Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()

Biographies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

Talk:Asmongold

The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.

Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;

• Option 1: Full Reversal of the Exclusion
  • Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 2: Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is
  • Maintain existing guidelines.
• Option 3: Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence
  • Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE).
• Option 4: Partial Inclusion with Limits
  • Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 5: Open-Ended Policy
  • Refrain from requiring or excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).

AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.

EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.

This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Taylor

How should Jared Taylor's views on Trump's racial beliefs be reflected in the article:

• Option 1: "Taylor has said that he doesn't believe Trump is an white supremacist or a "secret race realist." Saying that he thinks Trump has "healthy reactions" to legal and illegal immigration and that Trump's racial views make him a better alternative than his political opponents."
• Option 2: Propose what you think would be appropriate.
• Option 3: No addition.

Please indicate which option you support.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Should this article include information about Zsa Zsa Gabor's possible relationship with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk?

1. Do not include any information.
2. Include as a claim attributed to Zsa Zsa Gabor.
3. Include in Wikivoice that the relationship occurred.

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Economy, trade, and companies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

1. Should articles on Indian train services, when they are not especially notable on their own, be deleted?
2. If so, can they be nominated in larger bunches at AFD (or through PROD)?

Please consider not only notability, but also WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. NS-Merni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

History and geography

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Besor Stream

Is the main source of the Besor stream Does the channel designated as the Nahal Besor start in the northwestern Negev (Mount Boker) or in the Hebron Hills of the West Bank? Or should both sources be treated equally (i.e. there is no main source)? Closetside (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of wars involving the Czech lands

How should the 1030 and 1051 campaign against the Kingdom of Hungary be described in terms of scope and outcome?

This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 18:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Perth

There is ongoing disagreement among editors about which landmarks should be included in the lead image montage of the Perth article. This RFC seeks community input on how best to determine which landmarks are most appropriate or representative for inclusion. The dispute revolves around three landmarks:

• Option 1: Elizabeth Quay Pedestrian Bridge (the current version)
• Option 2: Cottesloe Beach (diff)
• Option 3: Crawley Edge Boatshed (diff)

Please indicate which option you support, and feel free to suggest modifications or alternative combinations. - PastelLilac (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

Should the article refer to this attack as a militant attack or a terrorist attack?

• Option 1: Militant attack
• Option 2: Terrorist attack

Previous discussions

• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Militant?
• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Not_militants_but_terrorists -

Please discuss it throught policy based arguments. GrabUp - Talk 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide

Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?:

• Yes Example opening sentence: The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. or equivalent (new proposed version)
• No Example opening sentence: According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war. (previous stable version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish Civil War

Should the "Interpretations; civil war in perspective" section (for reference copied above) be in or out? Hh1718 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom

Should the entry for the United States in the table note that the modern-day territory of the United States is much larger than the one it had at independence? Glide08 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Language and linguistics

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

Talk:Henny Penny

This RfC seeks to establish that edits about comma usage should be based on verified rules. All of the sources listed in this thread support the same rule for comma usage when it comes to two full independent clauses. No reference has been provided to justify the comma's removal. Nicholas0 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

This RfC seeks wider community input to obtain a consensus and resolve ongoing disagreements over how Scientology book-articles should generally be categorized within Wikipedia, and how the genre should be listed in an infobox. The options list below has been compiled from suggestions by various editors. There are currently 10 standalone book-articles, which are summarized at Bibliography of Scientology § Books (the ones which are wiki-linked).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jhelum

I added [1] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [2] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.

In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Caine

Which phrase should be used: "retired English actor" or "English retired actor"? The former follows the linguistic rule that age should come before origin (see Adjective#Order). Other editors are claiming this adjective order implies that the actor has retired from being English. Barry Wom (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Maths, science, and technology

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Talk:Roseto effect

There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[3] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.

The current version includes:

• Historical peer-reviewed sources describing the phenomenon (Stout et al. 1964; Egolf et al. 1992)
• Modern scholarly analysis of the Roseto case (Coste & Glatron 2024)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health, used to contextualize (not synthesize) the broader topic

It does not include (but has previously):

• A 2024 preprint critique of the original Roseto effect research (clearly labeled as such)

Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [4]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else?

All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [5]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Cumulative density function

Should the page cumulative density function be:

• Option A: a redirect to cumulative distribution function
• Option B: a disambig between that article and probability density function
• Option C: an article with expository content, or
• Option D: deleted (would probably require further process) --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Implicational propositional calculus

On 22 April 2025 (02:19) I updated the article Implicational propositional calculus. A few hours later the update was reverted with the argument that "I am missing the whole point which is to avoid using falsum in the formulas". Could a third party please verify that claim.

Aside from that, in my opinion the article needs substantial improvements:

• The article should place implicational calculus in its historical context by tracing its development from ‘’Begriffsschrift’’, through ‘’Principia Mathematica’’, and on to later contributions by the Lwów–Warsaw school, Gentzen, and others. This would reveal the evolution from the axiomatic Hilbert-style proof systems to the more intuitive methods of analytic tableaux, natural deduction or sequent calculus.
• The article should highlight that implicational calculus — with $\bot$— adequately covers classical logic, but does not suffice for full intuitionistic logic, where conjunction ($\land$) and disjunction ($\lor$) are essential, rather than merely syntactic sugar. This important distinction should not be overlooked.

As to the sections,

• The section Completeness is either undocumented or based on (forbidden) original research. The reader loses track in the midst of formal derivations.
• The section The Bernays–Tarski axiom system should either be relocated to the article List of axiomatic systems in logic or better justified in context. Highlighting one alternative among a plethora of axiom systems appears arbitrary and lacks relevance to the broader purpose of the article.
• The section Satisfiability and validity discusses the NP-complexity of the propositional satisfiability problem. Either the computational complexity angle should be considered as beyond the scope of the article and removed, or should be addressed with appropriate context. Note that the examples provided implicitly use the method of analytic tableaux, while the article only deploys Hilbert-style deduction systems.
• The section Adding an axiom schema illustrates that adding non-tautologies —think of a bare propositional variable $P$— as axioms makes the system inconsistent. This is a trivial point and comes across as unprofessional. The section should be removed.
• The section An alternative axiomatization is undocumented and lacks references. Without a proper citation, it appears to be original research and should either be sourced or omitted.

––– Marc Schroeder (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Polyvagal theory

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. Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Art, architecture, literature, and media

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media

Talk:Forspoken

Should the lead contain the first-week retail sales numbers in Japan? ("In Japan, during release week, it was the third best-selling retail game in the country.")

-61.8.152.180 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Regarding the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon. Previous discussions from 2017 and 2020. Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is here. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)

Should the Country in the infobox be listed as:

1. United States or
2. United States and Japan ?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Perth

There is ongoing disagreement among editors about which landmarks should be included in the lead image montage of the Perth article. This RFC seeks community input on how best to determine which landmarks are most appropriate or representative for inclusion. The dispute revolves around three landmarks:

• Option 1: Elizabeth Quay Pedestrian Bridge (the current version)
• Option 2: Cottesloe Beach (diff)
• Option 3: Crawley Edge Boatshed (diff)

Please indicate which option you support, and feel free to suggest modifications or alternative combinations. - PastelLilac (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS

With lack of guidance from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, should the page include the month and year shows were reported as being in development in sortable list format as in this version ? Some context is that there is an informal practice to remove shows from that list when there has been no update in about three years. newsjunkie (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

RFC: What should Screenrant.com be designated as?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Politics, government, and law

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Should Austrian historian (Tom Cooper) be considered a credible source of information to added in this article? Neera landoora (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 United Kingdom local elections

Should the table in the infobox in 2025 United Kingdom local elections be replaced by the first one in Talk:2025 United Kingdom local elections#Draft new infobox, which has a detailed discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe

This list has been tagged for original research cleanup for eight years now. The criteria section is completely unreferenced, seemingly encouraging original research - instead of being consistent with the lists on the rest of the encyclopedia and depending on reliable sources, it creates this sort of a hodgepodge of various claims. Its basic definition also contradicts the non-list main article on the topic (see above).

There don't seem to be any sources to the list as a whole, it's mostly newspaper articles about individual possibly qualifying items. Given how relatively easy it is to get a political claim published in a newspaper these days, this is a really shoddy basis for an encyclopedia article.

There's a fairly consistent formatting about how some "people" or "ethnic group" has separatist movements, but there's no nuance to it, which may well lead the average reader to arbitrary conclusions about the notability or significance of each of these.

There's a consistent stream of complaints on the Talk page that have been getting largely ignored for many years now. Nobody seems to be seriously reacting to this, so I'm bringing it up as an RFC to try to bring more attention to it. --Joy (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Besor Stream

Is the main source of the Besor stream Does the channel designated as the Nahal Besor start in the northwestern Negev (Mount Boker) or in the Hebron Hills of the West Bank? Or should both sources be treated equally (i.e. there is no main source)? Closetside (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Fauci

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See diff and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wagner Group

Should the group's far-right association be mentioned somewhere in the article lead? --TylerBurden (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom

Should the entry for the United States in the table note that the modern-day territory of the United States is much larger than the one it had at independence? Glide08 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Religion and philosophy

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

This RfC seeks wider community input to obtain a consensus and resolve ongoing disagreements over how Scientology book-articles should generally be categorized within Wikipedia, and how the genre should be listed in an infobox. The options list below has been compiled from suggestions by various editors. There are currently 10 standalone book-articles, which are summarized at Bibliography of Scientology § Books (the ones which are wiki-linked).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 papal conclave

In light of the above discussion, I've decided to start a RfC on papabili sections and lists. Should there be papabili sections in papal conclave articles, and should there be lists of papabili in said sections? 73.8.239.215 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Society, sports, and culture

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture

Talk:Canada

Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Asmongold

The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.

Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Roseto effect

There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[6] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.

The current version includes:

• Historical peer-reviewed sources describing the phenomenon (Stout et al. 1964; Egolf et al. 1992)
• Modern scholarly analysis of the Roseto case (Coste & Glatron 2024)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health, used to contextualize (not synthesize) the broader topic

It does not include (but has previously):

• A 2024 preprint critique of the original Roseto effect research (clearly labeled as such)

Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [7]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else?

All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Adult human female

Should it say "question" or "rhetorical question"?2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:BC2F:1A76:72ED:55F6 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

1. Should articles on Indian train services, when they are not especially notable on their own, be deleted?
2. If so, can they be nominated in larger bunches at AFD (or through PROD)?

Please consider not only notability, but also WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. NS-Merni (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide

Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?:

• Yes Example opening sentence: The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. or equivalent (new proposed version)
• No Example opening sentence: According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war. (previous stable version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:British Pakistanis

Is it appropriate for this article to include the material about grooming gangs currently included here, either in its present form or modified? Reopened by Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia style and naming

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence." Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;

• Option 1: Full Reversal of the Exclusion
  • Overturn the existing guideline entirely so that post‐nominal letters may be included in the lead sentence. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first after the name). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in chronological order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 2: Maintain MOS:POSTNOM As-Is
  • Maintain existing guidelines.
• Option 3: Conditional Inclusion Based on Infobox Presence
  • Allow post‐nominal letters in the lead sentence only when an infobox is absent. If an article provides an infobox, then post‐nominals should be confined there (with full details in the body text OTHER THAN THE LEAD SENTENCE).
• Option 4: Partial Inclusion with Limits
  • Allow a limited number of post‐nominal letters (for example, one or two of the most important honors) to remain in the lead sentence, with any extra post‐nominals moved into the infobox or detailed in the article body. Order will be determined by awarding-nation's order of precedence (I.e. the higher-ranking award is listed first). If one award is from one nation, and the second award is from another nation, list them in order of receipt (assuming they do not recognize each other, such as Commonwealth awards).
• Option 5: Open-Ended Policy
  • Refrain from requiring or excluding post-nominals within the guidelines. Refrain from limiting the number of post-nominals in either the lead, body, or infobox. Require consensus on an article-by-article basis on their relevant Talk pages (if-so required).

AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE.

EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored.
EDIT 2: For transparency, I have attempted to manually ping each participant in the original discussion. I apologize if I missed you, it was a long discussion and my thumbs and eyes grow weary.

This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format

Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Should the text of Wikipedia:Citing sources be changed to prefer templates over hand-formatted citations, while welcoming contributions from editors who continue to format manually? 23:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jhelum

I added [8] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [9] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.

In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Portal talk:Pacific Northwest

I'm curious if "Cascadia" can accurately be considered an alternate name for the Pacific Northwest, as in the infobox. Sources I can find do not use them interchangeably. Cascadia sources often refer back to Pacific Northwest, but there is very little usage the other way around.

Key Question: Is Cascadia a commonly used alternate name for Pacific Northwest?

Don.steinbarge (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Is there support to upgrade Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts to a guideline? 04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Should articles created under a conflict of interest be allowed to run on Did you know? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Torture

Can we have a see also section on this page? Recent edits to include one have been reverted. Helper201 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiProjects and collaborations

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations

Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Template talk:Current

Should Template:Current be changed to the shorter version in this sandbox diff? Toadspike [Talk] 11:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Korean/auto

Read this page for the full project proposal.

Summary: proposing that this template ({{Korean/auto}}) and {{Infobox Korean name/auto}} gradually replace their predecessor templates {{Korean}} and {{Infobox Korean name}}. These new templates have semi-automatic romanization, as well as a number of other new features. For rationale and specifics, see the linked page above. seefooddiet (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia proposals

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Unsorted

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted

User names

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/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.

---