Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
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) |
