WP:RFC/PWT

The following discussions related to project-wide topics are requested to have community-wide attention: (refresh)

Wikipedia style and naming

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 [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)

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

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^[a]—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,^[b] 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^[a]—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,^[c] 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

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

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^[a]—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,^[d] 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^[a]—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,^[e] 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)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference namerfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[namerfc-1] Cite error: The named reference namerfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[3] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[4] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[5] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: 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.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards