Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Project-wide topics
The following discussions related to project-wide topics are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service ()
Wikipedia style and naming
editWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history
Should text at MOS:MILUNITNAME that advises all unit names include a parenthetical qualifier even when no other unit covered on Wikipedia uses that name be deleted for conflicting with article title policy? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
May editors revert edits that add commas or remove existing commas from articles written in British English on MOS:ENGVAR grounds? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the titles of articles about parliament constituencies (e.g. in Essex) always contain the parenthetical "(UK Parliament constituency)" or only when one is needed for disambiguation? Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)
Should WP:NCWWW be rewritten to only recommend adding a time to the article title when needed for disambiguation? See the following for an example wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists
What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:
- A: List of Cars characters
- B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
- C: List of characters in the Cars franchise
Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Should WP:NCAUST be changed to say the state or territory name "may" be in an article title for a place name, to say that these should only be used if needed for disambiguation? (Other changes are also included in the proposed text.) -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies? Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli (🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@Ymblanter WP:RUS is not a Wikipedia policy, it is an essay. That has no weight on anything. Especially not when there are countless English Wikipedia articles each of varying Romanization systems for Russian topics. ja is the romanization given by Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic and has been used for decades, and /ja/ is more correct as it matches the IPA pronunciation of the letter. For transliterating «я», should "ja" be used or "ya"? (This could also be extended to other Cyrillic letters (ш as š, etc.) 2605:8D80:6C21:7EF8:E15E:B72C:BEBC:AE40 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
editWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Background, currently, we block all WP:Tor exit nodes such that any user wanting to edit through a Tor exit node would first need to contact a administrator and obtain the WP:IPBE user right before making any edits. (i.e. convince a admin that you will edit constructively and not sock, which is a much higher bar than typical autoconfirmed). However, currently MediaWiki artificially extends the period of time a user needs to edit for to be autoconfirmed to be atleast 90 day with a edit threshold of 100 edits. This is enforced by the the TorBlock extension which was added some time in 2008. Since then, our policies have shifted, in the current day, due to our No open proxies rules, editing through Tor exit nodes are typically always blocked locally (and many times globally). Due to this, the bar for editing through Tor proxies has become "request the IPBE userright" + the aformentioned extended autoconfirmed userright. Given this, I would like to propose that we remove the special extended time period to get autoconfirmed for Tor users, and instead equalize the bar for recieving the autconfirmed userright for both Tor and non-Tor users. -- 14:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the titles of articles about parliament constituencies (e.g. in Essex) always contain the parenthetical "(UK Parliament constituency)" or only when one is needed for disambiguation? Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
Should CSD U5 be 1) repealed and replaced with a combination of 2) procedural deletion of non-contributors' user subpages after six months of no edits, 3) a narrower criterion for off-topic content that has escaped deletion under (2), 4) formalizing the practice of moving drafts off of top-level userpages, and 5) allowing editors to blank userpages that would be eligible for speedy deletion under (3) if they were subpages? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Request For Comment for the discussion Coptic Language Prohibition? on the Coptic Language talk page.
It is a VERY long 49 page discussion in full; I would start reading about half way through where the WP:3O user Squatch comes in for the sake of brevity and summary as everything said before is only either reiterated in more refined form after, dropped, or expanded upon with new sources. For max brevity you may even be able to make do with just the last reply by each of us in the discussion although I'd say the last 2 replies from each might be better. But of course read the entirety if you feel so inclined to see all the evolutions.
I definitely think Policy has something to say here, and I wasn't sure to also call on History or Language RFC but since this is dealing with the HISTORY of the language I figured that was what made sense. But arguably the more eyes on this the better to ensure prevention of WP:FALSECON.
Basically we are disagreeing on how to phrase something based on whether a claim regarding the history of the Coptic Language is exclusive to a single Coptologist or more widely held. The particular claim is the order by the Caliph Al-Hakim on the prohibition of the Coptic Language and the penalties for it. The other user wishes to rephrase it in such a way to suggest this claim is a fringe belief by a single academic. I believe should it be phrased more generally as is the status quo as it is supported by the most authoritative work on the topic and several other works with nothing opposing it in secondary sources.
At any rate this debate has gone on for a week and I'd like it resolved as it is just going in circles at this point and I've spent enough hours on it I think to warrant an escalation and I'm losing faith a resolution is possible as things stand. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?
- Option 1: Generally Reliable
- Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
- Option 3: Generally Unreliable
- Option 4: Must be Deprecated
NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Should this page be unprotected? (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Background:
- The main issue with extended confirmed protection (ECP) is that it's trivial to run up edit counts to 500 edits very quickly. Even though most extreme gaming is detected relatively quickly in several different ways, just a few minutes is long enough to seriously disrupt ECP articles, and some accounts slip through even with the new measures we have in place.
- Full protection is not a good solution for this because it prevents editing to important articles and vandals gaming ECP will shift to other pages when their target is fully protected (as happened while Donald Trump was fully protected).
Revised proposal:
- Update the site configuration so the
autoconfirmedgroup is required before an account is grantedextendedconfirmed. It's a small modification to thewmgAutopromoteOnceonEditsetting (see the enwiki settings).- We allow several high accuracy edit filters to revoke autoconfirmed. This is already supported natively. The edit filter managers would also update MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped to be more general and less accusatory.
- Remove
blockautopromotefromwgAbuseFilterActionRestrictionsso theblockautopromoteaction won't be disabled when the filters have a high rate of matches (which already happens because ECP gaming happens at a high rate). This will also allow non-administrator EFMs to edit these abuse filters (they can already restore autoconfirmed when a filter removes it so this is not a big deal).This will help address the biggest problem we have right now with ECP: the 5-30 minute delay between ECP being granted and an administrator at AIV acting on an automated report from one of several edit filters. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
WikiProjects and collaborations
edit
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
editWikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Background, currently, we block all WP:Tor exit nodes such that any user wanting to edit through a Tor exit node would first need to contact a administrator and obtain the WP:IPBE user right before making any edits. (i.e. convince a admin that you will edit constructively and not sock, which is a much higher bar than typical autoconfirmed). However, currently MediaWiki artificially extends the period of time a user needs to edit for to be autoconfirmed to be atleast 90 day with a edit threshold of 100 edits. This is enforced by the the TorBlock extension which was added some time in 2008. Since then, our policies have shifted, in the current day, due to our No open proxies rules, editing through Tor exit nodes are typically always blocked locally (and many times globally). Due to this, the bar for editing through Tor proxies has become "request the IPBE userright" + the aformentioned extended autoconfirmed userright. Given this, I would like to propose that we remove the special extended time period to get autoconfirmed for Tor users, and instead equalize the bar for recieving the autconfirmed userright for both Tor and non-Tor users. -- 14:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Should color in headings be removed from Infoboxes about people and persons? —Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Background:
- The main issue with extended confirmed protection (ECP) is that it's trivial to run up edit counts to 500 edits very quickly. Even though most extreme gaming is detected relatively quickly in several different ways, just a few minutes is long enough to seriously disrupt ECP articles, and some accounts slip through even with the new measures we have in place.
- Full protection is not a good solution for this because it prevents editing to important articles and vandals gaming ECP will shift to other pages when their target is fully protected (as happened while Donald Trump was fully protected).
Revised proposal:
- Update the site configuration so the
autoconfirmedgroup is required before an account is grantedextendedconfirmed. It's a small modification to thewmgAutopromoteOnceonEditsetting (see the enwiki settings).- We allow several high accuracy edit filters to revoke autoconfirmed. This is already supported natively. The edit filter managers would also update MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped to be more general and less accusatory.
- Remove
blockautopromotefromwgAbuseFilterActionRestrictionsso theblockautopromoteaction won't be disabled when the filters have a high rate of matches (which already happens because ECP gaming happens at a high rate). This will also allow non-administrator EFMs to edit these abuse filters (they can already restore autoconfirmed when a filter removes it so this is not a big deal).This will help address the biggest problem we have right now with ECP: the 5-30 minute delay between ECP being granted and an administrator at AIV acting on an automated report from one of several edit filters. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia proposals
editWikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)