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)
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)
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 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)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
