Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
| Should we uncollapse the infobox? Songwaters (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Roberto González Echevarría
| Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [1], [2], [3]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
| There's an editor who's repeatedly tried to remove from the lead the assertion that Peng's disappearance was suspected to be forced.
Do the sources provided in the discussion above support the use of this characterization? NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Seeking opinions as to inclusion of the full quote of Yarvin's statement, cited to this primary source? The current version includes a partial quote, cited to two secondary sources (Atlantic article, a book on online extremists). Proposed additional content in bold: "It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot)." sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
There's been some edit conflicts from people when it comes to the lead image. I think it's fair to hold an RfC to see which image should be used for this article. Option A is a photo from 2019, Option B is a photo from 2009, and Option C is from 2011. shanghai.talk to me 18:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
.jpg)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| Should MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
Should:
Options:
The context for the rfc can be found in the Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement section Estnot (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC) |
History and geography
| Question: Should the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers" be included in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
|
| Should Ukrainian crisis be a disambiguation page? (Rather than an article on the 2014 crisis that resulted in the Russian annexation of Crimea.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the current map (30px) in the infobox of the Ghurid dynasty article be replaced by this map: 30px? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States
| Are the sources being used sufficient for declaring signers of a particular document "Founding Fathers"? Allreet (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should this disambiguation page contain entries for France, Gaul and Roman Gaul? Srnec (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
How should dualled place names generally be presented in an articles lede and infobox, when the dual name is not the common name?
The RFC is held at this central location as it affects articles about places in Australia, France, New Zealand, and Switzerland, but it is not intended to alter the MOS. The context of the RFC is ongoing debate about the ideal format, which this RFC is intended to resolve in a consistent manner. 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Can Lord Hardinge, and Harcourt Butler be termed as the founders of the university, for they laid the foundation stone, and presented the bill in parliament, as then Education Minister and Viceroy respectively?
Please see Related talk User4edits (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement
| Should Zangezur corridor be merged into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement (this page)? See filer's original question for details. El_C 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology
| The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses, have been capitalized in this article since it was created in 2005. There have recently been discussions and edits proposing that these terms should be lowercase. The disagreement arises from whether these building names are proper nouns, and whether the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority".
According to MOS:CAPS, "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized," and "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." This RfC applies to this article as well as the related articles History of the Caltech house system, Campus of the California Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology. Please !vote whether to retain uppercase or change to lowercase. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the article subject be changed from Nestorian to Assyrian? I explained my reasoning on the talk page;
the main source used in this article "The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925" states the people were Assyrian. "One of these was the Assyrian (Nestorian) rebellion of 3-4 September 1924 of Beyt Sebab, which, as indicated above, was itself very much related to the Sheikh Said rebellion." Nestorian is a theology of Christianity that is incorrect and does not apply to Assyrians and was incorrectly used sometimes to describe them. The Assyrian people page explains this as well: Assyrian_people
TukultīApilEšarra (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Shall the content proposed below, on human rights violations, in either of the two forms proposed below, be added to the article?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
There is currently a dispute about how this article should be structured. Here are the two competing options:
Other relevant considerations:
Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Roberto González Echevarría
| Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [6], [7], [8]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language pundit William Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />" This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
Please see the above "Stating the number of countries in which the tiger is found"
I would like to state the number of tigers in Tibet in the third paragraph of the article. BhagyaMani disagrees.
|
| Per the previous discussions (Help talk:IPA/English#Full vowels and weak vowels should be kept distinct, Help talk:IPA/English#schwi vs KIT), should we reintroduce the distinction between a full KIT vowel /ɪ/ and the reduced KIT/schwi /ᵻ/? Sol505000 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
| How to write a set of TLDs (top-level domains)? -- GreenC 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should this disambiguation page contain entries for France, Gaul and Roman Gaul? Srnec (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
| How should the lead be written? (extending (CC) Tbhotch™ 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
There is currently a dispute about how this article should be structured. Here are the two competing options:
Other relevant considerations:
Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Vision Therapy is an umbrella term for many practices, some of them fraudulent, but many of them - based on my own and several family-members' experiences - not fraudulent. Going by the rest of the talk page, I am far from the only one who's upset that this whole entire field of medicine is being framed as a pseudoscience - but the fact that most of the existing sources are sneerish handwringing about the efficacy studies which have been done, makes it hard to actually edit the thing. People just revert it for "removing sourced content". I need help.2406:5A00:329C:4600:6496:382F:F297:11C5 (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should addiction be called a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 22:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:
QUESTION: Should the following sentence be added to the lead...
... so that it reads ... Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Climate change in the United States
The narrow question is: which one of the following two Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) sections is most appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the topic of Climate change:
The following issues are raised:
The debate is not about editors' "world views", personal "expertise", underlying righteousness of a cause, etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology
| The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses, have been capitalized in this article since it was created in 2005. There have recently been discussions and edits proposing that these terms should be lowercase. The disagreement arises from whether these building names are proper nouns, and whether the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority".
According to MOS:CAPS, "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized," and "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." This RfC applies to this article as well as the related articles History of the Caltech house system, Campus of the California Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology. Please !vote whether to retain uppercase or change to lowercase. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
| I propose to replace the following statements concerning Dermatitis and dandruff (D/SD) diseases and related to Malassezia info (Revision of 01:44, March 25, 2021):--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media
Politics, government, and law
| Any topics covered by discretionary sanctions are usually divisive enough to invite vandalism. With that in mind, aren't all discretionary sanction topics divisive enough to be deleted? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
A significant amount of Talk page discussion and reverting has focused on the question of whether or not to include a summary of the subsection of the article dealing with Controversies in the lead section. The RFC is to determine if consensus among editors is that article should or should not include a summary of the Controversies section in the lead section, and what form it should take if consensus is that some version of a summary of the Controversies section should be included in the lead section.
Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
Should:
Options:
The context for the rfc can be found in the Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement section Estnot (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Question: Should the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers" be included in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language pundit William Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />" This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should there be a mention of the desecrations of the Terry Fox statue and the National War Memorial in the lead section of the article? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
|
| Request for consensus: Should the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" be removed because the category "Category:Extremism" already properly covers the term "wingnut"? --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
| should the colour of Template:No be the current lighter #FFC7C7 or the original darker #99? Gooduserdude (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should Ukrainian crisis be a disambiguation page? (Rather than an article on the 2014 crisis that resulted in the Russian annexation of Crimea.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
| There's an editor who's repeatedly tried to remove from the lead the assertion that Peng's disappearance was suspected to be forced.
Do the sources provided in the discussion above support the use of this characterization? NickCT (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
Should the sentence While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefitbe changed to While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element or regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit, that is, the "and" replaced with an "or"? BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Opinion polling for the 2022 Australian federal election
| Should the table of polling results include rows commenting on particular events, e.g. the row that says, "31 October 2021: French President Emmanuel Macron calls Scott Morrison a liar", as has been being discussed above? The obvious options are No, Yes minimally (only changes in party leaders and election results) (as was the model being used) or Yes maximally (commentary on many events) (as with the current version of the article). Editors may wish to add other options.
If yes to the last of those options, what items should be included and how should this be determined? Options here might include Any items receiving considerable RS coverage or Any items where RS discuss how the event may shift polling or Any items where RS say the event shifted polling. Again, editors may wish to add other options. We can presume that normal rules, WP:CONSENSUS etc., would apply. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should this article have a section on alleged sexual abuses (see text below the text in blue), or is a mention in the article enough? Ypatch (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement
| Should Zangezur corridor be merged into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement (this page)? See filer's original question for details. El_C 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the article subject be changed from Nestorian to Assyrian? I explained my reasoning on the talk page;
the main source used in this article "The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925" states the people were Assyrian. "One of these was the Assyrian (Nestorian) rebellion of 3-4 September 1924 of Beyt Sebab, which, as indicated above, was itself very much related to the Sheikh Said rebellion." Nestorian is a theology of Christianity that is incorrect and does not apply to Assyrians and was incorrectly used sometimes to describe them. The Assyrian people page explains this as well: Assyrian_people
TukultīApilEšarra (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
| For years now editors have disagreed on whether to use the word 'federal' as prefix on articles related to Austrian politics and public administration (especially when it comes to the president, the chancellor, and the ministries), e.g. Ministry of the Interior (Austria), Federal Ministry of Finance (Austria).
Arguments for omission:
Arguments for inclusion:
Thus should we include or omit the word 'federal' as a prefix? Colonestarrice (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
|
| Should this disambiguation page contain entries for France, Gaul and Roman Gaul? Srnec (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Should the article subject be changed from Nestorian to Assyrian? I explained my reasoning on the talk page;
the main source used in this article "The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925" states the people were Assyrian. "One of these was the Assyrian (Nestorian) rebellion of 3-4 September 1924 of Beyt Sebab, which, as indicated above, was itself very much related to the Sheikh Said rebellion." Nestorian is a theology of Christianity that is incorrect and does not apply to Assyrians and was incorrectly used sometimes to describe them. The Assyrian people page explains this as well: Assyrian_people
TukultīApilEšarra (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
A significant amount of Talk page discussion and reverting has focused on the question of whether or not to include a summary of the subsection of the article dealing with Controversies in the lead section. The RFC is to determine if consensus among editors is that article should or should not include a summary of the Controversies section in the lead section, and what form it should take if consensus is that some version of a summary of the Controversies section should be included in the lead section.
Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports
| What should the naming scheme for equestrian events[lower-alpha 1] be altered to? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language pundit William Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />" This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Should there be a mention of the desecrations of the Terry Fox statue and the National War Memorial in the lead section of the article? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
|
| Should Ukrainian crisis be a disambiguation page? (Rather than an article on the 2014 crisis that resulted in the Russian annexation of Crimea.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:College and university rankings
| Should the Academic Influence rankings be included in this article? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:List of online encyclopedias
| Hi All,
I would like to expand this list with online encyclopedias that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I believe they are relevant to Wikipedia but don't necessarily need their own articles (other encyclopedia lists also have items without an article). I would use this list compiled for Wikidata properties - plenty of important, academic encyclopedias. When I tried to start expanding the list, my edits were reverted by @MrOllie:. See our discussion about this here. One of his concerns was that the list would be filled with fan wikis - this can be avoided easily that the list only includes non-open reference works. Anyway, could you chip in and tell if it's okay for me to expand the article? Thanks. Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability
Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
| This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement
| Should Zangezur corridor be merged into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement (this page)? See filer's original question for details. El_C 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
| Shall the content proposed below, on human rights violations, in either of the two forms proposed below, be added to the article?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports
| What should the naming scheme for equestrian events[lower-alpha 2] be altered to? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| How to write a set of TLDs (top-level domains)? -- GreenC 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)
| Please see the above discussion "Use of "The" in lead". |
| Should the origin change to just Acre without a mention of Israel? The dish clearly originated before the establishment of the State of Israel (1948). JJNito197 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
How should dualled place names generally be presented in an articles lede and infobox, when the dual name is not the common name?
The RFC is held at this central location as it affects articles about places in Australia, France, New Zealand, and Switzerland, but it is not intended to alter the MOS. The context of the RFC is ongoing debate about the ideal format, which this RFC is intended to resolve in a consistent manner. 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
| This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists
| Are line breaks between term and definition in description lists mandatory or optional? fgnievinski (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology
| The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses, have been capitalized in this article since it was created in 2005. There have recently been discussions and edits proposing that these terms should be lowercase. The disagreement arises from whether these building names are proper nouns, and whether the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority".
According to MOS:CAPS, "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized," and "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." This RfC applies to this article as well as the related articles History of the Caltech house system, Campus of the California Institute of Technology, and California Institute of Technology. Please !vote whether to retain uppercase or change to lowercase. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| Should MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
| Wikipedia:Templates for discussion's instructions and user scripts were recently changed from placing new entries at the top, to placing new entries at the bottom. Should we revert to old way (new entries on top), or keep the new way (new entries on bottom)? Changing involves updating multiple pages and user scripts, so let's get a clear consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Roberto González Echevarría
| Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [11], [12], [13]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| I screwed up and erroneously contested a reasonable CSD over the redirect Mike Hart (outfieldr, born 1951), instead causing it to be sent to RFD, wasting other editors' time. I did this because R3 contains the phrase "Implausible typo", which leads to the idea that plausible typos (such as forgetting a letter, as was the case in the CSD I contested) should be kept, or at least sent to RFD. After Tamzin (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) told me about what I did wrong, I cast my non-vote as Delete and then proceeded to type this up.
Overall, the word "Typo" in R3 implies that redirects that are NOT plausible, intentional search terms, but are still likely to be accidentally typed, should be kept. This is not the case, and as such, I think we should remove the term "Typo" from the page. This both reduces confusion and sets a clear precedent for dealing with such redirects, as they are now "Implausible Misnomers" and can therefore be deleted. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
| Is the amount of criticism in this article excessive or warranted? (For more info, see this archive.) Veilure (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC) |
| Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability
Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
| This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| There is a current discrepancy between how WP: V covers self published sources for BLP's and how WP: BLP covers self published sources for BLP's.
The current text on WP:V (at WP:SPS) is The current text on WP:BLP (at WP:BLPSPS) is The key difference being WP: V says "as third-party sources" and WP: BLP saying "as sources of material". The question is should we change the text of one to match the other, and if so which one. Option A No change to either policy text Option B Change WP: BLP to match WP: V Option C Change WP: V to match WP: BLP Option D Some other change |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| Should MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Wikipedia proposals
Unsorted
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.
- ↑ This would include all pages with titles of the same form as Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, a scheme not limited to Olympics themselves; as well as the whole of the category tree, starting with Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events
- ↑ This would include all pages with titles of the same form as Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, a scheme not limited to Olympics themselves; as well as the whole of the category tree, starting with Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs named:1 - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedWeaponizedAtlanticCouncilReport - ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedSuddenRiseNYer - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namednpr983156340 - ↑ 5.0 5.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedFrutosMarch2021 - ↑ 6.0 6.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedBBCTakenSeriously - ↑ 7.0 7.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedTelegraphFauciEmails2022 - ↑ 8.0 8.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedNBCNewsFauciEmails