Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: (
)
Biographies
[edit]Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:
Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[1]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should Crooks's appearance in a BlackRock advertisement be mentioned in this article? 12:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
There are two questions:
|
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to change the lead section. This is the process recommended by DRN to avoid the constant stonewalling on this article. I trimmed it down but still kept the same facts. It's now 40~ ish words less than the one being reverted to and is easier to read in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?
|
Which of the following images should serve as the lede image for Hosni Mubarak?
|
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
Ten years have passed since the last discussion [2]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)" The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
The RfC questions are:
|
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Hermann Göring?
|
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]The Foundation is defending against a suit brought in Germany over the content of this article and has requested review and input by the volunteer community of certain statements and sources in the article. The request is to "review the Contested Statements and/or update the secondary resources or the citations if required. Your input would be constructive for the Foundation in preparing its defense strategy." Geoff | Who, me? 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) |
How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?
|
Which style of subheading nesting should be used for the lists of people in this article? (The difference is in the last subheading, "Former officials".)
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Over the last 18 months, the nesting of the list with its subheadings has changed numerous times and has not resolved with talk page discussions, leading to this RfC to try to settle the issue. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography
[edit]Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)
With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
Should the first sentence contain the term 'genocidal killing' and/or 'genocidal massacre'? The article as a whole is in some ways separated from events preceding and following, which confounds the chronology somewhat. Nonetheless, for the period of time as has been defined (which isn't exactly idiosyncratic) events from July 11-31 1995, as conventionally understood as the "Srebrenica genocide" and/or "Srebrenica massacre", are neither limited to 'genocidal killing' or 'genocidal massacre'. This is reflected in the article and sources, which document, for example, the rape of women and children, and continued deportation/forcible relocation of citizens of Srebrenica.
Neither the phrases "genocidal killing" nor "genocidal massacre" are expressly used in the sources linked as support for the phrase, which has been added and removed in various edit wars for the past several days – the terms are potentially WP:OR, and certainly non-exhaustive. However, they are typically understood as excluding the aforementioned additional actions which are recognized as part of the Srebrenica genocide, such as when in other contexts the terms "genocidal killings and rape", "genocide and rape", imply different things. See also the article genocidal rape and the concerns which it brings up. I submit that it's simply easier and more concise to go with the formulation |
Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option. |
Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
This cagegorization [5] - characterizing the event as "Massacres committed by Ukraine" - is challenged. Nowhere in the article it says it "was committed by Ukraine", and no sources are saying so. I disagree with the thesis above Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia#Wrong cat that at some level of abstraction, it was committed by Ukraine but I'm the only one opposing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions
While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".
By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter. This is confusing in several different ways:
I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:
Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:
However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick
In 1967, the Government of New Brunswick abolished county municipal governments. Do counties still exist in New Brunswick despite this abolition? (Note: This question has been significantly reworded for clarity.) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!). It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well. Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministryhave a qualifier such as Hamas-runor Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
George Lenczowski in “Russia and the West in Iran, 1918-1948” (1949) page 160 says the Nazis declared Iranians as Aryans without citation and has been cited himself by many authors repeating this statement, Motadel and Ansari in “Perceptions of Iran” (2013) pages 135 and 145 say they didn’t, that Lenczowski was incorrect, and cite primary source documents, but have not been widely cited by other authors on this particular subject. Which can be considered correct for use in this article and others? See Talk:Germany–Iran relations#Nazis declaring Iranians Aryans/Hitler personally saying so for further discussion. Nosam89 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry/Archive 1#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
Ten years have passed since the last discussion [6]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)" The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
The RfC questions are:
|
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Hermann Göring?
|
Language and linguistics
[edit]Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)
With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics
Our transcription system for English (H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should certain relevant content here on the page "Mid-Atlantic accent" 1) be moved/split off to this section on Elite Northeastern American English (or perhaps even an entirely new page Elite Northeastern American English); or, 2) should we go in the other direction and totally merge from the aforementioned section over to "Mid-Atlantic accent"? Wolfdog (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
What units should be used for distances between star systems and galaxies? These are measured in light years (ly) in popular news and educational media; professional astronomers use parsecs (pc). Articles currently use a variety of units (some only ly and some ly converted to km) but most commonly use ly converted to pc in infoboxes (often automatically from technical data). If conversion to SI units (like kilometers) is not required in certain contexts, this would be added as an explicit exception to MOS:CONVERSIONS. The maximum distance in the observable universe is under 100 billion light-years, and interplanetary distances (inside a star system) are a fraction of a light-year and are measured in astronomical units (AU or au). 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option. |
Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article? Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
|
Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry/Archive 1#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to change the lead section. This is the process recommended by DRN to avoid the constant stonewalling on this article. I trimmed it down but still kept the same facts. It's now 40~ ish words less than the one being reverted to and is easier to read in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.
The reliability of NewsClick is:
14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of South Korean girl groups
Since the DRN has been closed by the volunteer admin, I'm opening this RfC to have a clear consensus about the matter that was discussed above. Should there be an "end date" for the groups who just don't have an activity this year even though they are still active in the industry?
Edit: Additionally, this should also apply to List of South Korean boy bands. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 07:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
|
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)
With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:
Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[11]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should "with limited recognition" be added in the first sentence? ZeehanLin (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars
While trying to formulate my opinion on the subject, I found that neither discussion above (Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved and Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar") is very clear as to any proposed changes. So, I am making this section for !votes and discussion on specific versions. Here are the options (taken from the above discussions):
Option 2 was developed as a compromise between Option 1 and Option 3, given the unusual disagreement over the use of the title. Option 3 treated the media mentions of Harris as border czar as sufficient, followed by the chronologically later disavowal. The supporters of Option 1 have several justifications, mainly (so far as I can see) that the title has always been a source of controversy, ever since President Biden gave her the diplomatic responsibility, and that she has now formally disavowed the title. Wrapped up in this latter argument is the political connection, given that most people who want to bring up the "border czar" title are doing so to the detriment of her campaign. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
To what extent should allegations that Ukraine violated the International humanitarian law (IHL) by utilizing civilian infrastructure for military operations be discussed in this article? I specifically focus on two separate matters.
(1) The inclusion of the allegation that Ukraine may have violated IHL in the specific case of a nursing home in Stara Krasnianka, Luhansk, brought to light in this June 2022 OHCHR report. It is claimed that in March 2022 Ukrainian soldiers utilized this nursing home, populated by elderly persons and disabled people, for military purposes contrary to IHL. (2) The inclusion of a controversial report by Amnesty International published in August 2022 that there is a "pattern" of Ukraine utilizing civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, for military activity, which they indicate may be a violation of IHL.
The matter has been debated extensively immediately above, and in fact for a few years now in older discussions. Thank you for contributing. JDiala (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
This cagegorization [12] - characterizing the event as "Massacres committed by Ukraine" - is challenged. Nowhere in the article it says it "was committed by Ukraine", and no sources are saying so. I disagree with the thesis above Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia#Wrong cat that at some level of abstraction, it was committed by Ukraine but I'm the only one opposing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)
Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology? FropFrop (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election
Should we include a pairwise-comparisons table similar to the one at 2009 Burlington mayoral election and Draft:Center squeeze#Examples? Such a table would show, for each pair of candidates, how many voters preferred (ranked higher) one candidate or the other. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions
While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".
By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter. This is confusing in several different ways:
I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:
Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:
However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should this article contain examples or not? 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministryhave a qualifier such as Hamas-runor Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry/Archive 1#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
|
Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election
There is a clear consensus that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems should be included in the infobox. Should more parties be included in the infobox, and if so, which?
The main viable options (examples linked) are:
Other suggestions also welcome. CipherRephic (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as:
|
I believe the previous discussion here was not all that productive (it didn't involve all that much analysis of sources, and there was only I believe 4 or so active editors in the discussion (which is why I've added the RFC template to this discussion)), and that the main argument to remove it was incredibly weak; that argument being, "A majority (or a lot) of sources do not describe the party as neo-fascist." That. does. not. matter. Said sources often describe the party as national conservative and or right-wing populist. These are not mutually exclusive with fascism, infact, right-wing populism is one of the core tenets of fascism. (13, here which links to right-wing populism.) Nor is national conservatism mutually exclusive with fascism, and in fact italian neo-fascist parties (most notably MSI) are listed as also being national conservative here here. Please do not repeat this argument. Sources merely not labelling the party as neo-fascist do not matter, what does matter, however is the sources which outright reject the neo-fascist label. There are plenty of sources that don't describe birds as being dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, sources highlighting the parties roots in fascism are not neccesarily rejecting that they curron ently are, instead it's merely highlighting the historical aspect.A Socialist Trans Girl 07:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Hermann Göring?
|
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
|
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)
With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
In late 2023 and early 2024, User:Spesh531 modified rivalry tables by adding team colors to home/away results columns and overall series columns of the table. Previously, only the individual season series column was shaded After some WP:BRD edits today, I believe it should be examined by the the Baseball wikiproject to gain some consensus moving forward. Below is an excerpt from the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page, in two versions. Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option. |
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
|
Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
|
Should certain relevant content here on the page "Mid-Atlantic accent" 1) be moved/split off to this section on Elite Northeastern American English (or perhaps even an entirely new page Elite Northeastern American English); or, 2) should we go in the other direction and totally merge from the aforementioned section over to "Mid-Atlantic accent"? Wolfdog (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
What units should be used for distances between star systems and galaxies? These are measured in light years (ly) in popular news and educational media; professional astronomers use parsecs (pc). Articles currently use a variety of units (some only ly and some ly converted to km) but most commonly use ly converted to pc in infoboxes (often automatically from technical data). If conversion to SI units (like kilometers) is not required in certain contexts, this would be added as an explicit exception to MOS:CONVERSIONS. The maximum distance in the observable universe is under 100 billion light-years, and interplanetary distances (inside a star system) are a fraction of a light-year and are measured in astronomical units (AU or au). 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
There are two questions:
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions
While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".
By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter. This is confusing in several different ways:
I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:
Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:
However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
See above post. Tl;dr Korea-related articles currently don't have guidance on how to handle Hangul names in reference templates. This has led to a wide variety of practices, with arguable positives/negatives to each of them. I'm proposing we establish a guideline in MOS:KO, in which Hangul names are to be romanized (with nuances). 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics
Our transcription system for English (H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Should C4 (unused maintenance categories) be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion? 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
There are two questions:
|
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Back in 2017, the community decided in this RfC that moved pages should be unpatrolled. The feature was stuck in Phabricator purgatory and was never actually implemented.
Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @Pppery, @Hey man im josh and @Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
Should WP:MASSCREATE be severed from WP:Bot policy? 23:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Edit filter manager
Should the Wikipedia:Edit filter manager page be promoted to a procedural policy? EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Back in 2017, the community decided in this RfC that moved pages should be unpatrolled. The feature was stuck in Phabricator purgatory and was never actually implemented.
Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @Pppery, @Hey man im josh and @Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Should C4 (unused maintenance categories) be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion? 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
There are two questions:
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
|
Wikipedia talk:Edit filter manager
Should the Wikipedia:Edit filter manager page be promoted to a procedural policy? EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
Unsorted
[edit]
User names
[edit]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
[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.