Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
[edit]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: |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia#First Nations group names in the first sentence of bio articles?:
A: Can belonging to an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander group be considered a form of nationality? B: Should MOS:NATIONALITY be edited to include an example of someone belonging to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation with that nationality named as a demonym in the first sentence of the lead, similarly to the example given for Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians? E.g. the first sentence of the Ashleigh Barty article reads:
|
| I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
| Should the three-paragraph version of the Rhetoric section discussed above be implemented? Riposte97 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
| For the lead sentence of this article, should this article retain the current version with no note, or should we change it to the version with a note?–06:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...
There are four options:
|
| Should the sentence on the Unite the Right rally include more context?
|
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| There was a previous discussion of this source here.
Use of source: This source is mostly used on "List of <airline> destinations" articles to justify inclusion of a current or previous airline/airport route. e.g. List_of_Air_Caraïbes_destinations (3 citations), List_of_British_Airways_destinations (12 citations), and so on. The previous discussion found that it is used in over 807 articles. Why is it relevant? There was consensus in a Village Pump RfC that any airline destinations included in Wikipedia must have a WP:RS citation. RFC: What should RoutesOnline.com [1] be designated as?
|
History and geography
[edit]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) |
| I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
Per the above sources & discussion. If any changes (or not) has to be made regarding their origins, then what it should be?:
|
What should be the result in the infobox for this raid? (see previous discussion)
|
| Should the 1911–1912 anthem of the Great Qing, "Cup of Solid Gold", be included in the infobox?
diff with, diff without 129.97.124.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Which version on the Origins section better reflects the sources neutrally and accurately, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V) policies? Aeengath (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
| For the lead sentence of this article, should this article retain the current version with no note, or should we change it to the version with a note?–06:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
| Should this article focus on all Holocaust victims, including non-Jews, or should it focus solely on and be intended only for Jewish victims? (Edit for clarification: this RfC is about redefining the scope of the article) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:24, 8 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) |
An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:
That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process. There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO [number], but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options. Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?
Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language Extending the RFC's time to cook up more responses by adding an extra timestamp. Tarlby 05:58, 1 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) |
On the Americans article, I removed religion from the InfoBox, arguing that it oversimplifies it, especially terms like Majority, Minority and Traditionally oversimplify stuff. It was reverted. I am asking fellow editors, what should the article have?
|
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]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) |
Talk:Coefficient of relationship
| Should this article contain a table of degrees of relationship with calculated coefficients of relationship, such as the one at Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships? relisted - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 8 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.[3] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]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) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
| Should "animated" be linked in the lead sentences of articles for animated films? Example: Toy Story is an animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. —Matthew / (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]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) |
An Executive Order was signed today, March 1, by President Trump titled "Designating English as the Language of the United States". The main portions of note are within Section 3. Designating an Official Language for the United States:
That being said, Executive Orders are not legislation and are limited to the Executive Branch's interpretation of existing law. They can also be overturned by the next president. This EO also seems to be largely symbolic and does not require any substantial changes to federal programs per the NYT, except that agencies are no longer required to support "programs for people with limited English proficiency" per NPR. Usually, from what I can tell as well, official languages of countries are designated either in a country's constitution or through the legislative process. There have also been attempts to codify English as the official language through legislative means with more teeth, force of law, and would require official documents, laws, communications, and such, to be in English, as mentioned in the article English Language Unity Act and as seen by H.R. 997 from the 118th Congress, but those efforts have never been signed into law. However, there is an argument that the Executive Branch could set policy in this space, though it is unprecedented. There's also a middle ground, such as including a note stating that "English is the official language of the Executive Branch per EO [number], but is not stated in the constitution or in federal law", similar to the way that we currently do for states. There's also an argument to wait and see how folks react. As such here are the options I envisioned, though I am open to other options. Should we include "English" as the official language of the United States?
Note that there is another RFC taking place at Talk:Languages of the United States § English as official language Extending the RFC's time to cook up more responses by adding an extra timestamp. Tarlby 05:58, 1 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?
|
On the Americans article, I removed religion from the InfoBox, arguing that it oversimplifies it, especially terms like Majority, Minority and Traditionally oversimplify stuff. It was reverted. I am asking fellow editors, what should the article have?
|
| I propose this modification for infobox into {{Infobox writer}}, with the inclusion of political career. Following multiple discussions at: |
| Should the 1911–1912 anthem of the Great Qing, "Cup of Solid Gold", be included in the infobox?
diff with, diff without 129.97.124.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the three-paragraph version of the Rhetoric section discussed above be implemented? Riposte97 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
| Should opinion polls by pollsters which are not members of the British Polling Council be excluded from this article? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the sentence on the Unite the Right rally include more context?
|
| Hello everyone! Should the government type of China be changed from "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" to "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under authoritarian dictatorship"?
In my opinion, it doesnt make sense to label Russia, Belarus and North Korea as authoritarian/totalitarian dictatorships but exclude China despite overwhelming amount of sources calling it an authoritarian dictatorship. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Should this article focus on all Holocaust victims, including non-Jews, or should it focus solely on and be intended only for Jewish victims? (Edit for clarification: this RfC is about redefining the scope of the article) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the article by Miesel [2] a reliable source for the Poem of the Man-God criticism section?
For previous discussion leading up to this RfC, please see the linked talk page.[3]. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]| 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 such claims. Consequently, I believe that the statement, if included at all, must be properly qualified to reflect the nature of the sources and the absence of similarly assertive conclusions 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. 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. [4]) 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) |
| There is a debate in the article whether we should include Azerbaijan as a substantial component of the article or not, you can see in the article history which revisions we are discussing. |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| This source has been discussed here twice: 338, 463. The source is used in several articles, most notably List of Roblox games. Not sure if it is reliable or not...
There are four options:
|
Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section of the article currently reads: Should the sentence be changed to: ? |
- ^ Evans, Richard (10 July 2021). "Grounded and meticulous Ash Barty writing tennis history of her own". The Guardian.
Barty, a Ngarigo woman and deeply proud of her Indigenous heritage
- ^ Spits, Scott (18 January 2023). "Open hearts: Indigenous kids bring joy for Barty, Goolagong Cawley". The Age.
Ngarigo woman Barty admitted it felt "a bit strange" to be back in Melbourne with a relaxed frame of mind
- ^ 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.