Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies[edit]
| Should allegations of an affair be included in Ilhan Omar's biography? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC) |
There is a discussion about due weight in the lede, which contains this paragraph WikiLeaks' role in the 2016 US Presidential election:
Should the bolded sentence be removed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
| As some users may already know, there have been some news concerning a claim made by two Russian pranksters, who say that they have talked to Harry on two different occasions and each time he has made harsh comments about his own family and the president of the US. I saw BBC publishing an article about this 1 and it seems that that the phone calls have been recorded and published. 2 Considering the fact that we have covered similar scandals in the articles that we have about his parents and other family members, should we include this in the body of the article? Keivan.fTalk 00:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
| See above. Editor wants to place information about events in Tiananmen Square that contradict the subject's of this BLP's own version of events. And the rest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
| There is information on this page, particularly in the hacked emails section, that includes inflammatory language and insinuations, which don't abide by WP:BLP. User:Huldra and I have been discussing changes to the page, however we have reached a standstill and I would appreciate others' thoughts on this page. Please refer to the above Page Issues section for further information on this. Quorum816 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| The "Television" section talks about her works on TV. Should the "Television" section include her surprise firing from The View be added? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should a short paragraph in the article about Zina Bash read:
or should it read:
Thank you, RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the lead mention Eden Alene's ethnic descent (Ethiopian-Jewish) and the Amharic transcription of her name (ኤደን አለነ)? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| The "Television" section talks about her works on TV. Should the "Television" section include her series "In Trump We Trust"? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Kevin Richardson (zookeeper)
| While this particular edit wasn't terribly constructive on its own, it does bring up a good point that I hadn't considered before I reverted it: is 'zookeeper' an accurate disambiguator for this person? He owns and operates a wildlife sanctuary, which is not a zoo, so I'm inclined to believe it isn't. If others agree this is not a good word choice, what word/words are better suited for this? Perhaps Kevin Richardson (sanctuary owner) or Kevin Richardson (conservationist), but I'm not completely sold on either one. (Between the two I'd lean towards 'sanctuary owner'.) I've made this an RFC as I suspect this will not be seen otherwise. Thank you! –Erakura(talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.
However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"? 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Which statement is more appropriate for inclusion as a review of Robbie's involvement/performance in Birds of Prey? KyleJoantalk 05:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date."
Is this guideline clear enough to be useful to a user trying to determine whether somebody's cause of death should be included in the lead of their bio? What I see as a lack of clarity - especially with wording like often none is included - can lead to long animated discussions such as this recent one. Those discussions wouldn't be such a waste of time and effort if briefer, or if altogether unnecessary, given we had a clearer guideline. Being rather a strong anti-sensationalist myself, hoping always that Wikipedia articles about people will not develop into tabloid-type material, perhaps I have misunderstood the guideline along those lines. If normal (statisticlly) suicides, car crashes, drug overdoses, for example are to be considered by Wikipedia as defining factors in what's notable about those people, then I am wrong in removing them from leads, whereas with a clearly notable death such as that of Christine Chubbuck I would not do that. If a celebrity's cause of death is widely reported in media, and that alone makes the cause of death in itself a reason for notability, then I am also wrong in feeling it should be removed from the lead as non-notable. I am inviting other editors to chime in here, and to help write a clearer guideline in this detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players
| There has been a discussion on the WikiProject talk page regarding the layout of the "Honours" section in association football player pages. Input from other users would be appreciated, as consensus has yet to be reached. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should Peppermint's birth name be included in the "Personal life" section of the article, or omitted from the article completely? (To clarify, it seems to be agreed that the name should not be included in the lead, and that is not the topic of this RfC). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
| It has been asserted that HS2 is not a new line, but a network. In this article, should HS2 be described as a network, or as a new Y-shaped line?
Example edits: For consideration: "What is HS2?". High Speed 2. Retrieved 10 March 2020. Cnbrb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
| This article has long had a big table of "Lichess Titled Arena" tournaments/participants/results. It is sourced only to Lichess itself. I've twice removed it and was twice reverted (last time here). It's come to an RfC, I guess.
Should this article include a table of Lichess tournaments based on primary sources? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the revised lead in an edit request be allowed to include a citation? We are seeking consensus on proposed re-writes as well. Jon Gray (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Federal Pretzel Baking Company
| Back and forth on this discussion removing sources. Editing contradiction of position SummerPhD on content first needing more sourcing and then eliminating sources as not needed or overdone. Disturbing is the the negative statement that SummerPhD makes " I'm going to be pecking away at this off and on." further stated "The vast majority of this article is unsourced. Clearly, we need more independent reliable sources." My position clearly is that sources of the time period support the context and content that it just not folklore, or marketing puff but is rooted in Philadelphia culture by the amount of "news" attention exploring the Pretzel Company and the Family that lends to fact telling and inference of phenom of Soft Pretzel in Philadelphia as a food, that is more than a food but taking on an iconic cuisine status among the population.
See Talk:Federal Pretzel Baking Company#Considerable work needed for complete comment of conflicting editor points of SummerPhD what is needed and that when provided is deleted as unnecessary? Pretzelfactory (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.
Position statement #1: This article's readability is poor. Thanks for participating!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Does this article still have a promotional tone, and if so, what can be done to fix it? Moontreasure (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
History and geography[edit]
Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:
Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Hello, I'm in a disagreement with @M.Bitton: about how Si Kaddour Benghabrit's role in the Treaty of Fes should be covered. I've cited my sources, but I've been accused of WP:OR and misrepresenting a source, and I don't think those are fair accusations. I cleaned up my contributions in this edit to make them as technically compliant as possible, but @M.Bitton: still reverted it. We've been discussing it here: Please share your input. Some Arabic might be required. Thank you. إيان (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the article contain an {{Infobox country}} along the lines of this example? --T*U (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
| We currently state in the article that at least 5.5 million Jews were killed in The Holocaust. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler as to how we arrived at the current figure of 5.5 million. Should we leave it as 5.5 million, increase it to 6 million, or use some other figure? — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the "Name", "classical sources", and "literary sources" sections be combined to reduce duplication and improve overall quality?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should this template include links to articles about topics that have significance outside of Arabic culture, such as Islamic architecture or Avicennism? signed, Rosguill talk 01:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead article have the sentence In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.? Please decide on one of the three following proposals:
Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| Should the lead include mention of the fact that the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and that the party appealed to racial conservatism after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The text in question would summarize the "Composition" section of the body[1], and would reflect the contents of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on the matter. RfC expired and extended by Sdkb (talk) at 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the Dakota people, as in this text, be in Minneapolis history? In December they were "Removed out-of-scope text regarding a general history of mid-West which is not specific to Minneapolis". Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen whether or not "Vita" can be used as an entry on this Disambiguation page when referring specifically to a book by that title, written by the 1st-century historian Josephus. One of the conditions for adding a name to WP:DAB is: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." For the relative arguments (pros and cons) of adding the name "Vita (Josephus)" to this page, see the discussion here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.
However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Currently, the Christopher Columbus page completely eschews the use of the word "discovery". This has gone back and forth over the years, I think it's time to get a wider commentary on this. The cited references pretty much all use the word, and indeed, several of them have the word in the title of the work. Refusing to use the word seems to be a mixture of WP:RECENTISM (the fashion for excising "discovery" is fairly recent) and WP:CENSOR ("discovery" as a dirty word). Either way, it means we're going out of our way to not follow our cited sources.
I understand the changes in current fashion, but I think Wikipedia is ill-served by bending to them. It is beyond question that when Columbus made his initial voyages, they were discoveries that hit both sides of the Atlantic like a thunderbolt. We can quibble over the terminology (perhaps say "discovery of the route" or "discovery from the point of view of both Americans and Eurasians"), but only with caution. It would be easy to get so tied up in precision as to make the article unreadable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Question: What should the general rule/principle/guideline be for categorizing current localities by historical administrative subdivision in Central and Eastern Europe? There are quite a few articles of cities and towns that have been categorized not only in which administrative subdivision they currently are in, but also by the former subdivisions.
Typical example: Eišiškės, a small town in Lithuania, is in these categories: Category:Cities in Lithuania, Category:Cities in Vilnius County, Category:Šalčininkai District Municipality, Category:Vilnius Voivodeship, Category:Lidsky Uyezd, Category:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939). The first 3 categories reflect the current administrative subdivision. Vilnius Voivodeship was a subdivision in 1413–1795. Lidsky Uyezd was a 2nd-level subdivision sometime between 1795–1915. Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939) was an inter-war subdivision. General options:
22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the further reading section contain references about the Black Belt?
Background: At Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) then created Black Belt in the American South which, while not a phrase that is in common use the way "bible belt" is, is clearly used by enough sources to justify a Wikipedia article. Rjensen then inserted content into Deep South referring to the page he created[2] and inserted multiple references to the black belt into the further reading section of Deep South article.[3][4] The question before us is whether material about the black belt but not about the deep south should be retained to the further reading section of the deep south article. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
| Should the "Name", "classical sources", and "literary sources" sections be combined to reduce duplication and improve overall quality?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
| I'd like to request comment on the "lack of evidence" section as well as the lede. I am concerned about their current form for reasons I have laid out above.Botterweg14 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Under the etymology section, should this Wikipedia article include the untagged text "According to Yuriko Sato, mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan. The word later become connected to the Shinto concept that all objects have souls." The citation would be Yuriko Sato's article "Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi". Some of this material exists in the article with tags[5], but I want to ask whether it should be included without the tags. Martinthewriter (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
| With the world having a higher average rate of active cases than Hubei the day before lockdown it is important to provide a reference metric against which to compare the need to declare a state of emergency to save lives. Please do not remove this statistic, rewrite if needed.Moneyball99 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
| Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate
| Due to a recent popular Youtube video, in which this WP article and history are named (mainly at 7:48 and 15:10), an influx of editors came to edit the page with WP:OR. Those wanting to know the overall narrative of the video can read the GAB of a user who came to WP only to edit this article.
|
Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
| Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --Almaty (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia
| Should Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (currently a stub) be merged into a "Late-onset" section of Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (similar to the one on Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency)? · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Which description is more suitable here?
A) She is a climate change denialist. B) She is a climate change skeptic. C) She is a climate change denier. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead article have the sentence In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.? Please decide on one of the three following proposals:
Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
I look forward to reading your thoughts. Bait30 Talk? 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.
Position statement #1: This article's readability is poor. Thanks for participating!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases (confirmed)
| Should we use the current graph or make visual changes to become a more standard epidemic curve per WP:MEDRS? As we can see in the best current data source (Figure 4). --Almaty (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the Battered woman syndrome and Battered person syndrome articles be merged so that the medical and legal aspects defined under the terms "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are covered in one article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| The "Television" section talks about her works on TV. Should the "Television" section include her surprise firing from The View be added? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| The "Television" section talks about her works on TV. Should the "Television" section include her series "In Trump We Trust"? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes
| What template should be used to denote that episode synopses for Steven Universe Future can be found on the main article?
MiasmaEternalTALK 07:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should we include how long Stile Liberty in Italy lasted in the lede? Sauvahge (talk) 08:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Should the Post-Show section be renamed "Related Programs", and the information "Top-selling albums by former contestants" be reassigned to the respective members in the table?
|
| Should the fact that the show has a companion podcast be mentioned in the article? See above for previous discussion. Alphius (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Several years ago one editor pursued an agenda of attacking the film using original research and was opposed. The editor then found individual sources for individual points but continued to allow their personal POV to stand in the form of a separate section which enumerated the rules of the film, which the sources cited did not do. They appear to be fixated on this. I have made an attempt to balance the section by not treating the topic of plot holes any differently from other topics praised or decried by different critics of the film, as we normally do in film articles. There is no need for a separate section on a single topic like this. It is UNDUE and POV and SYNTH to do that and to enumerate a list of rules when these are and should be referred to ONCE in the plot itself. This is not a fan site where the film can be nitpicked to death by one person. This is an encylopedia article where we report what was said and no more in the appropriate places. The rules may be described in the plot but they do not need to be rehashed by the editor in reception under a separate banner. Finally, the language used by the editor in reporting / quoting the sources is undue, making it sound like these are not reviewer's opinions but stated facts.
This RfC asks one question: is the reception section fine as it is, or should it be reworked in some manner based on the above? For those interested in what it could look like should these suggestions be followed, I redid it once myself and it was reverted this morning. I reverted back but probably should have made this comment and RfC first. It has since been reverted again, and I was "ordered" not to revert again on my talk page, unsigned. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.
However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"? 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Which statement is more appropriate for inclusion as a review of Robbie's involvement/performance in Birds of Prey? KyleJoantalk 05:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? KyleJoantalk 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film
| Should we host indicators of prominent awards in articles about other awards, in cases where the two awards are not mentioned by a reliable source listing both? For instance, indicating Academy Awards in other film awards articles, or indicating Emmy Awards in other television awards articles, or indicating Tony Awards in other theatre awards articles. Of course, the two awards would always be supported by two separate groups of sources – the combining of the two awards is the question here. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should this be an exemption to the rule to not list more than 5 writers in the infobox? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
| Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:
Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should allegations of an affair be included in Ilhan Omar's biography? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC) |
There is a discussion about due weight in the lede, which contains this paragraph WikiLeaks' role in the 2016 US Presidential election:
Should the bolded sentence be removed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
| This RfC may also apply to the pages of other political parties with similar issues. When a political party mostly adheres to a certain variant of a particular ideology, should the more general ideology be listed in addition to the specific variant in the "ideology" section of the infobox? In this case, Progressive Slovakia is a liberal party mostly adhering to social liberalism. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Are geonotices such as this one (requested by EllenCT, added by Deryck Chan, full request here) appropriate? It requests users to "Please send email asking the US government to require open access to federally supported research." My opinion is that no, it is not okay to use Wikipedia for political activism, regardless of how noble the cause. I've asked for removal, but I doubt the geonotice request page gets much traffic, so in the mean time, I think this is probably worth bringing up here to get some wider input. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries
| I see there has been some back-and-forth with the infobox. This is an RfC exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. There is currently a similar RfC for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.
The question is: The options are: |
| Should the lede and infobox say that this institution is "public" or "state-related?" ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
| RfC question: Should United States presidential election results tables be displayed in standard chronological order or reverse chronological order? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Democratic Progressive Party
| In articles about Taiwanese political parties, should left–right position be replaced with cross-Strait position? Ythlev (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the subject of this article be capitalized (Antifa) or not (antifa)? feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As seen above on this page, MOS:JOBTITLES has been disputed numerous times due to strong disagreements in whether the names of political offices should be capitalised in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier. A retrospective analysis of 19 of these discussions dating back to 2011 (above) showed that the overall view is against the guideline as it reads now by approximately 2:1, but no discussion has ever been able to come to a reasonable solution. Should the Manual of Style section be removed entirely as a guideline that does not have "general" support? (A substitute can be added later if it does have general support.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Which description is more suitable here?
A) She is a climate change denialist. B) She is a climate change skeptic. C) She is a climate change denier. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
| This is an Rfc exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages, and this does not affect that result. The question is: The options are: |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| Should the lead include mention of the fact that the Republican Party shifted its racial and geographical composition to the South and White Americans after the successes of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and that the party appealed to racial conservatism after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The text in question would summarize the "Composition" section of the body[6], and would reflect the contents of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on the matter. RfC expired and extended by Sdkb (talk) at 23:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies
| This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
| Should we mention that Ocasio-Cortez described the report from the Politico magazine as anti-semitic?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Legality of bestiality by country or territory
| The purpose of this RFC is to determine what the article should state is the legal status of bestiality in Germany.
Shall the table show, for Germany: A. |
 Germany
|
 Illegal
Or B. |
Germany
|
 Legal, unless forced, in which case Illegal
? Answer A or B in the Survey. Conduct back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
| This is a two part RfC.
A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com? B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest? - MrX 🖋 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? KyleJoantalk 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom
There is a disagreement about the link label to provide for the incumbent parliament, given in the "Incumbents" section near the top of the page. Should it be labelled as:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses
| Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - MrX 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Question: What should the general rule/principle/guideline be for categorizing current localities by historical administrative subdivision in Central and Eastern Europe? There are quite a few articles of cities and towns that have been categorized not only in which administrative subdivision they currently are in, but also by the former subdivisions.
Typical example: Eišiškės, a small town in Lithuania, is in these categories: Category:Cities in Lithuania, Category:Cities in Vilnius County, Category:Šalčininkai District Municipality, Category:Vilnius Voivodeship, Category:Lidsky Uyezd, Category:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939). The first 3 categories reflect the current administrative subdivision. Vilnius Voivodeship was a subdivision in 1413–1795. Lidsky Uyezd was a 2nd-level subdivision sometime between 1795–1915. Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939) was an inter-war subdivision. General options:
22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
| Should this sentence "According to The Daily Beast,a few months after the executions, relatives were handed plastic bags with their children's belongings" be included in the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Should this article contain the "In Logic" section seen in this diff? The disputed text is Sanctity of life fails on a following question: "Would you kill Hitler in 1939?". Both possible answers (yes/no) don't respect sanctity of life.gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
| In essence its three questions.
Are the following sources reliable for use as sources about the KoC?Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan
| I have had a long discussion with Diannaa here.
Please read the matter there and comment if we can use these sentences in this article (the first sentence is her suggestion):- The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that many girls who had been presumed to have eloped had actually been kidnapped, and were later sold or forced to marry Muslim men. When the young, abducted, Hindu girl who has been forced to convert to Islam appears in court, the fanatics create a great brouhaha and follow her into the building due to which she gets intimidated and is unable to speak[1]
|
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
| I've a proposal to modify the lead of the "Millennials" article from saying,
"Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted defining range for the generation." to "Researchers and popular media typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted defining range for the generation." My justification here, as I've mentioned before, is that a whopping 27 sources in this article ended Millennials in the mid 90s. Only 4 sources in the body end the generation in the early 2000s (2000-2003), one of the them (the Census Bureau) even saying they don't officially define Millennials, another (CNN) saying "sometimes 1980–2000" (emphasis on "sometimes"), and the other two (Elwood Carlson and U.S. PIRG) being outdated sources from when this generation's identity was still heavily in flux.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should this article contain the "In Logic" section seen in this diff? The disputed text is Sanctity of life fails on a following question: "Would you kill Hitler in 1939?". Both possible answers (yes/no) don't respect sanctity of life.gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
| The question is whether the lead of the article should only mention definitions of Chinatown from local government bodies, or whether it should mention other definitions of Chinatown quoted by secondary sources such as newspapers.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the "place of origin" (country) in the infobox be Bangladesh? Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the Battered woman syndrome and Battered person syndrome articles be merged so that the medical and legal aspects defined under the terms "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are covered in one article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the subject of this article be capitalized (Antifa) or not (antifa)? feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies
| This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing
| Should we add the following section to the WikiProject Boxing Manual of Style?
Lineal champions Lineal championships are a point of view and should follow the neutral point of view policy:
|
Talk:Legality of bestiality by country or territory
| The purpose of this RFC is to determine what the article should state is the legal status of bestiality in Germany.
Shall the table show, for Germany: A. |
Germany
|
Illegal
Or B. |
Germany
|
Legal, unless forced, in which case Illegal
? Answer A or B in the Survey. Conduct back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.
However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? KyleJoantalk 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom
There is a disagreement about the link label to provide for the incumbent parliament, given in the "Incumbents" section near the top of the page. Should it be labelled as:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players
| There has been a discussion on the WikiProject talk page regarding the layout of the "Honours" section in association football player pages. Input from other users would be appreciated, as consensus has yet to be reached. Thanks, Nehme1499 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Should Peppermint's birth name be included in the "Personal life" section of the article, or omitted from the article completely? (To clarify, it seems to be agreed that the name should not be included in the lead, and that is not the topic of this RfC). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming[edit]
Talk:Kevin Richardson (zookeeper)
| While this particular edit wasn't terribly constructive on its own, it does bring up a good point that I hadn't considered before I reverted it: is 'zookeeper' an accurate disambiguator for this person? He owns and operates a wildlife sanctuary, which is not a zoo, so I'm inclined to believe it isn't. If others agree this is not a good word choice, what word/words are better suited for this? Perhaps Kevin Richardson (sanctuary owner) or Kevin Richardson (conservationist), but I'm not completely sold on either one. (Between the two I'd lean towards 'sanctuary owner'.) I've made this an RFC as I suspect this will not be seen otherwise. Thank you! –Erakura(talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)
| Per the close of Talk:Ninja (video game player)#Requested move 12 January 2020, the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#People says that the disambiguators "(gamer)" or "(video game player)" can be used in titles to describe a person who plays video games professionally is problematic seems evident. So ... which disambiguator should be stated in the aforementioned guideline? ...Since apparently, only one can prevail. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As seen above on this page, MOS:JOBTITLES has been disputed numerous times due to strong disagreements in whether the names of political offices should be capitalised in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier. A retrospective analysis of 19 of these discussions dating back to 2011 (above) showed that the overall view is against the guideline as it reads now by approximately 2:1, but no discussion has ever been able to come to a reasonable solution. Should the Manual of Style section be removed entirely as a guideline that does not have "general" support? (A substitute can be added later if it does have general support.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes
| What template should be used to denote that episode synopses for Steven Universe Future can be found on the main article?
MiasmaEternalTALK 07:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies
| This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen whether or not "Vita" can be used as an entry on this Disambiguation page when referring specifically to a book by that title, written by the 1st-century historian Josephus. One of the conditions for adding a name to WP:DAB is: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." For the relative arguments (pros and cons) of adding the name "Vita (Josephus)" to this page, see the discussion here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
| Hey everyone, I would like to propose that we swap the lede image for either of these two that are already in the article body. I understand there has been dispute regarding the current photo in the past, but there were no free/fair use replacements back then.
However, both of these other pictures are in public domain, and Photo 2 is in Commons. Honestly they just seem to better illustrate the article. Most people don't associate the Kubrick persona with his younger self. Those two other pictures are of Kubrick in his prime, so they might be good candidates. Opinions? Intothenight1987 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date."
Is this guideline clear enough to be useful to a user trying to determine whether somebody's cause of death should be included in the lead of their bio? What I see as a lack of clarity - especially with wording like often none is included - can lead to long animated discussions such as this recent one. Those discussions wouldn't be such a waste of time and effort if briefer, or if altogether unnecessary, given we had a clearer guideline. Being rather a strong anti-sensationalist myself, hoping always that Wikipedia articles about people will not develop into tabloid-type material, perhaps I have misunderstood the guideline along those lines. If normal (statisticlly) suicides, car crashes, drug overdoses, for example are to be considered by Wikipedia as defining factors in what's notable about those people, then I am wrong in removing them from leads, whereas with a clearly notable death such as that of Christine Chubbuck I would not do that. If a celebrity's cause of death is widely reported in media, and that alone makes the cause of death in itself a reason for notability, then I am also wrong in feeling it should be removed from the lead as non-notable. I am inviting other editors to chime in here, and to help write a clearer guideline in this detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer
| In this article following is written:
BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. What we should do with it?
12:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should we add the following section directly after the "when to revert" section?
|
.jpg)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Are geonotices such as this one (requested by EllenCT, added by Deryck Chan, full request here) appropriate? It requests users to "Please send email asking the US government to require open access to federally supported research." My opinion is that no, it is not okay to use Wikipedia for political activism, regardless of how noble the cause. I've asked for removal, but I doubt the geonotice request page gets much traffic, so in the mean time, I think this is probably worth bringing up here to get some wider input. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As seen above on this page, MOS:JOBTITLES has been disputed numerous times due to strong disagreements in whether the names of political offices should be capitalised in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier. A retrospective analysis of 19 of these discussions dating back to 2011 (above) showed that the overall view is against the guideline as it reads now by approximately 2:1, but no discussion has ever been able to come to a reasonable solution. Should the Manual of Style section be removed entirely as a guideline that does not have "general" support? (A substitute can be added later if it does have general support.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
I look forward to reading your thoughts. Bait30 Talk? 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism
Hello, there is currently debate about the proper use of self-published sources.
RFC question: So which view is correct? Should the WP:SPS policy be interpreted so strictly that we practically never use SPS? If #2 is true, then what are the actual acceptable criteria? What is the action plan for implementing the reinterpretation across vast swaths of topic areas that apparently have had it wrong all this time? Elizium23 (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen whether or not "Vita" can be used as an entry on this Disambiguation page when referring specifically to a book by that title, written by the 1st-century historian Josephus. One of the conditions for adding a name to WP:DAB is: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." For the relative arguments (pros and cons) of adding the name "Vita (Josephus)" to this page, see the discussion here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
| "Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date."
Is this guideline clear enough to be useful to a user trying to determine whether somebody's cause of death should be included in the lead of their bio? What I see as a lack of clarity - especially with wording like often none is included - can lead to long animated discussions such as this recent one. Those discussions wouldn't be such a waste of time and effort if briefer, or if altogether unnecessary, given we had a clearer guideline. Being rather a strong anti-sensationalist myself, hoping always that Wikipedia articles about people will not develop into tabloid-type material, perhaps I have misunderstood the guideline along those lines. If normal (statisticlly) suicides, car crashes, drug overdoses, for example are to be considered by Wikipedia as defining factors in what's notable about those people, then I am wrong in removing them from leads, whereas with a clearly notable death such as that of Christine Chubbuck I would not do that. If a celebrity's cause of death is widely reported in media, and that alone makes the cause of death in itself a reason for notability, then I am also wrong in feeling it should be removed from the lead as non-notable. I am inviting other editors to chime in here, and to help write a clearer guideline in this detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Question: What should the general rule/principle/guideline be for categorizing current localities by historical administrative subdivision in Central and Eastern Europe? There are quite a few articles of cities and towns that have been categorized not only in which administrative subdivision they currently are in, but also by the former subdivisions.
Typical example: Eišiškės, a small town in Lithuania, is in these categories: Category:Cities in Lithuania, Category:Cities in Vilnius County, Category:Šalčininkai District Municipality, Category:Vilnius Voivodeship, Category:Lidsky Uyezd, Category:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939). The first 3 categories reflect the current administrative subdivision. Vilnius Voivodeship was a subdivision in 1413–1795. Lidsky Uyezd was a 2nd-level subdivision sometime between 1795–1915. Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939) was an inter-war subdivision. General options:
22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC) |
Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases (confirmed)
| Should we use the current graph or make visual changes to become a more standard epidemic curve per WP:MEDRS? As we can see in the best current data source (Figure 4). --Almaty (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations[edit]
| Should we redirect WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction? Sdkb (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee
| Should we redirect Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia to WP:Getting started? Sdkb (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
FAC instructions currently include these sentences, numbered below for reference:
This RfC proposes three things:
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should generally reliable sources on the perennial sources list be added to CAPTCHA whitelist, so that new and anonymous users can cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA? — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes
| What template should be used to denote that episode synopses for Steven Universe Future can be found on the main article?
MiasmaEternalTALK 07:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
I look forward to reading your thoughts. Bait30 Talk? 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies
| This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases chart
| Should the graph be changed to include global cases instead of Mainland China? Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen whether or not "Vita" can be used as an entry on this Disambiguation page when referring specifically to a book by that title, written by the 1st-century historian Josephus. One of the conditions for adding a name to WP:DAB is: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." For the relative arguments (pros and cons) of adding the name "Vita (Josephus)" to this page, see the discussion here. Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer
| In this article following is written:
BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. What we should do with it?
12:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should generally reliable sources on the perennial sources list be added to CAPTCHA whitelist, so that new and anonymous users can cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA? — Newslinger talk 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
FAC instructions currently include these sentences, numbered below for reference:
This RfC proposes three things:
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 2 March 2020 (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.
