The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)
Biographies
Per WP:ACCUSED, should forms of the word "alleged" be used prior to a conviction to describe the "push" that may have caused the death of Michelle Go? Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
The issue can be reviewed in the exchanges by editors in the above section, "Ableist phrasing". It has been speculated that Alkan suffered from Aspergers syndrome and/or other ilnesses. This speculation is cited in the article. The use of the word 'suffer' was originally queried by User:Smasongarrison, and that query was contested by User:Mathsci and myself. Smasongarisson's justifications were basically on a WP:OR basis; when they were contested in the above section, Smasongarisson demurred from giving further explanation (although they did subsequently repeat their edit, which I reverted).
That might have been the end of the episode. What gives me concern here is that this episode was, for reasons I do not comprehend, brought up in a separate discussion on User:Mathsci, concerning another WP article, whch resulted in a site ban for Mathsci. I do not understand the issues of the formal objections in that discussion, I did not contribute to it (although for some reason my name was mentioned in it), and I have no views on the outcome or on the decision re Mathsci. However it seems to have been as a consequence of that discussion, which had no bearing on the issues of the article Charles-Valentin Alkan, that User:Amakuru has resolved to repeat Smasongarrison's unsupported edit to this article. In doing so they have imo seriously misconstrued WP guidelines in a way which threatens the freedom of WP editors to use standard English in the way that they choose. In particular they have summonned to justify their edit WP:SUFFER - which is specifically a part of (quote) "the style guide for editing medical articles. The general rules from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style also apply when writing medical articles." The present article is not a medical article, and this guideline clearly does not apply here. I set out again here my comments from the section above: "McCallum suggests Alkan may have had these disorders and that they may have detracted from his social, physical and mental abilities. That is, (in normal English usage), that he suffered from them. The sentence in the article reflects these comments by McCallum. There is absolutely nothing in the present phrasing that suggests that "the lives of those with Asperger's, schizophrenia, and ocd are less valued." " The article might indeed use a direct citation by McCallum as follows: ""His life has been regarded as a puzzle – Ronald Smith calls it an enigma. I would like to speculate that - like Schumann, Wolff, Satie and possibly even Mozart – Alkan may have suffered from a serious mental illness which affected his ability to engage successfully with the world." (see McCallum ASB75). Are we to rewrite citations in line with prejudices about language? - that would seriously undermine WP as a work of reference. I should be grateful for editors' opinions on this issue, which has very important implications far beyond this article. If editors are going to be nit-picked on their use of language by anyone who wishes to construe that certain words, part of everday discourse, may risk offending some others - then the foundations of Wikipedia are imo theatened.--Smerus (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Is the title "conspiracy theorist" in the lede WP:DUE?
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Is Paul Pelosi a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME with respect to reporting about his 1957 crash and 2022 arrest? How should the two incidents be presented in his article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
Which standard should be observed when including these in the lead section and why? While the parentheses list existing projects, the suggested options would also apply to future roles.
|
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) |
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
How should the subject's nationality be described in the lead and short description?
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) |
Should the "Personal Life" section include the subject's political opinions? 03:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand
There is currently a dispute: In articles about former and incumbent Prime Ministers of Thailand and also Governor of Bangkok, should the "Ordinal number" be add in the infobox containing the minister's and the governor’s number?
Example: It should be "20th Prime Minister of Thailand" instead of "Prime Minister of Thailand" or "17th Governor of Bangkok" instead of "Governor of Bangkok". |
Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs
See #14th : Elizabeth II for Jamaica section above. I've noticed the inconsistency with having Elizabeth as 2nd and 14th longest-reigning monarch(s?), and other wikipedians have. But at least one wikipedian (two ? I'm not sure what Peter O. thinks about this specific number question) disagree, the discussion can't go further. There's also the more general issue of having two separate Elizabeth entry (one for Jamaica and one for the other countries), me and others are also against it, but it seems to me that it's less important as it's a presentation issue, not an inconstistency issue. Elfast (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Suicide by jumping from height
Should this article about a particular method of suicide continue to include (i.e. keep) a list of specifically-named notable people who have died by this particular method? Does such a list have substantial value to explain or illustrate the topic of this article? Or should the existing list be removed (i.e. remove) with the consensus that it not be replaced without a new future consensus to do so?
The list in question is, as of this writing, the list beginning with "Prominent examples of autodefenestration include..." followed by a list of linked names. What this RFC is not: This is not on the question of whether such a list should not be included (a) due to concerns about either sensitivity for the surviving friends and relatives of people on the list, (b) due to concerns about whether such a list publicizes suicide in a way that might empower or encourage living individuals to kill themselves by this method of suicide or in general, or (c) similar concerns. This RFC is also not about the sentence beginning "The highest documented suicide jump..." What this RFC is: This is only about whether the list benefits this article under ordinary Wikipedia principles for inclusions of lists of things in articles. Please weigh in by beginning with Keep or Remove or Other meaning, respectively, Keep the existing list in the article, Remove the existing list from the article and do not replace it without a new future consensus to do so, or Other and explain. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the law firm with which Camille Vasquez is associated be mentioned in the lede paragraph of the article and in the infobox?
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
Wikipedia carries a number of stand-alone lists of individuals ranked by financial "net worth" for certain regions.
Examples: List of Europeans by net worth, List of wealthiest Americans by net worth, List of Canadians by net worth, List of Arabs by net worth, List of Saudis by net worth, List of British billionaires by net worth, List of Japanese by net worth, List of Pakistanis by net worth, List of Filipino billionaires by net worth, List of Indian people by net worth, List of Italians by net worth, List of Greeks by net worth, List of Portuguese by net worth, List of Ugandans by net worth, List of Romanians by net worth, List of Kenyans by net worth, etc. |
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) |
History and geography
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
Question: Should the Federal League records be included in the 1914 MLB season & the 1915 MLB season? GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Question: Should the "government type" & "government body" parameters be included in or excluded from the infoboxes of the provinces and territories. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
Per WP:ACCUSED, should forms of the word "alleged" be used prior to a conviction to describe the "push" that may have caused the death of Michelle Go? Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
This is a dispute over yes or no of a rewrite of lead sentence of the current "Comfort Women" article. The content of the dispute is shown in the Talk. We agree that there are two opinions about "comfort women": "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves", and also that we have exhausted our arguments. In the current article, the first paragraph reads, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." and the writing of "licensed prostitutes claim”is excluded as this basis. To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army..." ?
The reason for oppositon to the writing of "licensed prostitutes" is based on the claim that the majority of comfort women is sex slaves. There is an objection to "majority of sex slaves" with evidence. Even if they are a minority, wouldn't be against wiki's 5P1 and 5P2 to exclude dissenting opinions ? Please read through Talk and commen. If you have any questions, I will answer them. Eyagi (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
Does the cult summary in the article need to be re-written? If it does, then how should this be done? Iraniangal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of convicted war criminals
Should each section be made into a chart so that information on each person can be globalized? If so, some potential categories could be name and dates alive, position of power, and years of sentence. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the article state Tewodros was killed by: A. Walasma princes[1] or B. Adal Sultanate?[2][3][4][5] Magherbin (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should Republic of Artsakh be described as
in Wikipedia articles? --Armatura (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of presidents of the United States
This request for comments is broadly for two question relating to this list:
Both these issues have been previously discussed in above section, § Post-post-close discussion and § Lead image. There is no clear consensus among the talk page watchers for the lead image, and the table structure needs a broad discussion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
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 " |
Talk:List of coups and coup attempts
Editing this list gets more complicated if we want to keep including not just verified coups and coup attempts, but also well-sourced allegations that such incidents have occurred (like these items). If alleged incidents are included or retained in this list, then we could (1) amend the lead to unambiguously explain the list criteria so readers will understand that some of the listed items are unverified by reliable secondary sources as actual coups or actual coup attempts. We could also avoid undue weight and confusion by (2) putting alleged incidents into a separate chronological section with an appropriate header (like this for example) instead of mixing them in with the verified incidents. So the RFC question is this: should step (1) and/or step (2) be implemented? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
Wikipedia carries a number of stand-alone lists of individuals ranked by financial "net worth" for certain regions.
Examples: List of Europeans by net worth, List of wealthiest Americans by net worth, List of Canadians by net worth, List of Arabs by net worth, List of Saudis by net worth, List of British billionaires by net worth, List of Japanese by net worth, List of Pakistanis by net worth, List of Filipino billionaires by net worth, List of Indian people by net worth, List of Italians by net worth, List of Greeks by net worth, List of Portuguese by net worth, List of Ugandans by net worth, List of Romanians by net worth, List of Kenyans by net worth, etc. |
I was just wondering what people thought about the idea of relisting this article as a "Good Article" nominee. It has been almost 15 years since it was delisted from the title and it has certainly a better article from then. All opinions are welcome but the main question I'm asking is do you think it's ready to be nominated again? Thanks!
|
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
As historian Neff notes, the Civil War lacks a precise end date: "In practice, the war was brought to an end on a piecemeal basis, by way of a welter of specific measures by the Union government." But since we remain in the business of conveying information, how should we communicate the end date in the infobox? Please peruse the above sections, with excellent research by Donner60 and company. The following dates stand out, but your solution needn't be limited to those listed:
Other possible approaches include:
The topic is also covered at Conclusion of the American Civil War, though the above research has exposed the article as rather lacking. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
How should the first sentences of the lead be worded?
The new proposals were formulated as a result of the discussions above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II
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:
Other suggestions would be welcomed. -- 2804:248:f650:6600:86f:165c:bba5:8f4 (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the first sentence of Yoruba art#History end in the word Africa, or in the phrase sub-Saharan Africa? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Winston-Salem, North Carolina
There have been several edits to the info box on the page recently (including by myself), revolving around the discussion to delete or keep the major Interstates & US Routes and the Airport in the info box. Myself and the other editor cannot agree, and I wanted to open it up for comment before we continue to undo each others edits.
Sheehanpg93 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs
See #14th : Elizabeth II for Jamaica section above. I've noticed the inconsistency with having Elizabeth as 2nd and 14th longest-reigning monarch(s?), and other wikipedians have. But at least one wikipedian (two ? I'm not sure what Peter O. thinks about this specific number question) disagree, the discussion can't go further. There's also the more general issue of having two separate Elizabeth entry (one for Jamaica and one for the other countries), me and others are also against it, but it seems to me that it's less important as it's a presentation issue, not an inconstistency issue. Elfast (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Suicide by jumping from height
Should this article about a particular method of suicide continue to include (i.e. keep) a list of specifically-named notable people who have died by this particular method? Does such a list have substantial value to explain or illustrate the topic of this article? Or should the existing list be removed (i.e. remove) with the consensus that it not be replaced without a new future consensus to do so?
The list in question is, as of this writing, the list beginning with "Prominent examples of autodefenestration include..." followed by a list of linked names. What this RFC is not: This is not on the question of whether such a list should not be included (a) due to concerns about either sensitivity for the surviving friends and relatives of people on the list, (b) due to concerns about whether such a list publicizes suicide in a way that might empower or encourage living individuals to kill themselves by this method of suicide or in general, or (c) similar concerns. This RFC is also not about the sentence beginning "The highest documented suicide jump..." What this RFC is: This is only about whether the list benefits this article under ordinary Wikipedia principles for inclusions of lists of things in articles. Please weigh in by beginning with Keep or Remove or Other meaning, respectively, Keep the existing list in the article, Remove the existing list from the article and do not replace it without a new future consensus to do so, or Other and explain. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
This RfC concerns List of countries and dependencies by population.
Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
An editor has added false information about the demographics of Balochistan claiming that:
1. Baloch make up 60% in the province 2. There are Turks living in the area In support of the first point a random newspaper article is claimed source (whose numbers are contrary to any official source). While for the second point only imagination has been used. I first tried to update the numbers to 2017 census (latest census) i.e. Baloch make up 35% and there are no Turks in the area. But after discussing with other editors I came to know that there is no official definition of "Baloch ethnicity", and numerous Barahvi, Pashto, Sindhi and Seraiki speaking communities also identify as Baloch. So in that effect I preferred to remove that information to keep the article clean of imaginations, and just stick to facts. All of my edits were removed by the editor who added the baseless numbers in the first place, claiming that his version WP:STATUSQUO Also, there is no such thing as 2008 census. The 2008 data is based on 1998 census in which Pashtuns were underrepresented (see discussion), while in 2017 their representation was restored (and hence the jump in their numbers). Rahman1212 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
Please, could somebody see the discussion above? Northern Cyprus, an unrecognized de facto state, that's internationally recognized as an occupied territory of Cyprus, is mentioned at the page like a normal state. At the Russian language page, there is an example of what I suggest (see how other states like N.Cyprus are presented). Greek Rebel (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)
How should the notability of solar eclipses and lunar eclipses be decided? Ovinus (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
This article is currently an ENGVAR mess. The Greek word for blood, used as a part of many words in this article, is spelled hem- in American English versus haem- in British English. The article is named according to the American spelling, but in the article the usage is roughly 2:1 in favor of the British. There are 2 options:
Animal lover |666| 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
(The new Fields medals will be announced next week so it would be nice to get this resolved.) This is about the "reasons" column of the main table on the wiki page. Back in January I tried to start some discussion on this talk page, but it didn't go anywhere. Unfortunately requires some explanation, here are a few relevant (hopefully objective) facts:
The question is how to (systematically or quasi-systematically) resolve this on the page. There are maybe four possible solutions:
|
I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary of the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now[6], add more details about the findings of these papers (e.g. which symptoms does it treat exactly?), also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.
(Optional). One final note: Assuming that the community at large agrees that a journal is reliable and uses it, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D): what place does a wikipedia editor have to remove it as a citation because they personally disagree with the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute to prefer drugs.com (where the methodology isn't even stated) and remove recent meta-analyses from peer-reviewed journals. Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should this article exclude mathematical content, such as a definition of "double group"? IpseCustos (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
There are two questions.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should this article use either dmy or mdy date format? See § Date format for prior discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Transverse cervical artery
Dorsal scapular artery (DSA) was merged to here, but it is wrong. As we can confirm from here, subclavian artery is more frequent source of DSA. Dorsal scapular artery page should remain as an independent page, not the redirect page.
|
I propose adding the following text to the page:
In January 2022, following ongoing reports of the dissatisfaction with the new rifle, especially with respect to corrosion, Polish company Onet.pl published an article documenting the results of a number of tests which presented the MSBS Grot in a bad light. Whilst some other reports mentioned possible quality control issues there was criticism of the article from outlets associated with the Government within Poland and Fabryka Broni responded by suing the publication for $250,000 for defamation.[7]Gusfriend (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
I propose to replace the following statements concerning Dermatitis and dandruff (D/SD) diseases and related to Malassezia info (Revision of 01:44, March 25, 2021):--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).
Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?
-- TheSandDoctor Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice
This is a discussion to decide whether or not album articles should include singles chart tables and chart positions in article Charts sections. North America1000 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Which standard should be observed when including these in the lead section and why? While the parentheses list existing projects, the suggested options would also apply to future roles.
|
I am proposing re-wording the first sentence under "Operations": Unlike the four major commercial broadcast television networks in the United States, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, PBS is technically not a network, but rather a program distributor that provides television content and related services to its member stations.to From PBS's launch up until 2000, it was not technically considered a TV network, compared to the major US TV networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, & NBC, due to the stations that air PBS programming not being considered owned by PBS; they were considered independent stations carrying PBS at that time. However, beginning in 2000, public references to PBS labeled it as a TV network.. And, for reference, here are three sources making reference to PBS as a TV network, one of which references 2000 as when they started considering it a TV network : Mondo Times [1]: "Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is a USA television network."; Tesla Memorial Society [2]: "Tesla, Master of Lightning, New Voyage Communications for PBS Television Network, 2000, 90 minutes"; Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs [3]: "(Ray) Suarez joined the PBS NewsHour in 1999 and was a senior correspondent for the evening news program on the PBS television network until 2013."; Inside Peace [4]: "We are pleased to announce the release of Inside Peace throughout the PBS television network in the United States.. 2600:1700:C960:2270:79B0:F220:B8D8:7E65 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
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 " |
Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, There-being, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, GregKaye, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor:
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) |
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) |
How should the subject's nationality be described in the lead and short description?
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) |
Should infobox remains with the current image, or with a Madonna's related image? Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
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) |
Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II
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:
Other suggestions would be welcomed. -- 2804:248:f650:6600:86f:165c:bba5:8f4 (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the first sentence of Yoruba art#History end in the word Africa, or in the phrase sub-Saharan Africa? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
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) |
Politics, government, and law
Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Question: Should the "government type" & "government body" parameters be included in or excluded from the infoboxes of the provinces and territories. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
Is the title "conspiracy theorist" in the lede WP:DUE?
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
The {{Conservatism in the United States}} template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. Now founder Stewart_Rhodes is is in jail for seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol there are attempts to remove the template. Please discuss here and let's come to a consensus. Thank you. Myotus (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Should Republic of Artsakh be described as
in Wikipedia articles? --Armatura (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of presidents of the United States
This request for comments is broadly for two question relating to this list:
Both these issues have been previously discussed in above section, § Post-post-close discussion and § Lead image. There is no clear consensus among the talk page watchers for the lead image, and the table structure needs a broad discussion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of coups and coup attempts
Editing this list gets more complicated if we want to keep including not just verified coups and coup attempts, but also well-sourced allegations that such incidents have occurred (like these items). If alleged incidents are included or retained in this list, then we could (1) amend the lead to unambiguously explain the list criteria so readers will understand that some of the listed items are unverified by reliable secondary sources as actual coups or actual coup attempts. We could also avoid undue weight and confusion by (2) putting alleged incidents into a separate chronological section with an appropriate header (like this for example) instead of mixing them in with the verified incidents. So the RFC question is this: should step (1) and/or step (2) be implemented? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, There-being, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, GregKaye, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor:
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) |
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should we have the phrase "...and current", removed from the intro? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
As historian Neff notes, the Civil War lacks a precise end date: "In practice, the war was brought to an end on a piecemeal basis, by way of a welter of specific measures by the Union government." But since we remain in the business of conveying information, how should we communicate the end date in the infobox? Please peruse the above sections, with excellent research by Donner60 and company. The following dates stand out, but your solution needn't be limited to those listed:
Other possible approaches include:
The topic is also covered at Conclusion of the American Civil War, though the above research has exposed the article as rather lacking. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
There are two proposed versions of the Background section of this article (version A and version B), both of which might be further refined. Which of these two versions is the better option moving forward? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)
There is currently an unresolved dispute: Should we include the point about some BJP members supporting Nupur Sharma and objecting to her suspension given that she has received death threats? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
I see that some ip or new editors are constantinly changing these articles related to Turkey, for example: Grand National Assembly of Turkey, President of Turkey, etc.
We have few options, should we:
opinions? If someone can make this a rfc, it could be helpful. Beshogur (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis
Should we mention that the majority of those arrested and indicted for participation in the riots are descendants of mixed marriages between Palestinians residing in Israel and West Bank?
Alaexis¿question? 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of coups and coup attempts
Seems the use of the phrase "attempted coup" in this and related articles requires "WP:CONSENSUS" - adding "this edit" (also, see copy below) has been "reverted" due to a lack of "WP:CONSENSUS" - there has not been "Consensus" for removing the edit either - nonetheless - a "WP:CONSENSUS" discussion is sought.
" |
Talk:Flag of the United States
Should the "Symbolism" section of this article include an image depicting the burning of an American flag? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Liberalism
Requesting feedback and possible support for this WikiProject proposal. Helper201 (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand
There is currently a dispute: In articles about former and incumbent Prime Ministers of Thailand and also Governor of Bangkok, should the "Ordinal number" be add in the infobox containing the minister's and the governor’s number?
Example: It should be "20th Prime Minister of Thailand" instead of "Prime Minister of Thailand" or "17th Governor of Bangkok" instead of "Governor of Bangkok". |
Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs
See #14th : Elizabeth II for Jamaica section above. I've noticed the inconsistency with having Elizabeth as 2nd and 14th longest-reigning monarch(s?), and other wikipedians have. But at least one wikipedian (two ? I'm not sure what Peter O. thinks about this specific number question) disagree, the discussion can't go further. There's also the more general issue of having two separate Elizabeth entry (one for Jamaica and one for the other countries), me and others are also against it, but it seems to me that it's less important as it's a presentation issue, not an inconstistency issue. Elfast (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the law firm with which Camille Vasquez is associated be mentioned in the lede paragraph of the article and in the infobox?
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Please, could somebody see the discussion above? Northern Cyprus, an unrecognized de facto state, that's internationally recognized as an occupied territory of Cyprus, is mentioned at the page like a normal state. At the Russian language page, there is an example of what I suggest (see how other states like N.Cyprus are presented). Greek Rebel (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
Should the opening paragraph in the lead summary outline the religious significance of Jesus to world religions other than Christianity, and how should it go about this? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC) |
Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
The {{Conservatism in the United States}} template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. Now founder Stewart_Rhodes is is in jail for seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol there are attempts to remove the template. Please discuss here and let's come to a consensus. Thank you. Myotus (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
|
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 " |
How should the first sentences of the lead be worded?
The new proposals were formulated as a result of the discussions above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
Question: Should the Federal League records be included in the 1914 MLB season & the 1915 MLB season? GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC) |
Per WP:ACCUSED, should forms of the word "alleged" be used prior to a conviction to describe the "push" that may have caused the death of Michelle Go? Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey
From what I've observed this year, the IIHF has chosen to recognise Czech national teams as being under the name Czechia. I don't know how to open up an RM (or multiple RMs) for this matter & so I'm going the RFC route. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should this article define rock balancing as a type of vandalism, or as a recreational/artistic activity which has drawn that criticism? Should it include any content about people's reasons for balancing rocks, methods of doing so where the process isn't obvious, notable artists who have done so, and the international contests held for it? Lord Belbury (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
There are two questions.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists
Wikipedia carries a number of stand-alone lists of individuals ranked by financial "net worth" for certain regions.
Examples: List of Europeans by net worth, List of wealthiest Americans by net worth, List of Canadians by net worth, List of Arabs by net worth, List of Saudis by net worth, List of British billionaires by net worth, List of Japanese by net worth, List of Pakistanis by net worth, List of Filipino billionaires by net worth, List of Indian people by net worth, List of Italians by net worth, List of Greeks by net worth, List of Portuguese by net worth, List of Ugandans by net worth, List of Romanians by net worth, List of Kenyans by net worth, etc. |
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) |
How should the subject's nationality be described in the lead and short description?
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) |
- ^ Fage, J.D. The Cambridge History of Africa (PDF). Cambridge University press. p. 155.
- ^ Mordechai, Abir. Ethiopia and the Red Sea. Taylor and Francis. p. 27.
- ^ Bausi, Alessandro. Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. lsd. p. 930.
- ^ Tamrat, Tadesse. Church and state in Ethiopia (PDF). University of London. p. 291.
- ^ Gusarova, Ekaterina. Royal Names in Medieval Ethiopia and their Symbolism. BRILL.
- ^ (EDIT: link added to what I'm referring to from before Zefr reverted)
- ^ "Media Drama Over Poland's MSBS Grot Rifle Causes National Security Concerns in Poland". Overt Defense. 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2022-06-10.