Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
[edit]| Should the article use a sketch of Northernlion or no image until a copyright-free alternative is found? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC) |
| The following sub-section should be added as Gender stereotyping, as a fully sourced and relevant biographical topic:
In 2016 British clothing brand Jacamo, owned by N Brown Group, was accused of gender stereotyping after posting an advert on Twitter showing a model next to a "real man". Aldous criticised the advert publicly and stated he thought the advert was "homophobic".[1] His criticism was widely reported.[2][3][4][5][6] He explained his position: "I feel like I am constantly trying to be shoved into a category that I do not want to be in, I feel like I should have to like football, not like the colour pink, shouldn’t dye my hair and should have a girlfriend because I'm a man."[7] |
Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association
1) Should the articles of any NBA players say that they are often considered one of the greatest players of all time?
2) If the answer to the previous question is yes, what standard should be used? Note: this question is optional
Context: Various historical NBA players have been called "one of the greatest", "the greatest of all-time", or "the greatest at a position" by the press, magazines, books, former players, experts, etc. These terms are very subjective in nature and cover a 75+ year history, but can be sourced none-the-less. Discussions have ranged from the terms being vital to non-encyclopedic, from leaving the term in a player legacy section to prominently being displayed in the lead to not using the term at all. Please help us out with a yes or no on the term "greatest" in the lead section and the reasoning behind it. Thanks. Pinging previous discussion contributors: @Fyunck(click), Left guide, Wamalotpark, Bagumba, Johnnynumerofive, Somarain, Zagalejo, Eg224, Jessintime, Orlando Davis, Assadzadeh, GOAT Bones231012, Anonymous7432, and Boles P94: |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
|
History and geography
[edit]Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present)
| From what I’ve seen for a few months now, the map currently in use is incredibly outdated, and something needs to be done about it. I’ll leave the following two options I suggested here below; Zabezt (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Should we keep the link to Electronic Intifada under "external links"?(link in question: Iqrit, Electronic Intifada) Huldra (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
|
Talk:Mir Jumla's invasion of Assam
What should the result be given as in the infobox?
|
| Should Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, be referred to as "Modern Standard Urdu" in the same ways as Hindi, the official language of India, is referred to as: "Modern Standard Hindi?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi
| Given that the two headers before that discuss events between 1969-77 and 1977-2011 respectively and that the Egyptian-Libyan War started and ended in 1977, should we move the section on the Egyptian-Libyan War in between the Libyan Arab Republic (1969-1977) and Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011) sections for continuity? I don't think readers will like having to skip around in a history article. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 20:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]| Should add the voiceless diacritics underneath/above the lenes, as in ⟨b̥ d̥ ɡ̊⟩ for transcriptions involving Swiss and Austrian Standard German? Even though the word- and morpheme-final orthographic ⟨b d g⟩ aren't fortified, they aren't voiced either and the bare symbols ⟨b d ɡ⟩ might be more confusing than ⟨p t k⟩ (used previously, in alignment with pronunciation dictionaries) by the official IPA standards, not less. [ˈhabsbʊrɡ] doesn't feature a voiced-voiceless-voiced sequence in the middle, nor is the final sound voiced.
There's also a question of [b̥v̥ d̥z̥ d̥ʒ̊ v̥ z̥ ʒ̊ ɣ̊] - are they in any way relevant in the southern standards? Any important allophonies we should transcribe? Then, what about [ʝ̊]? Does that exist? And should we then switch to transcribing the voiced labiodental with ⟨ʋ⟩ as far as the southern varieties are concerned? Sol505000 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Should Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, be referred to as "Modern Standard Urdu" in the same ways as Hindi, the official language of India, is referred to as: "Modern Standard Hindi?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]| To better align with WP:NPOV, should each section that introduces the term “safe” or “safety” in reference to abortion include a brief clarification at first mention—specifically, that “safe” refers to the pregnant woman undergoing the abortion, not the embryo or fetus?
For example, take the current first mention of safety in the lead: When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. This proposal would adjust that statement to something like: When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine for the woman receiving it. Feel free to vote and comment with one of the following options:
|
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
| Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[8] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]| Should we add Square Enix's (the game's publisher) comments that Forspoken's sales were "lacklustre" to the lead? OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Billie Eilish discography
It has been bothering me for a while that some of Eilish's songs that are assigned as singles, since not every standalone release is a single. That is why I think we should move certain songs into promotional singles category. I have put it into a numbered list, to explain why these examples should be switched:
|
| Should Tetris be defined as a video game, a series of video games, or a video game genre? Lazman321 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)
Does WP:GNG allow for album reviews containing substantive, in-depth analysis to ground the notability of a song article, or does the categorical prohibition in WP:NSONG apply?
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels
| Should book review aggregator websites be included in articles? Οἶδα (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concerts
| Based on the discussion above as there has not been much activity, should we have the festivals be placed into explanatory footnotes ("Explanatory footnotes"), or placed into the venue column on the tour date table ("In-Table")? HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films
| The following is a list of films that we are discussing should or should not be one the list as requested by User:Braganza |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice
| Should bonus tracks or other alternative tracklistings be included in album articles?12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]| This page has been using Template:Infobox political party for several years at this point (since 5 September 2020), and I'd like to make the case that this infobox should either be removed, replaced, or greatly overhauled. It's not helpful to portray individual ideologies as if they were organised political parties with their own ideologies and it seems like the infobox on this page (as well as on pages such as Anti-Federalism) is causing repeated content disputes.
On top of that, almost none of the currently-utilised parameters in the infobox are appropriate:
"Dissolved" — How can an ideology or a political philosophy be dissolved? "Colors" — Ideologies can't have colors. "Historical leaders" — Again, this isn't a party, there can't therefore be a leader. "Merged into" — As Jeffersonian democracy wasn't an organised party, there's no entity to merge into anything.
|
Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present)
| From what I’ve seen for a few months now, the map currently in use is incredibly outdated, and something needs to be done about it. I’ll leave the following two options I suggested here below; Zabezt (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the political position in the infobox and in the opening line of the "Ideology and platform" be changed to "right-wing to far-right" given the number of sources that have now been introduced in the "Ideology and platform" for far-right? Helper201 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |
| To better align with WP:NPOV, should each section that introduces the term “safe” or “safety” in reference to abortion include a brief clarification at first mention—specifically, that “safe” refers to the pregnant woman undergoing the abortion, not the embryo or fetus?
For example, take the current first mention of safety in the lead: When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine. This proposal would adjust that statement to something like: When done legally in industrialized societies, induced abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine for the woman receiving it. Feel free to vote and comment with one of the following options:
|
Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine
| Should the United States and/or NATO be added to the infobox of this article after the publication of the recent NYT article: Entous, Adam (29 March 2025). "The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 March 2025. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Should Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, be referred to as "Modern Standard Urdu" in the same ways as Hindi, the official language of India, is referred to as: "Modern Standard Hindi?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
| The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)
Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
| Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Does {{Infobox ethnic group}} belong to this article? (The nom was rewritten to address the expressed neutrality concern). --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
Which ideologies should be listed in the Five Star Movement's infobox?
Please indicate which ideology to include and in what order to list them. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?
|
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the handwritten For previous discussions leading up to this RfC, please see the article talk page and tangential RSN discussion. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]| Should Tetris be defined as a video game, a series of video games, or a video game genre? Lazman321 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC) |
| As part of a broader discussion concerning improvements to the Copts article, @Epenkimi has presented several sources to support a statement about Copts being "directly" descended from the ancient Egyptians. I contend, however, that these sources, while perhaps valuable in understanding Coptic self-perception, do not constitute authoritative evidence from disciplines such as population genetics or anthropology, which I consider to be the appropriate fields for assessing a claim about "direct" descent, which is a term I don't think is sufficiently defined to begin with. Consequently, I believe that the statement, if included at all, must be properly qualified to reflect the nature of the sources (the quality and reliability of which have been called into question) and the absence of similarly assertive references to the term or conclusion in peer-reviewed genetic or anthropological material.
In addition to advocating for the inclusion of this claim, @Epenkimi has suggested repeating the assertion in several sections and sub-sections of the article, articulated in various formulations. I disagree with this approach and have argued that mention of the topic should be confined, if mentioned at all, to the "Identity" section, where it can be contextualized and addressed with nuance. Our positions are too far apart, and efforts at compromise have not brought us closer to resolution. Accordingly, I believe it would now be most constructive to invite community input on this matter so we can proceed in either direction with broad consensus. As further clarification, this dispute centers on the scientific validity of using the term “direct” descent, especially when based on non-scientific sources. The intention is not to deny or distance the Copts from any particular ancestry, nor is it meant to create a binary conflict between Coptic and non-Coptic Egyptians. Neither position, be it version 1, 2, 3 or 4 attempts to rule out any specific origin. Instead, the primary concern is whether the claim, as worded, is sufficiently and explicitly supported by reliable evidence. One side holds that it is, while the other maintains that it is not. Turnopoems (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association
1) Should the articles of any NBA players say that they are often considered one of the greatest players of all time?
2) If the answer to the previous question is yes, what standard should be used? Note: this question is optional
Context: Various historical NBA players have been called "one of the greatest", "the greatest of all-time", or "the greatest at a position" by the press, magazines, books, former players, experts, etc. These terms are very subjective in nature and cover a 75+ year history, but can be sourced none-the-less. Discussions have ranged from the terms being vital to non-encyclopedic, from leaving the term in a player legacy section to prominently being displayed in the lead to not using the term at all. Please help us out with a yes or no on the term "greatest" in the lead section and the reasoning behind it. Thanks. Pinging previous discussion contributors: @Fyunck(click), Left guide, Wamalotpark, Bagumba, Johnnynumerofive, Somarain, Zagalejo, Eg224, Jessintime, Orlando Davis, Assadzadeh, GOAT Bones231012, Anonymous7432, and Boles P94: |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
| The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)
Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
| A link should be added at the top of the article to Wikipedia's crisis resources in the hatnotes section. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
| Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Does {{Infobox ethnic group}} belong to this article? (The nom was rewritten to address the expressed neutrality concern). --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Know Your Meme (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their About page, Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members.The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff. Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture. Proposal (KYM) Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was 5 years ago, though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their Editorial Rules page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content. I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [1]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:
KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their guidelines state that This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC) |
- ^ "Jacamo's Push For Diversity In Fashion Backfired Spectacularly". HuffPost UK. 2016-11-01. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
- ^ https://her.ie/life/mens-clothing-brand-causes-outrage-with-homophobic-campaign-317913
- ^ https://www.joe.co.uk/life/clothing-brand-causes-outrage-with-homophobic-ad-campaign-95181
- ^ "Jacamo clothing firm apologises after 'gender stereotyping' in Twitter advert". BBC News. 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2024-12-20.
- ^ Lee, Josh (2016-10-31). "Clothing brand Jacamo issue an apology after being called out for "homophobic" online campaign". Attitude. Retrieved 2024-12-22.
- ^ Baret, Julie (2016-10-31). "Les "vrais mecs" et l'homophobie d'une marque anglaise". TÊTU (in French). Retrieved 2024-12-22.
- ^ "Clothing retailer blasted for "Homophobic" Twitter campaign". THEGAYUK. 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2024-12-20.
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.