including French nationality I've labeled them B1 and B2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Fictional filmography section does not make sense to me. If this is accurate, can someone please explain? How is a character created in 2004 appear in TV series and films prior to 2014? These appear to be the credits for Kevin Dillon and not the character Johnny Drama. I propose removing it completely, unless there are specific appearance of the character IN OTHER fin other films or TV series.Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there was controversy over what map or other image, if any, should be placed in the article's lead, eventually an RfC was held, with the conclusion that there was consensus against the proposed maps due to concerns over original research, but given that the only users who took part in it were ones who were already involved in the dispute, I thought it was appropriate to at least have further discussion on this issue.
I made some proposals which were already mentioned above:
How are Filmfare Glamour And Style Awards, Vogue Beauty Awards, Hindustan Times Most Stylish Awards, and GQ Awards not considered to be notable awards? These are important awards which are awarded every year to public figures. Please do not remove these awards as these are notable awards of high importance. These awards are mentioned on all other celebrities' pages as well. Please refrain from making unnecessary changes. SaUp2014 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here to discuss the removal of gothic metal and gothic metal bands by DarknessGoth777. The template is for gothic subculture. The section is "Associated music". Gothic metal is associated with gothic subculture. I'm not saying it is or is not a gothic rock subgenre or have any intent on removing gothic rock. I'm saying gothic metal has an associated connection to gothic subculture, even if it may be less so than gothic rock. So my question to the rfc, is this alright to add or not? Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What should be included about the persona non grata resolution against Claire Danes in Manila? We are currently discussing WP:BLP and WP:PMC violations in this RFC, and at BLPN. Assistance and input is appreciated.
The 'Thriller' album’s available certification has crossed 50M units. According to widely used reliable sources and existing formula for claimed sales calculation, should Thriller claimed sales be raised to 100m as it is mostly reported?TruthGuardians (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try and settle this issue. I have started an RFC here. There's a disagreement going on whether "pop" should be listed in the infobox. So instead of participating in that, I have decided to open up an RFC here. Here are the options:
Support the removal of pop
Oppose the removal of pop
Choose between one of the two options with your rationale in the poll below. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.