The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention:
You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service (refresh)
Savarkar's description currently calls him a "politician, activist, and writer". Should ideologue be included there? EarthDude (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
"Previously charged with shoplifting, Barrett also has been before the courts for directing threatening language against members of An Garda Síochána, for public order offences outside a hospital, and for driving without a driving licence or car insurance."
Should we change the title to "interim president" or keep it as "President of Syria"? Most sources refer to him as 'Interim' [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8] while others use 'President' [9],[10],[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Savarkar's description currently calls him a "politician, activist, and writer". Should ideologue be included there? EarthDude (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of the section Formation of inland Akan polities read:
A - It is widely acknowledged that Akan trace its origins to Bono, and Bono played a significant role in early Akan history as the first centralized Akan state (the current wording)
Or
B - Bono played a significant role in early Akan history as the first centralized Akan state (the proposed wording)
Should a new section titled "Aftermath" be added to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article to cover developments that occurred after the end of the conflict but are related to it, as reported by reliable sources? Currently, some of these developments—such as the promotions of Indian and Pakistani military officers and Pakistan's announcement of a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Donald Trump—are included in the final paragraphs of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Impact section. If consensus supports the creation of an "Aftermath" section, these items could be moved there for more appropriate contextual placement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the following statement, reflecting a Pakistani claim, be added to the Background section of this article, which currently describes the 2025 Pahalgam attack as a key event in the lead-up to the conflict?
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
A disagreement has arisen regarding whether the Egyptian Arabic template should be applied to names of dishes in Egyptian cuisine articles, especially when the spelling does not differ from Standard Arabic. If I have misrepresented a position, please clarify below.
Editors are invited to comment on the following two options:
Option 1: Use Egyptian Arabic template only when the spelling of the name explicitly does not conform to Standard Arabic orthography
The supporter of this view argues that using the Egyptian Arabic template when the term conforms to Standard Arabic orthography and lexicology can be considered nationalistic advocacy. They maintain that the template should be reserved for cases where the term is clearly in vernacular Egyptian Arabic, but that Standard Arabic should take precedence in cases where the two overlap, even if its within the context of Egyptian Arabic.
Option 2: Use Egyptian Arabic template regardless of overlap with Standard Arabic (due to shared usage within Egyptian Arabic)
The supporter of this view argues that the Egyptian Arabic template is appropriate for labeling culinary items and varieties in Egyptian culture, even if those forms, within the context of Egyptian Arabic, partially or fully overlap with Standard Arabic. He notes that many culinary items have entirely different nomenclature across other Arabic dialects, and as such, their designation as Egyptian Arabic in Egyptian contexts is necessary for linguistic and cultural precision. He notes that even when there is lexilogical similarities Egyptian Arabic has a broader orthographic tolerance than Standard Arabic, often allowing standard and non-standard spellings more capable of reflecting local pronunciation and usage. Thus the template can better reflect these localized forms, as they are recognizable to Egyptian speakers. Turnopoems 𓋹✎12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Should the article circumcision mention in the section on sexual effects that there is a scientific controversy over the question of whether circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure and function, and that studies exist that report such negative effects? Chaptagai (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
To give a short summary, I've actually went through all Wikipedia policies and precedents, and everything is quite simple. The album page should have the name "." (MOS:ALBUM, "The article name should be the title of the album"). This is in line with all the precedents like such as ÷, !, _. Even in complex Unicode cases the rule is upheld: While(1<2), <|°_°|>, (A→B) Life. The only example against this (correct me if I'm wrong) is Love Symbol which isn't a Unicode character in the first place anyway.
However, there is a technical limitation that a) Wikipedia page name can't contain a single dot (no such page exists) and b) per renaming discussion above unlike other single-character album names, a dot is especially technically challenging to serve as a valid reference due to its size and function. So page title Period (Kesha album) is not under question.
My Suggestion is therefore as follows:
Introduction as ". (pronounced as Period) is the sixth studio album..."
Template header "."
Add the Template:Correct title per WP:NC-SLASH, last paragraph ("Page names consisting of exactly one or two periods [...] are not allowed. In most such cases DISPLAYTITLE will not work, so Template:correct title should be used.")
Discussion above seems to support this at the moment (4 opinions for this versus 1 opinion against). In principle we can also count all the reverted edits from all the other users. Due to this being a special case and ongoing back-and-forth edits opinions from the wider community are very much welcome.--Vinokurov Demis (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Consensus does not appear to exist on the tense of this article: whether the band should be referred to in the present tense (e.g., "Fun (stylized as fun.) is an American pop rock band...") or the past tense (e.g., "Fun (stylized as fun.) was an American pop rock band..."). I am thus proposing two options: that the band be referred to in the present tense ("is", "current members", etc) or the past ("was", "former members", etc). MrSeabody (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
What title should be used for the article on Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld? Or should they be split to separate articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Savarkar's description currently calls him a "politician, activist, and writer". Should ideologue be included there? EarthDude (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a formal Request for Comment regarding the lead sentence of the *Islamism* article. While discussion is ongoing above, I believe wider input is needed on the framing and definition of "Islamism" in the article's opening line. Please see full discussion and sources above. Summary of proposed change below:
Current lead:
> Islamism is a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems.
Proposed lead:
> Islamism is a modern political term used to describe a range of ideological movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in government and public policy. The term is not found in classical Islamic texts and is used with varying meanings in academic and political discourse, often contested by those it is applied to.
Sorry I'm not really sure what the correct procedure is for this. I tried just asking above but nobody replied for over a week. This page worries me somewhat and I'm trying to find some people who might be able to help improve it.
It seems inappropriate to group everything into a bikie gang or an ethnic group. There are a few criminal gangs or violent political groups that are centred on a particular culture or ethnic group, but whoever started this page seems to have tried to sort everything that way.
A lot of the labels, and even the groups themselves, aren't locally relevant. Australians don't tend to group Spanish and Portuguese speakers from opposite sides of the Atlantic as a group, other than possibly "immigrants", the "Hispanic" concept is an American thing.
I'm not sure if everything in the white supremacist group is actually a white supremacist gang, some might be all white just by chance or locality, since that's the largest demographic in Australia.
Currently, most articles use {{Australian party style|Independent}} to refer to teal candidates in election articles. I propose changing it to {{Australian party style|Teal Independent}} and {{Australian politics/name|Teal Independent}} (Display as Independent("Teal") ) since they operate differently from other independents, and most reliable sources categorise them as such anyway, rather than just "independent" [35][36][37][38][39]. The difference between the two groups should be noted. AINH (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello! This I am made this post an RFC due to the lack of consensus on whether or not the second paragraph of the lead should remain or not.
The opposition to the current lead have stated that it is inaccurate and/or is from bad faith primary sources (Mona Baker is the main example given) and thus should be removed for giving WP:UNDUE weight to bad faith interpretations (at least in the lead).
Editors who are positive of or neutral the current lead do not believe it is biased or that regardless of the quality of the sources of the criticism, that having a criticism in the lead is preferable since it is a notable aspect of organisation (my argument).
I do not believe I have any right to repeatedly revert edits rejecting the current lead when there is no clear consensus on this talk page on what to do regarding it, and that this is a fairly niche article so a talk page trying to solve this issue wouldn't probably wouldn't have much luck compared to the last few times. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
During late 2024 to early 2025, there has been a tendency from multiple users (mostly IP and/or recently-created accounts) to add composition bars to the "Status in legislature" field in the infoboxes of cabinet/government-related articles. This situation has resulted in a number of issues that need to be addressed. Researching on this matter, I have found hardly any discussion or substantial input on this issue, meaning there is no explicit consensus for this (in fact, composition bars seem to have been added either unilaterally or in good faith by people who actually thought this was a widely-accepted formatting). Due to this affecting a wide range of articles, I believe a RfC is the most straightforward way to proceed. Thus, the question put forward is: should we include composition bars on legislature status in the infoboxes of cabinet articles, Yes or No? If Yes, how should it be formatted? Impru20talk09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
A disagreement has arisen regarding whether the Egyptian Arabic template should be applied to names of dishes in Egyptian cuisine articles, especially when the spelling does not differ from Standard Arabic. If I have misrepresented a position, please clarify below.
Editors are invited to comment on the following two options:
Option 1: Use Egyptian Arabic template only when the spelling of the name explicitly does not conform to Standard Arabic orthography
The supporter of this view argues that using the Egyptian Arabic template when the term conforms to Standard Arabic orthography and lexicology can be considered nationalistic advocacy. They maintain that the template should be reserved for cases where the term is clearly in vernacular Egyptian Arabic, but that Standard Arabic should take precedence in cases where the two overlap, even if its within the context of Egyptian Arabic.
Option 2: Use Egyptian Arabic template regardless of overlap with Standard Arabic (due to shared usage within Egyptian Arabic)
The supporter of this view argues that the Egyptian Arabic template is appropriate for labeling culinary items and varieties in Egyptian culture, even if those forms, within the context of Egyptian Arabic, partially or fully overlap with Standard Arabic. He notes that many culinary items have entirely different nomenclature across other Arabic dialects, and as such, their designation as Egyptian Arabic in Egyptian contexts is necessary for linguistic and cultural precision. He notes that even when there is lexilogical similarities Egyptian Arabic has a broader orthographic tolerance than Standard Arabic, often allowing standard and non-standard spellings more capable of reflecting local pronunciation and usage. Thus the template can better reflect these localized forms, as they are recognizable to Egyptian speakers. Turnopoems 𓋹✎12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Consensus does not appear to exist on the tense of this article: whether the band should be referred to in the present tense (e.g., "Fun (stylized as fun.) is an American pop rock band...") or the past tense (e.g., "Fun (stylized as fun.) was an American pop rock band..."). I am thus proposing two options: that the band be referred to in the present tense ("is", "current members", etc) or the past ("was", "former members", etc). MrSeabody (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not really sure what the correct procedure is for this. I tried just asking above but nobody replied for over a week. This page worries me somewhat and I'm trying to find some people who might be able to help improve it.
It seems inappropriate to group everything into a bikie gang or an ethnic group. There are a few criminal gangs or violent political groups that are centred on a particular culture or ethnic group, but whoever started this page seems to have tried to sort everything that way.
A lot of the labels, and even the groups themselves, aren't locally relevant. Australians don't tend to group Spanish and Portuguese speakers from opposite sides of the Atlantic as a group, other than possibly "immigrants", the "Hispanic" concept is an American thing.
I'm not sure if everything in the white supremacist group is actually a white supremacist gang, some might be all white just by chance or locality, since that's the largest demographic in Australia.
The article's background section has references that mention South Korea's gender equality issues. Is their coverage pertinent or substantial enough to be included here? 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.