Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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

Biographies

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

Talk:Hasan Piker

Since this is a nonstop discussion the last weeks I'm hoping this RFC finally clears it up. Should the dog collar controversy be included in this article? FMSky (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Katy Perry

I propose that there are now sufficient sources under WP:RS and WP:V to merit a short sentence following the reference to Perry and Bloom breaking up along the lines of: "Perry began dating former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau later in 2025." Wellington Bay (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox tennis biography

At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove |residence= from {{Infobox person}} and from {{Infobox sportsperson}}.

In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.

Given that {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography}} do the same.

For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.

A few arguments
  • Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
  • The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
  • To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

With the implementation of Module:Person date, all |birth_date= and |death_date= values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.

With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4450) where the birth/death date is set to Unk, Unknown, ? or ##?? (such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of |death_date=Unknown in articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).

Per MOS:INFOBOX: If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..

There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short, Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.

So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,450). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of |some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.

I tried to find a good case where the |death_date= truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use |disappeared_date= instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).

The way I see it there are a few options
  • Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
  • Option B - Implement a {{preview warning}} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
  • Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat |death_date=Unknown the same as |death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).
  • Option D - Some other solution, please explain.

Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Azim Premji

Dear editors,

I'm hoping to get some fresh eyes on a content dispute here. The core issue is whether two major, long-running court cases against Premji, which were ultimately dismissed, should be included in the article.

  • My position is that they must be included for the article to be neutral and balanced. These cases were not minor; they were covered for years in major newspapers and one went to the Supreme Court. Omitting them entirely feels like a case of bias by omission.

On Wikipedia, even serving prime ministers like Narendra Modi have their articles cover quashed legal cases in detail because they were significant public events. I believe the same standard should apply here. The proposal is to put them in a neutral "Legal affairs" section, clearly stating the final outcomes.

  • The counter-argument has been that since the cases were dismissed, they are "fringe" issues that lack due weight for a biography. It was the same editor who brought up the Modi rhetoric.

The content (the legal cases on Premji and criticisms) was removed from the article while the talk page discussion was ongoing, and that discussion has now stalled. It would be great to get a clear community consensus on this.

Multiple attempts were made to make this BLP promotional, removing anything that's negative. Need some neutral eyes on this please.

Thanks,

Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Zizians

The extent to which the Zizians should be described or categorized as a transgender group has been the subject of considerable edit warring. This RFC is an attempt at finding something approaching consensus on the following two specific questions:

  1. Should the Zizians be described as "predominantly transgender or nonbinary"?
  2. Should the article be categorized under Category:Transgender history in the United States?

Asamboi (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)

Since this seems to come up every couple of months and due to a recent change: Should he be referred to in the lead as

  1. Conservative
  2. Right-wing
  3. Far-right
  4. Neither

2A00:FBC:EE1F:2437:51C:3C72:D59:1BD6 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Kuan Yew

Question: Should the lead paragraph include the word "authoritarian"? Seahumidity (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)


Economy, trade, and companies

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies

Talk:PragerU

Starting this because of ongoing disputes about neutrality, especially regarding the lead. Should the following lead paragraph be changed, kept or be removed?

PragerU's videos have contained misleading or factually incorrect information on slavery and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.

2A00:FBC:EE34:6EDF:39E5:3460:445B:4D5E (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:QOR360

There is a dispute over whether the article contains promotional language and merits a warning template. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists

Should proposed buildings which have not yet received any government approval be included in the lists of tallest buildings? -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)


History and geography

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Talk:Israel

After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide

Similar wording should be applied consistently to this article.

Current : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jain sculpture

Requesting input from editors knowledgeable in Buddhist and South Asian art:

Hello, I would like to request a neutral community discussion regarding the identification of the statue currently described as a Jain image in this article. Upon close iconographic review, the statue displays multiple key characteristics commonly associated with **Pāla-period Buddha sculptures**, such as:

  • A clearly defined **uṣṇīṣa** (cranial bump)
  • A possible **ūrṇā** (dot between eyebrows, currently obscured by a red jewel)
  • **Curly hair pattern**
  • **Two bodhisattva-like attendants** beside the central figure
  • **Lion-shaped throne base**, symbolically linked to Śākyamuni ("Lion of the Śākyas")
  • Narrative reliefs above and around the figure depicting scenes consistent with the **Buddha’s early life or Jātaka tales**
  • Lion shaped face depicting the Shakyamuni Buddha.

For comparative reference, please see:

I believe a neutral review by multiple editors could help clarify whether this statue’s description as "Jain" accurately reflects its iconography and historical context, or whether the identification might require revision to reflect Buddhist artistic traits.

Thank you for your time and input. ENcrash (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;

Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Crusades

What should be the scope of the article "Crusades"?

  • Option A: The article should focus on the papally sanctioned anti-Muslim military campaigns launched for the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291, and only briefly discuss the connections between these "numbered Crusades" and other papally endorsed campaigns that formed part of the wider crusading movement.
  • Option B: The article should cover all papally sanctioned military campaigns, including those treated in separate articles, such as the Albigensian Crusades, the Iberian Crusades, and the Northern Crusades.
  • Option C: The article should cover both the Crusades for the Holy Land and, in brief, other campaigns authorised by papal indulgence, but as distinct topics.

Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Matcha

I did a rough read of the talk page discussion above and believe we have consensus to say that 1) matcha can trace its root ultimately to China Chinese powdered tea, and 2) the current form of matcha, which is the primary subject of this article, originated in Japan. I propose we use the following phrasing in the second paragraph as suggested by User:薔薇騎士団: Matcha traces its origins to China but was developed into its current form in Japan. Matcha originated from Chinese powdered tea and evolved into its current form in Japan. Northern Moonlight 03:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

The WP:GEOLAND guideline states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard is not fit for purpose"? FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Senghenydd colliery disaster

Should the lead say A) “killed 439 miners and one rescuer” (no link); B) “killed 439 miners and one rescuer” (link to miner); or C) “439 miners and a rescuer” (link to Coal mining)? Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Sonnenblume

Which military units and/or flags should be included in the infobox? See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Operation Sonnenblume for more info.

Should flag icons be included in the infobox?

  • Option 1 Yes
  • Option 2 No

Which countries/flags should be included in the infobox?

  • Option 1 Free France
  • Option 2 Other countries - please list which country you are specifying and I will add them to the RfC list.

Which units should be included in the infobox?

  • Option 1 Free French Battalion
  • Option 2 Third Indian Motor Brigade
  • Option 3 Any other unit - please list the unit you are specifying.

~delta (talk • cont) 02:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Military–industrial complex

Which should we use: A or B?

A: The speech was authored by Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos and was foreshadowed by a passage in the 1954 book Power Through Purpose coauthored by Moos. The degree to which Eisenhower and his brother Milton shaped the speech is unclear from surviving documents. Planning commenced in early 1959; however, the earliest archival evidence of a military-industrial complex theme is a late-1960 memo by Williams that includes the phrase war based industrial complex. A wide range of interpretations have been made of the speech's meaning. Looking back in 1985, Williams wrote that he was "astonished" at the attention given to the military-industrial complex sound bite, saying that it "has been distorted beyond recognition ... it became red meat for the media".[1]

B: The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military", a claim passed on only by oral history.[2]:111 Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version.[3] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence.[4] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[5] Uhoj (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[1][2]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)


Language and linguistics

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

Talk:Military–industrial complex

Which should we use: A or B?

A: The speech was authored by Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos and was foreshadowed by a passage in the 1954 book Power Through Purpose coauthored by Moos. The degree to which Eisenhower and his brother Milton shaped the speech is unclear from surviving documents. Planning commenced in early 1959; however, the earliest archival evidence of a military-industrial complex theme is a late-1960 memo by Williams that includes the phrase war based industrial complex. A wide range of interpretations have been made of the speech's meaning. Looking back in 1985, Williams wrote that he was "astonished" at the attention given to the military-industrial complex sound bite, saying that it "has been distorted beyond recognition ... it became red meat for the media".[1]

B: The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military", a claim passed on only by oral history.[2]:111 Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version.[6] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence.[4] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[7] Uhoj (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Maths, science, and technology

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Talk:Dead Internet theory

I feel like we need to gather broad consensus for what we should talk about under this topic. Over the years, this talk page has had loads of topics saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" to which people reply "yes it is, because sources says so". Therefore, let me state very clearly that my intention of this RFC is not to discuss the article's sourcing, be it what they say nor which are reliable. Instead, I want to create consensus for what the article should be about – in other words, what text and topic should be discussed inside a Wikipedia article titled "Dead Internet theory"?

There is really 2 theories here – the sentiment "bot activity online is drowning out humans and it feels depressing" and the sentiment "bot activity online is brainwashing by them to control the world". And although both theories are generally referred to with the article title, they are extremely different in terms of what they propose, how they came about, and what emotions are targeted by their respective theorists. One is rooted in anti-AI and general doomerism which are quite recent phenomena, and the other is a renewed phrasing of the good-ol' "evil people are secretly controlling us" which is as old as antisemitism.

As such, I don't believe it works very well to describe the two in interwoven prose as if they were equal. For example, the topic named "New World Order" has been split across several articles, including the political sense and the conspiratorial sense. Similarly, brainrot is a separate topic from brainwashing although the two concepts largely present the same methodology. And as a third, and blatantly more obvious example, we don't talk about goyslop in Criticism of fast food.

So we should pick one and only one topic to discuss in this article. And it should be whatever the WP:COMMONNAME of "Dead Internet theory" is used for, as to be determined by the community. By my personal unsourced observation, the by far most prominent topic of the two is the anti-AI one.

How to accomplish this and what to do with the other topic should also be a point of debate – we could split or fork it off into a separate article, we could put it under its own heading here, we could deem it not within project scope and delete it, or do something completely different. Let’s hear it.

My personal opinion of how to resolve this: Contentfork this article into its two constituent topics, perhaps titled Dead Internet theory and Dead Internet conspiracy theory. They are separate topics that both deserve coverage but should be covered separately. Any actual overlap between the two may be described in the destination articles. If the community supports this path, I'd be happy to start writing towards it myself.

Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology

There is ongoing disagreement about how to phrase the following sentence in the article:

  • Current version: "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics, in 1950."
  • Alternative proposal: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."

The core issue is whether Wikipedia should state in its own voice that Hubbard promoted "his pseudoscientific ideas", or whether the pseudoscience characterization should be attributed to reliable sources in a separate clause. The earlier discussion is at Talk:Scientology § Wikivoice.

Input from uninvolved editors is welcome to help determine the most neutral and policy-compliant phrasing.

  • Option 1: Keep the current version.
  • Option 2: Change it to the alternative proposal.

14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Dingo

What should the Dingo be listed as in the taxobox?

  • A. As a member of the dog species Canis familiaris, Linnaeus 1758 (example [3])
  • B. As the species Canis dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [4])
  • C. As the subspecies Canis lupus dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [5])
  • D. As the subspecies Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793
  • E. As the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (treating the dog as a subspecies of the grey wolf).
  • F. Omit a taxobox entirely

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models

Should this proposal be accepted as a guideline? (Please consider reading the FAQ above before commenting.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Visual Studio Code

Should VSCode be described as a source-code editor, or should it be described as an IDE? NasssaNser 04:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)


Art, architecture, literature, and media

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media

Talk:Gol Maal

Which of the following film posters should be used in the infobox for Gol Maal?

Please indicate your first choice and second choice in the Survey with an optional brief statement. The Discussion section is provided for discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game reviews

Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis (band)

What should be the lead image in the infobox? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)


Politics, government, and law

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

Talk:Israel

After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide

Similar wording should be applied consistently to this article.

Current : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:North Macedonia

Should the lead sentence of the article include text stating that the country is also still known by its former official name? Please see diff for an option; another option would be " also known domestically by its former official name Macedonia". --Local hero talk 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Advance UK

Should Advance Uk be described as far-right or right-wing to far-right in the infobox and lead? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)

We need to change the naming convention for elections in communist states. The naming convention, in many ways, does not make sense: the elections, in North Korea, for example, are called 1959 North Korean parliamentary by-election. Does North Korea have a parliamentary system? No, it has a supreme state organ of power that holds the unified powers of the state. And North Korea is not the exception, but the norm. The communist state election model was formed in opposition to parliamentary, the fusion of powers, and the separation of powers. In the communist bloc, and in present-day China and North Korea, the term traditionally used is "Election of deputies to the" organ in question, that is, "election of deputies to the National People's Congress" and the "election of deputies to the Supreme People's Assembly". However, in the case of China, this title is problematic: the election process begins at the grassroots and ends with the provincial and other provincial-level people's congresses electing members to the National People's Congress. The entire election process begins at the bottom and goes from each level until it reaches the supreme state organ of power, that is, the National People's Congress.

A more correct, and less controversial title often used is legislative election, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election. But again, that might make it seem like the election process was identical in the US as in the Soviet Union: it was not. I, here, also propose using the formal term used by the communist states themselves: 1984 Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union or 1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet.

I have several proposals:

  1. At the very least, we need to STOP describing communist state elections as parliamentary. The communist states had supreme state organs of power that held the unified powers of the state and monopolised legislative power; that is, let's use the term' legislative' in the article title, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election.
  2. Take the most radical and correct route. Make clear that communist state elections were different from once in liberal democracies and used different terminology. Follow the WP naming convention, but use terminology used by these states themselves: "1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet" or, for example, "2018-19 Chinese Election of Deputies"
  3. Be exceptionally bold, and create a new naming convention for communist state elections: "Election of Deputies to the 11th Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union" (instead of "1984 Soviet Union legislative election"), "Election of Deputies to the 1st People's Chamber of East Germany (instead of 1950 East German general election), and "Election of Deputies to the 14th Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea" (instead of 2019 North Korean parliamentary election)
  4. Status quo, but use the name of the overall body where applicable, 1984 Soviet of Nations election.
  5. 2019 North Korean supreme state organ of power election, 1984 Soviet supreme state organ of power election, 1950 East German supreme state organ of power election. This is logical as well: they are supreme state organs of power, and keeps the structure intact without making it too complicated.

What should be transparent for everybody is the lack of consistency when describing communist state elections, which I hope we can all agree is a bad thing... Since they all practised the same electoral system based on electing lower-level state organs of power and a supreme state organ of power. @The Account 2, Nikkimaria, JArthur1984, Chipmunkdavis, Jack Upland, Abo Yemen, and Easternsahara: --TheUzbek (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Sati (practice)

Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;

Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Qatar

Should the following text be restored to the article? Fidjeri (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Military–industrial complex

Which should we use: A or B?

A: The speech was authored by Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos and was foreshadowed by a passage in the 1954 book Power Through Purpose coauthored by Moos. The degree to which Eisenhower and his brother Milton shaped the speech is unclear from surviving documents. Planning commenced in early 1959; however, the earliest archival evidence of a military-industrial complex theme is a late-1960 memo by Williams that includes the phrase war based industrial complex. A wide range of interpretations have been made of the speech's meaning. Looking back in 1985, Williams wrote that he was "astonished" at the attention given to the military-industrial complex sound bite, saying that it "has been distorted beyond recognition ... it became red meat for the media".[1]

B: The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military", a claim passed on only by oral history.[2]:111 Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version.[8] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence.[4] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[9] Uhoj (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:North Korea

The infobox currently uses the following description for North Korea's government form: "Unitary one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship", which has been taken into dispute. What, if anything, should replace it? TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[8][9]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:European army

Does the European Armed Forces exist or is the European army a policy proposal? 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes

Should Donald Trump be added to this list based on his 2024 conviction for falsifying business records? TRCRF22 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Kuan Yew

Question: Should the lead paragraph include the word "authoritarian"? Seahumidity (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)


Religion and philosophy

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Talk:Israel

After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide

Similar wording should be applied consistently to this article.

Current : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology

There is ongoing disagreement about how to phrase the following sentence in the article:

  • Current version: "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics, in 1950."
  • Alternative proposal: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."

The core issue is whether Wikipedia should state in its own voice that Hubbard promoted "his pseudoscientific ideas", or whether the pseudoscience characterization should be attributed to reliable sources in a separate clause. The earlier discussion is at Talk:Scientology § Wikivoice.

Input from uninvolved editors is welcome to help determine the most neutral and policy-compliant phrasing.

  • Option 1: Keep the current version.
  • Option 2: Change it to the alternative proposal.

14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Sati (practice)

Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)


Society, sports, and culture

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture

Talk:Dead Internet theory

I feel like we need to gather broad consensus for what we should talk about under this topic. Over the years, this talk page has had loads of topics saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" to which people reply "yes it is, because sources says so". Therefore, let me state very clearly that my intention of this RFC is not to discuss the article's sourcing, be it what they say nor which are reliable. Instead, I want to create consensus for what the article should be about – in other words, what text and topic should be discussed inside a Wikipedia article titled "Dead Internet theory"?

There is really 2 theories here – the sentiment "bot activity online is drowning out humans and it feels depressing" and the sentiment "bot activity online is brainwashing by them to control the world". And although both theories are generally referred to with the article title, they are extremely different in terms of what they propose, how they came about, and what emotions are targeted by their respective theorists. One is rooted in anti-AI and general doomerism which are quite recent phenomena, and the other is a renewed phrasing of the good-ol' "evil people are secretly controlling us" which is as old as antisemitism.

As such, I don't believe it works very well to describe the two in interwoven prose as if they were equal. For example, the topic named "New World Order" has been split across several articles, including the political sense and the conspiratorial sense. Similarly, brainrot is a separate topic from brainwashing although the two concepts largely present the same methodology. And as a third, and blatantly more obvious example, we don't talk about goyslop in Criticism of fast food.

So we should pick one and only one topic to discuss in this article. And it should be whatever the WP:COMMONNAME of "Dead Internet theory" is used for, as to be determined by the community. By my personal unsourced observation, the by far most prominent topic of the two is the anti-AI one.

How to accomplish this and what to do with the other topic should also be a point of debate – we could split or fork it off into a separate article, we could put it under its own heading here, we could deem it not within project scope and delete it, or do something completely different. Let’s hear it.

My personal opinion of how to resolve this: Contentfork this article into its two constituent topics, perhaps titled Dead Internet theory and Dead Internet conspiracy theory. They are separate topics that both deserve coverage but should be covered separately. Any actual overlap between the two may be described in the destination articles. If the community supports this path, I'd be happy to start writing towards it myself.

Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Is Times Now ...

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate

Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Sati (practice)

Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game reviews

Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Richard Dolan ...

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)

Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?

  • Option 1: An independent entry for Richard Dolan.
  • Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
  • Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
  • Option 4: Other

Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Nick Pope ...

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)

Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?

  • Option 1: An independent entry for Nick Pope.
  • Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
  • Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
  • Option 4: Other

Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox tennis biography

At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove |residence= from {{Infobox person}} and from {{Infobox sportsperson}}.

In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.

Given that {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography}} do the same.

For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.

A few arguments
  • Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
  • The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
  • To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia style and naming

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name?

  • American Airlines Flight 5342 (IATA name)
    • Consistency with sources including the NTSB, NY Times, and Washington Post
    • Brand recognition of American
  • American Eagle Flight 5342 (Branded name)
    • Ticketing and passenger experience
  • PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (ICAO name)
    • Operational and legal accuracy

The same question applies to the recent Delta accident:

  • Delta Air Lines Flight 4819
  • Delta Connection Flight 4819
  • Endeavor Air Flight 4819

All follow the style of <airline> Flight <flight-number> as described in the [conventions section]

Should the title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name? Zaptain United (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)

We need to change the naming convention for elections in communist states. The naming convention, in many ways, does not make sense: the elections, in North Korea, for example, are called 1959 North Korean parliamentary by-election. Does North Korea have a parliamentary system? No, it has a supreme state organ of power that holds the unified powers of the state. And North Korea is not the exception, but the norm. The communist state election model was formed in opposition to parliamentary, the fusion of powers, and the separation of powers. In the communist bloc, and in present-day China and North Korea, the term traditionally used is "Election of deputies to the" organ in question, that is, "election of deputies to the National People's Congress" and the "election of deputies to the Supreme People's Assembly". However, in the case of China, this title is problematic: the election process begins at the grassroots and ends with the provincial and other provincial-level people's congresses electing members to the National People's Congress. The entire election process begins at the bottom and goes from each level until it reaches the supreme state organ of power, that is, the National People's Congress.

A more correct, and less controversial title often used is legislative election, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election. But again, that might make it seem like the election process was identical in the US as in the Soviet Union: it was not. I, here, also propose using the formal term used by the communist states themselves: 1984 Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union or 1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet.

I have several proposals:

  1. At the very least, we need to STOP describing communist state elections as parliamentary. The communist states had supreme state organs of power that held the unified powers of the state and monopolised legislative power; that is, let's use the term' legislative' in the article title, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election.
  2. Take the most radical and correct route. Make clear that communist state elections were different from once in liberal democracies and used different terminology. Follow the WP naming convention, but use terminology used by these states themselves: "1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet" or, for example, "2018-19 Chinese Election of Deputies"
  3. Be exceptionally bold, and create a new naming convention for communist state elections: "Election of Deputies to the 11th Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union" (instead of "1984 Soviet Union legislative election"), "Election of Deputies to the 1st People's Chamber of East Germany (instead of 1950 East German general election), and "Election of Deputies to the 14th Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea" (instead of 2019 North Korean parliamentary election)
  4. Status quo, but use the name of the overall body where applicable, 1984 Soviet of Nations election.
  5. 2019 North Korean supreme state organ of power election, 1984 Soviet supreme state organ of power election, 1950 East German supreme state organ of power election. This is logical as well: they are supreme state organs of power, and keeps the structure intact without making it too complicated.

What should be transparent for everybody is the lack of consistency when describing communist state elections, which I hope we can all agree is a bad thing... Since they all practised the same electoral system based on electing lower-level state organs of power and a supreme state organ of power. @The Account 2, Nikkimaria, JArthur1984, Chipmunkdavis, Jack Upland, Abo Yemen, and Easternsahara: --TheUzbek (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes

How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;

Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

How should the names of tornado articles be handled going forward, especially around the use of the year and the existing convention WP:NCWWW? Departure– (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) be revised with regard to the naming conventions for state routes in Kansas and Michigan so that the parenthetical disambiguators "(Kansas highway)" and "(Michigan highway)" are only used when disambiguation is necessary, or another format entirely is used instead? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia policies and guidelines

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions be:

  1. Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and confirmed as a community-wide naming convention guideline?
  2. Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and made a supplemental information page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), commonly known as 'NCPLACE'?
  3. Kept at its current title and marked as a Wikiproject advice page?
  4. Marked historical as unneeded, unenforced or lacking consensus?
  • If C or D are adopted, the following guidance at WP:NCPLACE#Belgium would be removed: The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels.
  • If C or D are adopted, a discussion would be opened to determine the status of the Brusselsname talk page template.

Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

It has been over a year since the temporary criterion WP:X3 was enacted. At present, it looks as though the backlog of titles which this criterion applies have now been deleted. (Further details in the following comment.) At this point, should we make this criterion "Obsolete", promote this criterion to a permanent criterion (would be "R5"), do nothing to the criterion at the present time, or take some other action? Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms

This page was tagged as a sitewide {{guideline}} after an RFC in 2013. The RFC was not a WP:PROPOSAL for guideline status; instead, it was about a dispute over a CFD. A couple of participants in the RFC casually referred to this page as a "guideline", and on the basis of their comments, the page was later tagged as a {{Guideline}} instead of as a {{WikiProject advice page}}.

The WP:PROJPAGE guideline says: Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines. Such pages move out from under their original "Wikipedia:WikiProject Something/" path.

I therefore propose that editors choose one of two options:

  1. Mark this page as a {{WikiProject advice page}}, and leave it at the present page title, or
  2. Leave this page marked as a {{guideline}}, and move the page to a title that does not refer to WikiProject Ireland.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models

Should this proposal be accepted as a guideline? (Please consider reading the FAQ above before commenting.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox tennis biography

At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove |residence= from {{Infobox person}} and from {{Infobox sportsperson}}.

In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.

Given that {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography}} do the same.

For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.

A few arguments
  • Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
  • The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
  • To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Should T5 be updated to include the following language:

  • This applies to any and all unused subtemplates of a template that has been merged as a result of WP:TFD

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the community harmonize the rules that govern community-designated contentious topics (which are general sanctions authorized by the community) with WP:CTOP? If so, how? 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

The introductory language of Deletion Review includes DRV Purpose point 3, which states:

Deletion Review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

Should DRV Purpose point 3 be:

  • A. Deleted as not necessary or inconsistent with current practice?
  • B. Retained as is?
  • C Rewritten with alternate language? Please provide the proposed language.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

With the implementation of Module:Person date, all |birth_date= and |death_date= values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.

With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4450) where the birth/death date is set to Unk, Unknown, ? or ##?? (such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of |death_date=Unknown in articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).

Per MOS:INFOBOX: If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..

There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short, Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.

So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,450). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of |some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.

I tried to find a good case where the |death_date= truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use |disappeared_date= instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).

The way I see it there are a few options
  • Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
  • Option B - Implement a {{preview warning}} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
  • Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat |death_date=Unknown the same as |death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).
  • Option D - Some other solution, please explain.

Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

  1. Process is working well, no changes needed
  2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
  3. There should be fewer signatures needed
  4. There should be more signatures needed
  5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
  6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
  7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
  8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
  9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
  10. Recall should be abolished
  11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP

Which option should be used to fix the technical limitations that will prevent us from expanding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP)?

RSP currently lists about 500 sources, with a growth rate of about 50 new entries per year. With the current format, the page has reached the WP:PEIS template limits. Only templates within the limits are displayed; templates (and their contents) past that point on the page are not displayed. We need to restructure RSP to reduce the PEIS problem and accommodate more entries.

Editors have identified three main approaches to solving this problem. We are calling these three options "One giant table", "List of subpages", and "Row-building module". All options have advantages and disadvantages. Before we invest more hours in developing the options, we want to know which option is most appealing to the community. 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company}}, {{Infobox airline}} and the widely used {{Infobox company}} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

The WP:GEOLAND guideline states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard is not fit for purpose"? FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Should there be a recommended limit on a talk page size? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Should a "Wait and See" option be added to the Articles for Deletion guidelines, to be used as needed for breaking news? -- Beland (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Should DYK prohibit or restrict superlative hooks, such as those that revolve around a "first X" hook fact?

  • Option 1 - Ban all superlative hooks
  • Option 2 - Restrict superlative hooks to certain "airtight" cases, where established lists of subject members exist (for example, list of all US presidents)
  • Option 3 - Only allow superlative hooks to be approved on a case-by-case basis after a WT:DYK discussion
  • Option 4 - Status quo (bringing superlative hooks to WT:DYK is optional but encouraged, not mandatory, hooks do not need a WT:DYK discussion to be approved by a reviewer)

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)


WikiProjects and collaborations

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week, either on a trial basis, with the option to expand further if sustainable, or without a trial at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia technical issues and templates

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

An edit filter can perform certain actions when triggered, such as warning the user, disallowing the edit, or applying a change tag to the revision. However, there are lesser known actions that aren't currently used in the English Wikipedia, such as blocking the user for a specified amount of time, desysopping them, and something called "revoke autoconfirmed". Contrary to its name, this action doesn't actually revoke anything; it instead prevents them from being "autopromoted", or automatically becoming auto- or extended-confirmed. This restriction can be undone by any EFM at any time, and automatically expires in five days provided the user doesn't trigger that action again. Unlike block and desysop (called "degroup" in the code), this option is enabled for use on enwiki, but has seemingly never been used at all.

Fast forward to today, and we have multiple abusers and vandalbots gaming extended confirmed in order to vandalize or edit contentious topics. One abuser in particular has caused an edit filter to be created for them, which is reasonably effective in slowing them down, but it still lets them succeed if left unchecked. As far as I'm aware, the only false positive for this filter was triggered by PaulHSAndrews, who has since been community-banned. In theory, setting this filter to "revoke autoconfirmed" should effectively stop them from being able to become extended confirmed. Some technical changes were recently made to allow non-admin EFMs to use this action, but since it has never been used, I was told to request community consensus here.

So, should edit filter managers be allowed to use the "revoke autoconfirmed" action in edit filters? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game reviews

Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Should T5 be updated to include the following language:

  • This applies to any and all unused subtemplates of a template that has been merged as a result of WP:TFD

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

With the implementation of Module:Person date, all |birth_date= and |death_date= values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.

With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4450) where the birth/death date is set to Unk, Unknown, ? or ##?? (such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of |death_date=Unknown in articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).

Per MOS:INFOBOX: If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..

There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short, Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.

So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,450). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of |some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.

I tried to find a good case where the |death_date= truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use |disappeared_date= instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).

The way I see it there are a few options
  • Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
  • Option B - Implement a {{preview warning}} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
  • Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat |death_date=Unknown the same as |death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).
  • Option D - Some other solution, please explain.

Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP

Which option should be used to fix the technical limitations that will prevent us from expanding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP)?

RSP currently lists about 500 sources, with a growth rate of about 50 new entries per year. With the current format, the page has reached the WP:PEIS template limits. Only templates within the limits are displayed; templates (and their contents) past that point on the page are not displayed. We need to restructure RSP to reduce the PEIS problem and accommodate more entries.

Editors have identified three main approaches to solving this problem. We are calling these three options "One giant table", "List of subpages", and "Row-building module". All options have advantages and disadvantages. Before we invest more hours in developing the options, we want to know which option is most appealing to the community. 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)


Wikipedia proposals

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week, either on a trial basis, with the option to expand further if sustainable, or without a trial at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

I am proposing that we add a new thing Wikipedia:Pages being discussed for undeletion. This will be the place to discuss undeleting pages, though it shouldn't be used for stuff such as drafts deleted per G13 or other stuff. Not the same as deletion review either. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the following be added to the 'Immediate failures' section of the good article criteria?

6. It contains obvious evidence of LLM use, such as AI-generated references or remnants of AI prompt.

Proposed after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#AI. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

  1. Process is working well, no changes needed
  2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
  3. There should be fewer signatures needed
  4. There should be more signatures needed
  5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
  6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
  7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
  8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
  9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
  10. Recall should be abolished
  11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP

Which option should be used to fix the technical limitations that will prevent us from expanding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP)?

RSP currently lists about 500 sources, with a growth rate of about 50 new entries per year. With the current format, the page has reached the WP:PEIS template limits. Only templates within the limits are displayed; templates (and their contents) past that point on the page are not displayed. We need to restructure RSP to reduce the PEIS problem and accommodate more entries.

Editors have identified three main approaches to solving this problem. We are calling these three options "One giant table", "List of subpages", and "Row-building module". All options have advantages and disadvantages. Before we invest more hours in developing the options, we want to know which option is most appealing to the community. 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company}}, {{Infobox airline}} and the widely used {{Infobox company}} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)


Unsorted

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted


User names

[edit]
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
Shortcuts
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

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:

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

[edit]

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.


  1. ^ a b c Ledbetter, James (2011). "5: The Speech". Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex. Yale University Press. pp. 106–131. ISBN 978-0-300-15305-7.
  2. ^ a b c Ledbetter, James (2011). Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15305-7.
  3. ^ Geoffrey, Perret (1999). Eisenhower. New York: Random House. ISBN 0375500464.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  4. ^ a b c Ledbetter, James (25 January 2011). "Guest Post: 50 Years of the "Military–Industrial Complex"". Schott's Vocab. New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2011.
  5. ^ Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address", in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479
  6. ^ Geoffrey, Perret (1999). Eisenhower. New York: Random House. ISBN 0375500464.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  7. ^ Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address", in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479
  8. ^ Geoffrey, Perret (1999). Eisenhower. New York: Random House. ISBN 0375500464.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  9. ^ Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address", in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All&oldid=1314676966"