Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
Should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Nemov (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||
Anonymous user(s) using Bell Internet accounts are suppressing edits referring to Prof. Bart's 2013 disciplinary decision. In the deletion discussion, the general agreement of other Wikipedia editors is that the disciplinary decision should be referenced, and a reliable source has been cited. Rather than provoke an edit war against anonymous sympathisers (or Prof. Bart himself), I'd like direction on:
I do not know whether suppression constitutes WP:Vandalism, and it doesn't fall into the libel category that would qualify for assistance on the WP:BLPN. On the contrary, it's trying to suppress unflattering information about Prof. Bart. AgarWhisper (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
| There have been a lot of edit warring with the nationality in the lead. Should be listed as just American, Vietnamese-American, Vietnamese-born American, or some other option? The relevant facts are: He was born in (South) Vietnam in 1971, in 1979 he resettled with his family in America as refugees. He has lived in America ever since (though he has worked on several Hong Kong films in production roles). See MOS:ETHNICITY for the relevant policy. I personally have no strong opinion, and just want to end the edit warring with a clear consensus one way or the other. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox? 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Taking into account the recent changes that have been made in this article, and that the awards-related statement has been removed from the end of the first paragraph of this article; I think it is necessary to implement a new statement in the lead section of the article in order to cover the information according to the new situation.
Therefore, I consider that the appropriate location to add such a statement is the middle part of the fourth paragraph of the article, before the sentence "His honors include 15 Grammy Awards...". Keeping in mind some suggestions previously expressed in this Talk page by users such as BD2412 and Apoxyomenus, and aiming for greater neutrality and accuracy for the article, I ask for your opinion: What statement do you consider should be added to cover the awards-related information within the new situation?
The following options are statements that would be placed before the sentence "Jackson's inductions include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame..." in the fourth paragraph of the lead section.
Finally, if anyone wishes to propose a different statement, suggestions are completely welcome. Salvabl (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
| At least as far as I've noticed, when including a place of birth in an article's infobox, it's the general practice on Wikipedia to use historical place names. Sometimes the modern-day country is included, as with Mikhail Gorbachev or Mila Kunis. With Kaja Kallas being featured on the main page, it came to my attention that many articles for people born in what's now Estonia (and possibly other states) do not adhere to this practice. It appears that, due to Estonia having been on the receiving end of Russian imperialism for the last few hundred years and the idea of state continuity of the Baltic states, opinions on whether to list Estonia or Estonian SSR as someone's place of birth often reflect the politics of the editors involved.
Personally, I think the de facto recognition of the Soviet administration by most paired with other factors like the monopoly on the legal use of force make linking to the SSR articles the sensible thing to do. Additionally, I believe the articles on the Baltic SSRs do a sufficiently good job of addressing questions about their legitimacy. In any case, I think it would be helpful to solicit comments and see if we can maybe get some kind of consensus here. Rockhead126 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the following paragraph be inserted into the biography? Yes or no. The paragraph is about a widely reported development in November 1991, a marketing campaign which backfired somewhat and gave Michael Jackson's reputation a dunking. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space? 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
| Is the detail of the use of the term "top tier" in scope here, in an article about the term Big Six? Specifically, is top tier usage as a preeminent term for leading law firms, verifiable? If so, does detail re "top-tier" firms belong in this article?
Should the article say that top tier is the industry-wide accepted term for leading law firms, on a par with the way the Big Six? has been used in Australia? If so, is detail of "top-tier" firms within the scope of the article?
|
| Is the current version of the Cloudflare#Controversies section disproportionately long?
A. Yes, the section needs to be condensed B. No, it’s fine as-is. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
History and geography
Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
| Relative to the above discussion, which infobox is best suited to this topic? Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should the lead sentence of this article on Kosovo describe Kosovo using the specific word "country"? For example:
? |
| Is it WP: Due for the article to describe Israel as a liberal democracy? The term has been repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC - but discussion over it dates back to the 2000s. |
| Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?
This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here. As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:
As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:
A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Shall we include or exclude text and wikilink:
"Scientists, politicians, and laypersons have advocated for investigations into the origin of COVID-19."[1][2][3] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox? 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should George Floyd be mentioned in the lead of the Minneapolis article? 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the adjective "Persianate" be used as the primary qualifier in the lead of the articles about the various Turko-Mongol nomadic entities who invaded Iran and became more or less acculturated to Persian culture? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
| At least as far as I've noticed, when including a place of birth in an article's infobox, it's the general practice on Wikipedia to use historical place names. Sometimes the modern-day country is included, as with Mikhail Gorbachev or Mila Kunis. With Kaja Kallas being featured on the main page, it came to my attention that many articles for people born in what's now Estonia (and possibly other states) do not adhere to this practice. It appears that, due to Estonia having been on the receiving end of Russian imperialism for the last few hundred years and the idea of state continuity of the Baltic states, opinions on whether to list Estonia or Estonian SSR as someone's place of birth often reflect the politics of the editors involved.
Personally, I think the de facto recognition of the Soviet administration by most paired with other factors like the monopoly on the legal use of force make linking to the SSR articles the sensible thing to do. Additionally, I believe the articles on the Baltic SSRs do a sufficiently good job of addressing questions about their legitimacy. In any case, I think it would be helpful to solicit comments and see if we can maybe get some kind of consensus here. Rockhead126 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania
| Which of the following sections should be used in the article, Coat of arms of Lithuania, with regard to the Belarussian coat of arms?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Vilna Soviet of Workers Deputies
| Should the city name in this article be Vilna or Vilnius? For arguments in favor of both options please see above. --Hh1718 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
| Should we include 1981 bombings in the lede? Yes or No? Ghazaalch (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
Maths, science, and technology
Which of the following options is the best image of Hurricane Nicole?
This will be the image used for the Hurricane Nicole (2022) infobox, 2022 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Nicole infobox, and Weather of 2022#November image. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements
| Should the classification scheme used for the chemical elements on the periodic table be changed from the current block-based 4-color scheme (s-block, p-block, d-block, f-block) to the former 10-color scheme (alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, lanthanides, actinides, transition metals, post-transition metals, metalloids, reactive nonmetals, noble gases, and elements with unknown properties)? 123957a (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Shall we include or exclude text and wikilink:
"Scientists, politicians, and laypersons have advocated for investigations into the origin of COVID-19."[4][2][5] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
Which file is best for the January 12 section on the Tornadoes of 2023 article?
Elijahandskip (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Which of the following options is the best image of Hurricane Nicole?
This will be the image used for the Hurricane Nicole (2022) infobox, 2022 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Nicole infobox, and Weather of 2022#November image. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Nemov (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||
Talk:Deep Learning (South Park)
| Should ChatGPT be credited as a writer in the infobox? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:The Pirates of Dark Water
| Should this article mention in-universe elements of the fictional setting of Mer and ships? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox? 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
| In album infoboxes, should the "Chronology" section only contain releases for which Wikipedia has articles, similar to the WP:EXISTING guidance for nav boxes? (See discussion above.) Popcornfud (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Media portrayals of bisexuality
| Should the compilation images of bisexual men, women, and non-binary people remain on this page, or be moved to another page, or removed? Helper201 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Taking into account the recent changes that have been made in this article, and that the awards-related statement has been removed from the end of the first paragraph of this article; I think it is necessary to implement a new statement in the lead section of the article in order to cover the information according to the new situation.
Therefore, I consider that the appropriate location to add such a statement is the middle part of the fourth paragraph of the article, before the sentence "His honors include 15 Grammy Awards...". Keeping in mind some suggestions previously expressed in this Talk page by users such as BD2412 and Apoxyomenus, and aiming for greater neutrality and accuracy for the article, I ask for your opinion: What statement do you consider should be added to cover the awards-related information within the new situation?
The following options are statements that would be placed before the sentence "Jackson's inductions include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame..." in the fourth paragraph of the lead section.
Finally, if anyone wishes to propose a different statement, suggestions are completely welcome. Salvabl (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the following paragraph be inserted into the biography? Yes or no. The paragraph is about a widely reported development in November 1991, a marketing campaign which backfired somewhat and gave Michael Jackson's reputation a dunking. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article include an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum, as it currently does in the infobox? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
Talk:Movement for the self-determination of Kabylie
| I suggest removing both the biased source and the content associated with it (this one[6]: Djazairess, an Algerian press website). Although the article covers a self-determination movement that opposes the Algerian government, it seems impractical to depend on a biased Algerian source known for promoting Algerian propaganda, particularly for this topic. Thanks. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Is the detail of the use of the term "top tier" in scope here, in an article about the term Big Six? Specifically, is top tier usage as a preeminent term for leading law firms, verifiable? If so, does detail re "top-tier" firms belong in this article?
Should the article say that top tier is the industry-wide accepted term for leading law firms, on a par with the way the Big Six? has been used in Australia? If so, is detail of "top-tier" firms within the scope of the article?
|
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Do criticisms raised by opposition political parties and media regarding David Johnston's appointment as Special Rapporteur merit article inclusion? ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should the lead sentence of this article on Kosovo describe Kosovo using the specific word "country"? For example:
? |
| Is it WP: Due for the article to describe Israel as a liberal democracy? The term has been repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC - but discussion over it dates back to the 2000s. |
| Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?
This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here. As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:
As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:
A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
| Should the lead sentences in articles about elections prioritize links or boldface? 09:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should George Floyd be mentioned in the lead of the Minneapolis article? 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should Category:Critics of Black Lives Matterbe included in this article? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany)
| Which ideology/ideologies and political positions should be listed in the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
| User:Cat's Tuxedo and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to include the fascism template at the bottom of the article. My argument is that, since there are multiple sources in the article that indicate that many experts consider Trumpism to be a form of fascism, and the article indicates as such, it should be included. Their argument is that the sources are all invalid because they do not cite Giovanni Gentile specifically or make comparisons to his works. According to them, quote, "If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing".
So I would like to ask, should the template stay or go? Please reply with keep template to indicate that the template should stay, or remove template to indicate that it should not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania
| Which of the following sections should be used in the article, Coat of arms of Lithuania, with regard to the Belarussian coat of arms?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
| Should the infobox of those with honorific styles such as 'His/Her Excellency' include such titles? For example, Bajram Begaj's infobox includes the style 'His Excellency', as does Edi Rama's, and Michael D. Higgins' (and others, but I don't have the time nor will to look for all examples), but the infoboxes for Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Xi Jinping, etc., and other serving officials who, according to the article 'Excellency', are to be addressed with the honorific style, do not have the style. My question is thus: Should all those who are to be addressed with the honorific style have it displayed in the infobox, or is there another reason why some who are entitled to be addressed in that way have it displayed, and others do not? Compusolus (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
| Should practical areas of work anthroposophists have founded be termed "applications" or "claimed/purported applications"? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
Should the sentence below be included in the article (as it is now) under the subsection Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op?
Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should the biography of Rod Steiger include an infobox? Nemov (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||
| Is it WP: Due for the article to describe Israel as a liberal democracy? The term has been repeatedly added in and removed without a RFC - but discussion over it dates back to the 2000s. |
| Should the summary table show "since 1972" as the date that "equal ages of consent" for heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior came into force, or would saying something like "never unequal" (see above section for approaches) be clearer? 203.0.31.200 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the United States article continue to mention the country's practice of the death penalty vs. countries such as Japan and Taiwan?
This has been a simmering topic over the past year. Arguments and discussion surrounding it can be seen here. As a quick synopsis of the pro-"removal" view:
As a quick synopsis of the anti-"removal" view:
A detailed examination of the arguments for and against - which I suggest editors read - can be found here and here. KlayCax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Shall we include or exclude text and wikilink:
"Scientists, politicians, and laypersons have advocated for investigations into the origin of COVID-19."[9][2][10] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox? 20:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should George Floyd be mentioned in the lead of the Minneapolis article? 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
Talk:Media portrayals of bisexuality
| Should the compilation images of bisexual men, women, and non-binary people remain on this page, or be moved to another page, or removed? Helper201 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Taking into account the recent changes that have been made in this article, and that the awards-related statement has been removed from the end of the first paragraph of this article; I think it is necessary to implement a new statement in the lead section of the article in order to cover the information according to the new situation.
Therefore, I consider that the appropriate location to add such a statement is the middle part of the fourth paragraph of the article, before the sentence "His honors include 15 Grammy Awards...". Keeping in mind some suggestions previously expressed in this Talk page by users such as BD2412 and Apoxyomenus, and aiming for greater neutrality and accuracy for the article, I ask for your opinion: What statement do you consider should be added to cover the awards-related information within the new situation?
The following options are statements that would be placed before the sentence "Jackson's inductions include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame..." in the fourth paragraph of the lead section.
Finally, if anyone wishes to propose a different statement, suggestions are completely welcome. Salvabl (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
Should Category:Critics of Black Lives Matterbe included in this article? Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the following paragraph be inserted into the biography? Yes or no. The paragraph is about a widely reported development in November 1991, a marketing campaign which backfired somewhat and gave Michael Jackson's reputation a dunking. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
| Should the article include an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum, as it currently does in the infobox? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space? 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
How should MOS:COMMONALITY be interpreted in relation to MOS:TIES?
Under proposal B topics with ties to Britain and America will always use spectacles and eyeglasses respectively, while topics with ties to India will use one crore. If there is a consensus for either option then MOS:ENGVAR will be updated to reflect this. 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) |
| At least as far as I've noticed, when including a place of birth in an article's infobox, it's the general practice on Wikipedia to use historical place names. Sometimes the modern-day country is included, as with Mikhail Gorbachev or Mila Kunis. With Kaja Kallas being featured on the main page, it came to my attention that many articles for people born in what's now Estonia (and possibly other states) do not adhere to this practice. It appears that, due to Estonia having been on the receiving end of Russian imperialism for the last few hundred years and the idea of state continuity of the Baltic states, opinions on whether to list Estonia or Estonian SSR as someone's place of birth often reflect the politics of the editors involved.
Personally, I think the de facto recognition of the Soviet administration by most paired with other factors like the monopoly on the legal use of force make linking to the SSR articles the sensible thing to do. Additionally, I believe the articles on the Baltic SSRs do a sufficiently good job of addressing questions about their legitimacy. In any case, I think it would be helpful to solicit comments and see if we can maybe get some kind of consensus here. Rockhead126 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| To bring WP:POSTNOM in better agreement with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, I propose that this policy be altered to specifically omit post-nominal letters from lead sentences.
Per our guideline on biographical opening paragraphs, "the opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources." Post-nominal letters, many of which are unknown to laypeople, do not do any of those things. If anything, they actually delay a reader from getting to the part of the opening sentence that describes a person's notability. Instead, WP:POSTNOM would advise that post-nominals be placed in the body of the article. If needed, the exact wording of this revised section will be determined after this RfC concludes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
How should MOS:COMMONALITY be interpreted in relation to MOS:TIES?
Under proposal B topics with ties to Britain and America will always use spectacles and eyeglasses respectively, while topics with ties to India will use one crore. If there is a consensus for either option then MOS:ENGVAR will be updated to reflect this. 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:No original research
| There has been disagreement between editors on multiple occasions whether or not the following situation is original research (not allowed) or if it falls under basic and routine calculations:
Most tornadoes in the United States are given a damage total provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Based on the those damage totals, a list of the top ten costliest tornadoes of that year is created. An example would be Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United States tornadoes. NOAA does not provide a straight list of the costliest tornadoes of the year. This means there is no explicit source saying what the top ten costliest tornadoes of the year are as it was derived from the provided damage totals. Are Wikipedia articles allowed to say X tornado was the (1st/2nd/3rd ect..) costliest tornado of the year under a basic and routine calculation (looking at which numbers are larger than other numbers) or does it fall under original research as no source explicitly states the list?
Elijahandskip (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| Strictly according to WP:G13, the deletion criterion applies to pages that have not been edited by a human in six months. This does not explicitly exclude sockpuppets of blocked or banned humans doing so in contravention of their block/ban. What is the official position here? If the intention is that such edits should not reset the clock, should this be made explicitly clear?
Apologies if this has been asked - I could not find this specific issue in the archive. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources
| Maps are used as references in 32,000+ articles. From time to time questions about their use are raised in venues such as WP:GAC,WP:AFD and WT:OR. Policy and guidelines about sourcing and verifiability do not directly address nontextual sources. This RFC was started to answer some of those questions. I feel the Wikipedia community would benefit if we have some codified guidelines about their use to avoid having to continually revisit these topics.Dave (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Should the community encourage or require GENSEX cases to be brought at AE, or make no change? 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Currently, WP:UDP says:
However, there is some debate due to the vagueness of what
However, as Uanfala has mentioned on the talk, this provision was boldly added by a now-banned user, and the archives are fairly divided to find any hard consensus. Notably, G5 is not currently listed, but several admins have echoed that they refuse to restore material by banned or blocked editors per WP:BMB as a means to enforce bans and dissuade the user from returning. However, other editors advocate that WP:BANREVERT states there is no hard rule to delete potentially useful content, although you are allowed to. This means there is no settled precedent for either supporting and opposing such requests, and it is entirely up to the reviewing administrator to refuse such a request purely based on their outlook of how material added by banned users should be treated. Thus, I think a centralized discussion regarding this would be the best idea going forward. So as a repeat from the top, can good faith editors appeal to move deleted material from a CSD to a draft or their userspace to work on? (This assumes that there are no other issues with the pages and, in the case of G5, the requesting editor is not affiliated with the banned page creator unless they satisfy WP:PROXYING). And if so, do administrators use their personal best judgment or concede (in most cases) to allow for community-consensus discussion such as WP:AFD and WP:DRV? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost
Please comment on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be NPOV, or whether one-sided opinion pieces are fine? The general question is sparked from the controversy around this Signpost article, much of which can be seen at its talk page. In particular, see the WP:ANI thread here, which was opened on the basis that the article "prejudges an active Arbitration case", suggested that the review prior to publication was "the most ever for any Signpost piece"and was left up roughly on the basis that "it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost". So in an attempt to avoid similar chaos next time this happens, please provide your view on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be written in an NPOV manner, or whether a one-sided opinion piece is fine. Ideally without commenting on the specifics of this one current ArbCom case. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
Template talk:WikiProject Jewish history
| Should the to-do list remain in the template? TartarTorte 14:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
| Hello, everyone, I am proposing that we expand the scope of WikiProject Television to create several task forces for streaming services like that of Netflix, Amazon, Apple Plus, HBO, and Hulu. These are the ones off the top of my head that I think that is useful since there are hundreds or nearly thousands of articles related to these services about the programming alone. Netflix should be a given considering we have several Netflix navboxes for the exact purpose of linking shows among other articles which have gotten extreme large just to link them all together. And the fact of scope for Netflix is probably the largest of the services put together.
We should be in contact with the Film project since these companies also produce films, not just TV shows. But we have more articles for television shows than films. And the task forces should have the parameters with the project banners and have the ability to list the importance of the articles from top to low for these services. As of right now, there are only five task forces for networks, BBC, Cartoon Network, ITC Productions, and Nickelodeon. Although, both ITC and Nick are tagged as inactive. Disney doesn't need one since there is already a Disney WikiProject that covers the streaming-related articles for them. Regarding naming, it should be simple such as the following:
Look to seeing everyone's thoughts and ideas on this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Template talk:Infobox Indian state or territory
| This template Template:Infobox Indian state or territory was created to replace the Template:Infobox settlement in all the articles of Category:States and union territories of India.
An editor Tojoroy20 doesn't want the existence of the parameters "image_skyline", "imagesize", "image_alt" and "image_caption" in this template. Tojoroy assumes that those parameters aren't useful enough. On the other hand, Haoreima wants the existence of these parameters. According to Haoreima, before the creation of this particular template, all the articles on Category:States and union territories of India, used the Template:Infobox settlement, and all those articles utilize those particular parameters (whose existence is currently in conflict between these 2 editors), thereby considering it is logically reasonable to put them in the new template (this template) also, which is going to serve all those very articles. Wikipedians are welcome to comment whether to remove them or not. --Haoreima (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space? 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
Unsorted
User names
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
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.
- ^ Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
- ^ a b c Graham RL, Baric RS (May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. 52 (5): 734–736. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016. PMC 7207110. PMID 32392464.
- ^ Qin A, Wang V, Hakim D (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.
- ^ Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
- ^ Qin A, Wang V, Hakim D (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.
- ^ "Soutien financier secret du Maroc à Ferhat mehenni". Djazairess. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
- ^ Lamothe, Dan (June 11, 2020). "Pentagon's top general apologizes for appearing alongside Trump in Lafayette Square". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 5, 2020.
- ^ Lamothe, Dan (June 11, 2020). "Pentagon's top general apologizes for appearing alongside Trump in Lafayette Square". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 5, 2020.
- ^ Hakim MS (February 2021). "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology. 31 (6): e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222. PMC 7995093. PMID 33586302.
- ^ Qin A, Wang V, Hakim D (20 November 2020). "How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021.