Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

The following discussions 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

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling

Should theater be adopted as the standard American English spelling? BrechtBro (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches

This RfC seeks input on whether criticism attributed to unnamed former members of Antioch Waco in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article is given due weight in the article.

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

• This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
• The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
• Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

• The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
• Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
• There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Airport destination lists: Should airport articles list full and complete lists of destinations reachable from the airport, or to what extent should they be curtailed?

Background: Airport destination lists have been a reasonably heavy point of contention in recent months, due to the poor (in many cases) sourcing of these lists, and the constant churn of content being added and removed, often without reliable sources. It got to the stage at one point where editors in this ANI thread were so tired that comments like Not a month goes by that we don't get a report here of some cosmic struggle over lists of destinations reachable from various airports. were left. As a result, a discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists.

As a result of that discussion, the following options were developed as ways forward for airport destinations lists. Note that in every instance, WP:V still applies, and routes must be sourced with reliable sources. Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates.

1. Airport articles should contain comprehensive lists of routes flown from that airport (No change)
2. Split very large destination tables into separate articles, and retain smaller destination tables in airport articles. For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would become a List of Heathrow Airport destinations, with a {{Main}} hatnote and a brief summary in the article about the airport. Such lists would normally be considered notable provided that the airport destinations are discussed as a set in independent reliable sources; any that weren't would be merged and redirected back into the airport article to WP:PRESERVE the information.
3. Replace large destination tables with a summary in prose that does not mention most individual destinations by name. Smaller destination tables may be retained (or not, as editors of that article choose). For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would be replaced by a paragraph saying that it has dozens of airlines and hundreds of destinations in dozens of countries; Wikipedia would no longer contain information about the individual destinations. However, Eastern Iowa Airport#Airlines and destinations, which lists less than 20 destinations, would be left alone (unless editors of that article preferred a different approach).
4. Replace every destination table with a summary in prose. For example, Durango–La Plata County Airport#Airlines and destinations has a small table listing two airlines and four destinations, and that would be replaced by two sentences naming the two airlines and four destinations, and larger airports would have longer, potentially multi-paragraph summaries.
5. Remove destination lists - all information about destinations reachable from an airport should be excluded. For example, Kearney Regional Airport has exactly one airline (United Express) flying to only one destination (Denver, Colorado), and editors should be prohibited from mentioning the airline, the lone destination, the number of airlines, and the number of destinations anywhere in the article.

"Summaries in prose" could broadly take this form (not fixed and not in the scope of the RfC):

1. Start with a brief summary - eg. Wikipedia Airport is served by sixteen airlines, and has services to 16 countries / 3 continents. The latter would be flexible, and depend on the available sources. Primary sources such as the airport website would generally easily verify this.
2. Next, have a summary of route development, where this can be verified, including info such as when airlines start flying from the airport, significantly increase their service or cut services. eg:
   In 2019, Scottish Airlines started flying to Wikipedia Airport, with a service to Edinburgh.[ref] Subsequently, this service has expanded to include other Scottish cities.[ref]
   In 2020, English Airlines started serving Wikipedia Airport, with services to London Gatwick and Birmingham.[ref] The airline subsequently cut services, instead preferring to fly to Wikivoyage Airport.
3. Finally, where this can be sourced, have a list of statistics, such as that found at Tri-Cities Regional Airport#Statistics. Many articles already have this, and they are generally well sourced. It would help highlight how important/unimportant the airport is, especially if they can be developed further such as by adding graphs etc.

Note - any individual routes that are specifically listed in a summary, should be sourced with reliable secondary sources, sufficient to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Should the following (or similar guidance) be added to MOS:SEEALSO?

"See also" sections are purely for navigation; the titles of target articles should be unobscured, so readers know if they have already visited them.

• Do not link to redirects; use the exact name of the destination article instead, disambiguation parentheticals included.
• Do not use piped links. Links to a specific section should use {{section link}}.

(I would propose adding this above the {{annotated link}} paragraph, unless someone has strong feelings it should go elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display

• A. Descriptive titles (like "The Princess Royal" or "The Dowager Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg" or "The Countess of Carladès"
• B. Article titles (like "Anne, Princess Royal" or "Princess Benedikte of Denmark" or "Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès")

Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem Day

Should the subsection Jerusalem Day§Chanting "Death to Arabs" Jerusalem Day§Anti-Palestinian chants be represented in the introduction of the article with the sentence In recent years, there have been anti-Palestinian chants of "death to Arabs" and "May Your Village Burn" in these parades. or similar text? إيان (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)