Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

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

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 4447) 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 (4,447). 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)