Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions 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
 | This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Biographies
editTalk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting
| Given that reporting on both the alleged perpetrators and the bystander who intervened has now become consistent at this point, with authorities identifying the former and the latter's family undertaking press interviews, I feel that it is now appropriate that the question be put formally given continued fragmented discussion over this matter. As they are currently restricted under different aspects of BLP (WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME respectively) I feel multiple options are appropriate.
Should this article include the names of the alleged perpetrators and/or the bystander who intervened?
|
| Should the article Trial of Michael Jackson be included in the category Category:False allegations of sex crimes, or removed from the category?
Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display
|
| Should the lead of this article keep or remove the sentence "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding."
Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| Which of the following two images (A or B) should be chosen for the main image at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
editWikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Airport destination lists: Should airport articles list full and complete lists of destinations reachable from the airport, or to what extent should they be curtailed?
Background: Airport destination lists have been a reasonably heavy point of contention in recent months, due to the poor (in many cases) sourcing of these lists, and the constant churn of content being added and removed, often without reliable sources. It got to the stage at one point where editors in this ANI thread were so tired that comments like As a result of that discussion, the following options were developed as ways forward for airport destinations lists. Note that in every instance, WP:V still applies, and routes must be sourced with reliable sources. Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates.
|
Should the phrase and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)in the first paragraph of 21st century be deleted as undue weight? Please answer Yes or No, or the equivalent, with a brief explanation in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| This wiki page is pretty thin, compared to other large multinationals (Nabisco, eg: Nabisco), so I'd like to suggest adding additional sections with well-resourced information about the organization's work. Food security is a key focus for the organization, so suggest starting here. Below is a draft section with third-party source. All factual / cut and dry. Thoughts?
Suggest adding new section food security with suggested language and sources below:
|
History and geography
edit| Thank you @S Marshall much improved. From the three options below: Where should the article title Crusades point to.
{ |
| Should the "result" parameter in the infobox be set to "Chechen victory"? The infobox documentation states that if there is a clear victor, the parameter can be used with a standard term like "X victory," but should be omitted if the outcome is ambiguous. This RfC seeks community consensus on whether reliable sources support describing the outcome as a clear Chechen victory, based on arguments previously raised in this discussion. Notifying previous participants: @GreenC: @Alaexis: @Goddard2000: @The Great Mule of Eupatoria: @TJ Kreen: @Prinsgezinde: Iask1 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts
| Can the ACLED Explorer (cited 77 times), the ACLED Dashboard (cited 12 times) and any other ACLED raw data, be used to reference claimed casualty figures? Note that access to some of the data may require free registration. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC) |
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Hello, regarding to this article. Should we use the infobox historical era layout instead of this infobox country one? Since Fascist Italy can be a broad concept, it can be referred to as the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 (this article) and the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, something like a disambiguation. Although the article's main point was about the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, it was a historical period within the state. Note that our article on Vargas era previously used the infobox country template, but now they changed it to the infobox historical era one. I think this article should follow suit. RatMan7108 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the death toll estimate of 186,000 by Khatib et al. 2024[1] be included (with attribution) in the infobox of this article? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
editWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is behindthename.com a reliable source for Wikipedia? See #behindthename.com where it comes from. --Altenmann >talk 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
editTalk:Pointer (computer programming)
| There have been lengthy disputes (as seen in the above, however apparently as there was no RfC tag it did not count) about how to format the code examples here, particularly pointer alignment.
Should left or right pointer alignment be applied here (which is C/C++ code)? Should casts for Pinging previously involved parties: @Vincent Lefèvre @Taylor Riastradh Campbell ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |
| There have been lengthy disputes (as seen in the above, however apparently as there was no RfC tag it did not count) about how to format the code examples here, particularly pointer alignment.
Should left or right pointer alignment be applied here? Should the example for a "birthday" be capitalised (i.e. This is NOT an RfC about "standardising style across Wikipedia". Pinging previously involved parties: @Vincent Lefèvre @Taylor Riastradh Campbell ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Q1. Avi Loeb's work related to UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy,
Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...
Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...
|
Should the last sentence of the lead read:
|
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
edit| Should the article Trial of Michael Jackson be included in the category Category:False allegations of sex crimes, or removed from the category?
Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media
| In media-history timelines, should empty dates with no information and no sources be listed as "No events"?
For example, the current Timeline of ITN [Independent Television News, British company] has many sections lacking information, and the gaps are filled with: "1956 No events. 1957 No events. 1958 No events.", etc. This has been done on hundreds of timelines about UK TV and UK radio, but on few other history timelines on Wikipedia, and it isn't common practice in sources on media history, e.g. [5], [6]. Editor guides like WP:TIMEL don't seem to go into this. - Thanks, Responsible? (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Per this discussion, should the source FiringSquad be added to Module:Video game reviews/data with the parameter FS, to be used for adding scores in the Video game reviews template? Big Blue Gnu 18:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
|
Talk:List of best-selling video games
| As shown in the article, sources are divided between Minecraft and Tetris as to which should be considered the best-selling video game. The main problem is with Tetris definition. Many sources consider it a video game, but some also consider it a franchise. How should this be resolved? Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 22
| Should the weekly summaries in the page be condensed down to around 4-5 lines instead? This is prevalent in the tasks section, where each task is described in way too much detail that it's not deemed as a summary anymore. DueChayapol (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Q1: Should every person who appears in this film be listed in the cast list?
Q2: If No, who should be listed?
|
Politics, government, and law
editTalk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting
| Given that reporting on both the alleged perpetrators and the bystander who intervened has now become consistent at this point, with authorities identifying the former and the latter's family undertaking press interviews, I feel that it is now appropriate that the question be put formally given continued fragmented discussion over this matter. As they are currently restricted under different aspects of BLP (WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME respectively) I feel multiple options are appropriate.
Should this article include the names of the alleged perpetrators and/or the bystander who intervened?
|
| Should the "result" parameter in the infobox be set to "Chechen victory"? The infobox documentation states that if there is a clear victor, the parameter can be used with a standard term like "X victory," but should be omitted if the outcome is ambiguous. This RfC seeks community consensus on whether reliable sources support describing the outcome as a clear Chechen victory, based on arguments previously raised in this discussion. Notifying previous participants: @GreenC: @Alaexis: @Goddard2000: @The Great Mule of Eupatoria: @TJ Kreen: @Prinsgezinde: Iask1 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the article Trial of Michael Jackson be included in the category Category:False allegations of sex crimes, or removed from the category?
Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2026 New Democratic Party leadership election
| In the "Endorsements" section, are endorsements which are entirely sourced to the candidate's or endorser's own blog or social media post, without any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, appropriate for inclusion in Wikivoice? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 20:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts
| Can the ACLED Explorer (cited 77 times), the ACLED Dashboard (cited 12 times) and any other ACLED raw data, be used to reference claimed casualty figures? Note that access to some of the data may require free registration. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should this be considered an incident, or an attack? NotJamestack (✉️ |
| Should the comparison that Herb Keinon made of the proposed renaming of the park to the renaming campaign that took place during Nazi German for things named after Jewish people be included in the article? Pinging all extended confirmed editors who have edited the article in the past 18 months: StairySky, SeoR, Guliolopez, MemicznyJanusz, Sumanuil, Financefactz, Fearadach, Dewritech —Green Montanan (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the lead of this article keep or remove the sentence "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding."
Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Hello, regarding to this article. Should we use the infobox historical era layout instead of this infobox country one? Since Fascist Italy can be a broad concept, it can be referred to as the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 (this article) and the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, something like a disambiguation. Although the article's main point was about the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, it was a historical period within the state. Note that our article on Vargas era previously used the infobox country template, but now they changed it to the infobox historical era one. I think this article should follow suit. RatMan7108 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
This RfC has two questions:
If 1. is voted true, we will be able to say there is scholarly consensus in Wikivoice with sourcing but without attribution across Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL (this will be considered the global consensus). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following two images (A or B) should be chosen for the main image at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the death toll estimate of 186,000 by Khatib et al. 2024[1] be included (with attribution) in the infobox of this article? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the subsection |
Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii
| Should the Manhattan Institute be used as a source and does this source (https://news.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx) support the statement that Hawaii is a liberal state. Des Vallee (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
editTalk:Antioch International Movement of Churches
| This RfC seeks input on whether criticism attributed to unnamed former members of Antioch Waco in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article is given due weight in the article.
Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed? Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave." Arguments for Inclusion:
Arguments for Removal:
Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members |
| Thank you @S Marshall much improved. From the three options below: Where should the article title Crusades point to.
{ |
Society, sports, and culture
editTalk:Antioch International Movement of Churches
| This RfC seeks input on whether criticism attributed to unnamed former members of Antioch Waco in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article is given due weight in the article.
Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed? Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave." Arguments for Inclusion:
Arguments for Removal:
Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members |
| Thank you @S Marshall much improved. From the three options below: Where should the article title Crusades point to.
{ |
How should Tetris be defined in the lede sentence (first sentence) of the article?
|
Should the phrase and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)in the first paragraph of 21st century be deleted as undue weight? Please answer Yes or No, or the equivalent, with a brief explanation in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
Category talk:Canadian sportspeople by country of descent
| Following a CfD for categories relating to British sportspeople in 2023 here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025 here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French, I submitted a deletion review in November here which endorsed the no-consensus closure. I have no problem with that, my purpose was to seek a logical global consistency on the suitability of this intersection - it was suggested that RfC was the best place for that, so here I am, again.
Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters. There is no evidence that Category:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing. On the French side, there is no evidence that Category:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid) – because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections: Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present but Category:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any reader with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (see Turks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical, either those should be restored or these other 'survivors' merged too. PS I'm not certain if the RfC type I have selected is the most suitable, please change it if not. Crowsus (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
editTalk:Antioch International Movement of Churches
| This RfC seeks input on whether criticism attributed to unnamed former members of Antioch Waco in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article is given due weight in the article.
Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed? Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave." Arguments for Inclusion:
Arguments for Removal:
Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Airport destination lists: Should airport articles list full and complete lists of destinations reachable from the airport, or to what extent should they be curtailed?
Background: Airport destination lists have been a reasonably heavy point of contention in recent months, due to the poor (in many cases) sourcing of these lists, and the constant churn of content being added and removed, often without reliable sources. It got to the stage at one point where editors in this ANI thread were so tired that comments like As a result of that discussion, the following options were developed as ways forward for airport destinations lists. Note that in every instance, WP:V still applies, and routes must be sourced with reliable sources. Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates.
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Should the following (or similar guidance) be added to MOS:SEEALSO?
(I would propose adding this above the {{annotated link}} paragraph, unless someone has strong feelings it should go elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display
|
| Should the subsection |
| Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) be revised with regard to the naming conventions for state routes in Kansas and Michigan so that the parenthetical disambiguators "(Kansas highway)" and "(Michigan highway)" are only used when disambiguation is necessary, or another format entirely is used instead? 23:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
editWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is behindthename.com a reliable source for Wikipedia? See #behindthename.com where it comes from. --Altenmann >talk 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation
| Should the University of New Brunswick (UNB) be included in this list of oldest universities in continuous operation, with a Note distinguishing between (a) its predecessor institution’s founding, (b) the 1800 provincial charter granting degree-conferring authority, and (c) the earliest documented university-level instruction in the 1820s?
Some editors argue that inclusion is inappropriate because documented university-level teaching begins only in the 1820s. Others argue that, consistent with existing table precedent (founding versus charter versus formal university status, e.g., Harvard, which is included based on founding and charter despite later formal university status), UNB may be included with a clarifying Note reflecting charter authority and documentation limits, without asserting undocumented instruction. For clarity, multiple draft phrasings of the proposed Note have been discussed above; the RfC concerns whether UNB should be included at all with a clarifying Note of this type, not endorsement of a specific final wording. Input is sought on how WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and table precedent should be applied.Tinterest (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Request for comment: Should we replace the current text of the guideline at Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models with the draft guideline at User:Qcne/LLMGuideline?
The new draft guideline defines an LLM, strongly advises editors not to use LLMs to add content to Wikipedia, and describes how to handle LLM-generated content that is already present. This follows on from the RFCBEFORE discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#Further amendment proposal #2: qcne, where several alternative drafts were discussed. qcne (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
User talk:Athanelar/Identifying AI-generated text
| This has been up for a bit over 24 hours and has had a fair few eyes on it with no strong objections and some good tweaks, so I'm moving forward to RfC.
The RfC closer for WP:NEWLLM stated that a community consensus on identifying AI-generated text would be necessary in order for that guideline to be properly enforced. The question for this RfC is thus: should this proposal be accepted as a supplementary essay to WP:NEWLLM (and future AI-restricting guidelines) to serve as a consensus standard for how to identify AI-generated text? Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the subsection |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
| Should data table captions be required only for screen readers? If yes, the first sentence of MOS:HEADERS would be changed to remove "and used on all data tables." In its place, a second sentence would be added saying that captions are still required for accessibility, to be voiced by screen readers, with Template:Sronly hiding the caption from sighted readers by default. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
editWikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Per this discussion, should the source FiringSquad be added to Module:Video game reviews/data with the parameter FS, to be used for adding scores in the Video game reviews template? Big Blue Gnu 18:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
|
Talk:List of best-selling video games
| As shown in the article, sources are divided between Minecraft and Tetris as to which should be considered the best-selling video game. The main problem is with Tetris definition. Many sources consider it a video game, but some also consider it a franchise. How should this be resolved? Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
editWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
| Should data table captions be required only for screen readers? If yes, the first sentence of MOS:HEADERS would be changed to remove "and used on all data tables." In its place, a second sentence would be added saying that captions are still required for accessibility, to be voiced by screen readers, with Template:Sronly hiding the caption from sighted readers by default. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
edit| Should we remove the section "Blurbs for recent deaths" from the information page "In the news/Recent deaths"? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Unsorted
edit
User names
edit| 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
editPlease 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.
- ^ a b Khatib, Rasha; McKee, Martin; Yusuf, Salim (5 July 2024). "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential". The Lancet. 404 (10449). Elsevier BV: 237–238. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01169-3. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 38976995.