The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Should the "Presidents and prime ministers" section have removed from it the lists of military campaigns as “one of the principal commanders” against each name? Indicate Support for removal or Oppose for keeping. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 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) |
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) |
Should Disney's political affiliations be included in the infobox? The section "World War II and beyond: 1941–1950" explains in several sentences his partisan affiliation and allegiance. Here are some more sources on his political involvement: 1, 2, 3. Disney was lightly involved in Democratic politics, but during The Second World War and the Cold War Disney became known for his conservative and staunchly anti-communist views. His brother Roy, who was also politically active, has his party in his own infobox.
I, personally, do not feel strongly one way or another about including this, but would love to gage other editors' opinions. -- Titi68999 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
Should the victims' biographies be included in the "Victims" list? Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC) |
Should this article include reference to Yasuke as a samurai? natemup (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
Should she be called a "filmmaker"/"film director", "producer" etc. in the lead / infobox? ---FMSky (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
Should the following paragraph, sourced to VICE (RSP entry), be included in the "Political activities" section?
See the back and forth in the page history after this edit, and the discussion in the section above. Endwise (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |