Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Contents
- 1 Biographies
- 2 Economy, trade, and companies
- 3 History and geography
- 4 Language and linguistics
- 5 Maths, science, and technology
- 6 Art, architecture, literature, and media
- 7 Politics, government, and law
- 8 Religion and philosophy
- 9 Society, sports, and culture
- 10 Wikipedia style and naming
- 11 Wikipedia policies and guidelines
- 12 WikiProjects and collaborations
- 13 Wikipedia technical issues and templates
- 14 Wikipedia proposals
- 15 Unsorted
- 16 User names
Biographies
There are seven questions to consider here, each has its own subsection below:
Please refer to the above sections for positions taken by editors participating on this page. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| WP:BLPLEAD states "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." Referring to how Michael Jackson was described by the reliable sources (as quoted above), what should the lead sentence (or lead paragraph) state? Note also that WP:LEADSENTENCE states: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." LK (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| We have two images of Mr. Quaid on Commons, as shown in the talk page section directly above. Which should we use in the article on Mr. Quaid? KDS4444 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Can someone explain to me the problem with linking Album#Studio in this article? Using this page's history as a reference. Is it okay to link it? Horizonlove (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox economist
| Should this template have the parameter "influenced" (meaning those people who the economist has influenced as an economist)? And if it does, what criteria should be used to determine what names may be added to that parameter? LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Multiple WP:RS call Donald Trump a Liar.
The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false 1. Should the article assume intent and call statements lies, where justified and sourced by WP:RS? 2. Should the article follow WP:RSes, assume that Trump has an intent to deceive, and refer to him as a liar? For Reference: per https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Liar: a person who tells lies has a reputation as a liar Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive |
| This page needs to be updated with the new information. In 2011, the Mary Jane Girls began touring again with original member Candice Grant; along with new members Val Young and Farah Melanson. This lineup also received a honorary HAL Award. However when I try to update this page with that information, User:Binksternet keeps reverting it off the page. There are several websites ([1], [2], as well as their official facebook [3]) all acknowledge the new Mary Jane Girls lineup. Another group consisting of Kimberly 'Maxi' Wuletich and Cheri Wells are touring as "MJG feat. Original Mary Jane Girls Maxi & Cheri".[4], [5], [6] I have also added this information to the page, but to no avail because Binksternet has also reverted that. Horizonlove (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Context: There has been an infobox on this page from 2008 (with the page being created in 2003). Two editors above have suggested removal, with one going ahead and removing it.
Page with infobox Page without infobox Question: Should the infobox be removed from Harry Lauder? Also, what about a collapsible infobox? jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Should the style of music be listed in the lead for singers primarily known for a single genre? And should the wording of the style guideline be changed to include what is agreed upon?
Please note the discussion that started above. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Is the statement in the introduction of this article: 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest of all time' appropriate for C. Ronaldo?
Like I pointed out: you can find a 'source' for pretty much every claim, but making a statement like this in the introduction of an article gives it the impression as if it's the majority view and an obvious fact. I gave the - rather cynical - example of the painter Bob Ross. What if you can find someone who thinks Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time, is that enough to make a statement like: some consider him to be the greatest painter of all time? This seems absurd to me, but it is the logical consequence if it's possible to say 'C. Ronaldo is the greatest of all time' when only one or two writers are claiming this. So when is it possible to make statements like 'regarded as the greatest of all time' or 'regarded by some to be the greatest'? When are the sources sufficient? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
| There has been a dispute about edits made by myself from the subject of the article.
What do you think about the recent edits (resignation from liberal democrats and drink driving), Should they stay? Thanks. Moist towelett (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
| I see there has been some scuffling over his inclusion in this article. I would argue he is worth inclusion, since he was part of a successful musical act and met WP:RY at the time of his death, but since there have been like 3 removals and reinsertions of him I'm starting a thread here to gain consensus. Thanks Nohomersryan (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) |
| Considering the three photos shown here, which is the better for the infobox? Choice #1 is the current infobox photo, choice #2 and #3 are being proposed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
| Considering the two photos shown here, which is the better for the infobox? Choice #1 is the current infobox photo, choice #2 is being proposed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
| According to his New York Times obituary, he died in 1983 at the age of 45. It doesn't list a date of birth.
According to his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame biography, he was born in 1936, and died in 1983 at the age of 47. What should the article say? PS - be sure to read the threaded discussion below. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
| RfC should this article contain a "Critique" section? Keith Johnston (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the Calendar article say there are three principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic) or six principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars)?
Discussion on principal calendars The idea of three principal calendars is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary but the page just displays three principal calendars, without saying these are the three principal calendars. The idea of six principal calendars is supported by the U.S. Naval Observatory which states "There are six principal calendars in current use. These are the Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars." [Hyperlink in original.] It has been common to look to astronomy for information about calendars, and in particular, agencies responsible for the publication of nautical almanacs, because these have long been used by sea captains to inform themselves about what they will encounter in worldwide travel. I suggest the U.S. Naval Observatory, and the publication they cite, the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (3rd ed.) are more authoritative on this matter than a dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
| Should the column of terminal information be reinstated? A/ Yes, due to recurring visitors who are looking at this information, not for travel purposes. Those visitors are complaining about the removal. |
Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects
| Should blockchain Initial coin offering products be included on this "crowdfunding" list? Flibber2388 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Is Monogram Pictures verifiably a subsidiary of Allied Artists International? Henry chianski (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox economist
| Should this template have the parameter "influenced" (meaning those people who the economist has influenced as an economist)? And if it does, what criteria should be used to determine what names may be added to that parameter? LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
History and geography
Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
| I notice User:Onel5969 reverted this edit since I was the one who re-created that page since Taiwan had many historical emblems over the years. With the ongoing redirect on the PRC emblem, should this article be restored/reverted or remain as a redirect? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be in the lead?
Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC) |
Should the birth order of Adolf and his siblings be changed to show Adolf as third of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl?
Sources showing Adolf as fourth-born include:
Kershaw lists the six siblings as follows:
|
| Should this article start by describing whataboutism as a Soviet-era propaganda technique or as a recent name for a classic rhetorical device? — JFG talk 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
| RfC question: Should the article state that Stalin was a "dictator", without qualification, in the opening paragraph of the lead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the IHDI be included in the infobox along with the HDI? See my rationale above. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the 2017 Westminster attack and June 2017 London Bridge attack articles be added to this article?. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
The following information has been consistently removed from the article on the grounds the section it has been entered into is inappropriate.
Could editors please offer solutions. A consensus exists for inclusion: the problem is simply one of the appropriate heading or section.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)
| I launch a Request for comment about the Algiers regency's flag in 1541. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the Israeli flag be included in the Main belligerent section? Huldra (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which map or maps should be used in the infobox? Recent proposals are a map showing administered areas only, and a map showing both administered and claimed areas. Kanguole 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors? 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the flag used in Mount Athos be at the infobox, given the sources?
References
|
| I was browsing wildfire articles and I noticed that many of them had no lasting impact and only had coverage from when the wildfire was happening. I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire which has a list of things under "Ever (typo isn't mine) fire is judged on a case by case basis to meet notability guidelines. Below is a list of criteria to consider. If a fire does not meet any of the below criteria is highly unlikely to be notable." My problems with this is that WikiProjects can't override guidelines and policies, the WikiProject only has 13 members, and I hate typos on an important page (nitpicking on this one, but seriously). Many of these articles have originated from that Wikiproject. Is there something that I'm missing and articles like Monticello Fire truly pass WP:NOTNEWS? SL93 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Editor Dragonmaw removed most of content on this page about 10 times in its near entirety, first using unsigned IP address, then later while signed in under user name Dragonmaw (admitted to using unsigned address previously). I and others have taken his/her criticism of the page and made edits to try and improve (and reduce) it, but no reference appears to be strong enough for him/her. Other editors had appeared at different times to undo Dragonmaw's edits, but have since moved on. We need other opinions as this is getting out of hand. Liefoflife (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War
| Should we have a separate Israel section in this article? Huldra (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the sentence "it is located on the spot of the Tanachic village "Nephtoah"" be in the lead, or should it only be in the "Antiquity"-section? Lifta has traditionally been thought of as being on the place of Nephtoah", but newer archeological evidence questions this, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:List of elevation extremes by country
How should the highest point of Israel be listed?
Note that Mount Hermon is located in the Golan Heights region that nobody except Israel considers the territory of Israel. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Relisted RfC about whether to delete the section. "Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley". Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox former country
| Should the phrasing in the documentation be changed? TompaDompa (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
In this article's "aftermath" section, should there be:
Please comment below. Do not add or remove the gallery until this discussion concludes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC) |
Should we use packed or standard image gallery for this article?
|
| Should Persia be used instead of Iran in reference to pre-1935 history? Genealogizer (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
| Can we settle this? The article currently uses both and inconsistently. There is also the problem of History of the Gambia, Economy of the Gambia and so on. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
| Should this article start by describing whataboutism as a Soviet-era propaganda technique or as a recent name for a classic rhetorical device? — JFG talk 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
| It was proposed in 2016, without objection, to split what is presently titled Comma#Uses in English to a separate article, per our guidelines WP:Summary style and WP:SPINOFF. WP:Article size#Splitting an article (WP:SPINOUT) is also potentially relevant for future article growth, and WP:Stand-alone lists may be as well, since the bulk of this article is a list of (and sublists of) usage and functions of the comma.
Should this split proceed? I would just do it, but lack of objection is not quite the same thing as a show of support, especially on a page with few watchlisters. I'm including a Nominator's rationale: The section is already long, and overwhelms the rest of the content on the page. Yet it is barely developed compared to what could be written with additional sourcing. It needs a lot more of that, since it seems to principally be drawing on only a handful of sources (mostly The Chicago Manual of Style and The Guardian Style Guide), which are not actually representative of the breadth of usage. For example, I've written and sourced multiple paragraphs about a single particular usage dispute, the punctuation of the abbreviations of id est and exempli gratia in English. That material is presently living at List of Latin phrases (E)#exempli gratia and List of Latin phrases (I)#id est, as long footnotes that are essentially identical, because that's where those phrases redirect to. It would make more sense for us to have a comprehensive and sectional article on comma usage in English, with that material in a subsection on parenthetical and introductory phrases. (If articles were created at Exempli gratia and Id est they would both consist largely of that same text.) This is just one example of the kind of material that can be added, and how much it would expand what is presently an already over-long section here, but which remains poorly developed encyclopedic content when the "Uses in English" material is viewed on its own. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Currently our IPA transcription system for English acknowledges the diaphonemes /ᵻ/ and /ᵿ/, which denote free variation of "either /ɪ/ or /ə/" and "either /ʊ/ or /ə/", respectively. Should we keep these as accepted symbols for transcription of English pronunciation? Nardog (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
| For the discussion section of the "Algebraic proofs" given in the article, which of the following pieces of text more accurately reflects the opinions expressed by the cited sources, and represents established scholarship with appropriately due weight: Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the Calendar article say there are three principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic) or six principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars)?
Discussion on principal calendars The idea of three principal calendars is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary but the page just displays three principal calendars, without saying these are the three principal calendars. The idea of six principal calendars is supported by the U.S. Naval Observatory which states "There are six principal calendars in current use. These are the Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars." [Hyperlink in original.] It has been common to look to astronomy for information about calendars, and in particular, agencies responsible for the publication of nautical almanacs, because these have long been used by sea captains to inform themselves about what they will encounter in worldwide travel. I suggest the U.S. Naval Observatory, and the publication they cite, the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (3rd ed.) are more authoritative on this matter than a dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors? 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Category talk:Deaths by type of illness
| Considering the other categories of particular diseases or groups by system, I'm astonished not to find one or more categories relating to cardiac conditions and heart disease. A question arose for the page Richard Pryor, appearing in Category:Deaths from multiple sclerosis, while Richard Pryor#Death cites a forensic pathology report giving the cause as "fatal heart attack ... caused by coronary artery disease." Is there some history of previous Categories deleted? How to proceed with this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards
| *(If there's a better layout format for this RfC without changing the context, then please help)
Location of band members timeline. When a band has a "List of X band members" subage (see selected list of bands at this ongoing discussion for examples) should the timeline go on the subage, or the bands main article or both. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:List of unreleased songs by Radiohead
| A few of the songs on this page are simply titles mentioned in interviews, with no known performances or recording history. Is this page useful? Should we keep it? Popcornduff (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
| WP:BLPLEAD states "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." Referring to how Michael Jackson was described by the reliable sources (as quoted above), what should the lead sentence (or lead paragraph) state? Note also that WP:LEADSENTENCE states: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." LK (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the lead sentence describe the album as Kanye's "seventh solo album and eighth studio album"? Cjhard (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Can someone explain to me the problem with linking Album#Studio in this article? Using this page's history as a reference. Is it okay to link it? Horizonlove (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
| What should be the title of this article? Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Nightlife (Thin Lizzy album)
| Should this article mention the 1960 Willie Nelson song "Night Life", and if so, how should its relationship to the Thin Lizzy song "Night Life" be described?
Here are the facts:
|
| Multiple WP:RS call Donald Trump a Liar.
The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false 1. Should the article assume intent and call statements lies, where justified and sourced by WP:RS? 2. Should the article follow WP:RSes, assume that Trump has an intent to deceive, and refer to him as a liar? For Reference: per https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Liar: a person who tells lies has a reputation as a liar Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive |
| This page needs to be updated with the new information. In 2011, the Mary Jane Girls began touring again with original member Candice Grant; along with new members Val Young and Farah Melanson. This lineup also received a honorary HAL Award. However when I try to update this page with that information, User:Binksternet keeps reverting it off the page. There are several websites ([9], [10], as well as their official facebook [11]) all acknowledge the new Mary Jane Girls lineup. Another group consisting of Kimberly 'Maxi' Wuletich and Cheri Wells are touring as "MJG feat. Original Mary Jane Girls Maxi & Cheri".[12], [13], [14] I have also added this information to the page, but to no avail because Binksternet has also reverted that. Horizonlove (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy
| Should the lead sentence read: "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is the 2010 fifth studio album by American hip hop rapper and producer Kanye West."? Cjhard (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film
According to WP:FILMLEAD, which is found within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film:
I propose that two nationalities should be allowed in the opening sentence. Just for reference as to how this has been in practice in numerous film articles, please see Alien ("British-American"; also listed as a GA-class article), Godzilla, King of the Monsters! ("Japanese-American"), Once Upon a Time in the West ("Italian-American"), The Shining ("British-American"), An American Werewolf in London ("British-American"), Inglourious Basterds ("American-German"), and Elle ("French-German"). Now, of course, the fact that this has been done on such articles is not a clear reason to allow it, and I have seen several articles on internationally produced films that forego listing the countries in the lede. The above examples are to demonstrate the appearance of listing two countries in the opening sentence. Adding two countries to an opening sentence does not make significant clutter. Now, when one goes over that limit, I find that it can indeed look cluttered. Take for example Hector and the Search for Happiness, which is written as a "German-British-Canadian" film, or Night of the Sharks, which is referred to as "Italian-Spanish-Mexican". This makes for unnecessary clutter, but I believe that having a maximum of two countries, rather than one or three+, gets the job done quite nicely. This proposal first came to my mind when editing the article Baby Driver. The film is a British-American co-production, and there have been back-and-forth edits which either list it as British-American in the opening sentence, or starting the first sentence of the second lede paragraph with "An American-British co-production,...", which falls in line with the current Manual of Style for Film articles. This is how the article looks at the time I'm writing this proposal, wherein I edited the page to have "British-American" in the opening sentence, which I assumed was acceptable, as articles like Alien had done so for months, and possibly years of being in the mainspace. So, long story short, I don't think there's anything wrong with listing two countries in a film article's opening sentence, and propose that a maximum of two nationalities in such opening sentences be officially allowed. If anyone has reasons against allowing such a thing, I'm open to hearing such concerns, but the only thing I can think of is the clutter that amounts from having three or more nationalities in the opening sentence, and I find that a maximum of two nationalities caps it off quite nicely without looking messy. It's straightforward and removes the obligation of having to include nationalities later on in a film's article's lede. –Matthew - (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should this template be restored? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
| I see there has been some scuffling over his inclusion in this article. I would argue he is worth inclusion, since he was part of a successful musical act and met WP:RY at the time of his death, but since there have been like 3 removals and reinsertions of him I'm starting a thread here to gain consensus. Thanks Nohomersryan (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC) |
Currently the statement about misleading sources has been moved from the first paragraph of the lede to a position lower down, apparently without any consensus to do so. This was where it was placed after confirmation that the passage should be included. With a few comments to the effect that it should not be there I seek now to achieve firm consensus as to where it should go. Carl Fredrik talk 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC) |
Should we use packed or standard image gallery for this article?
|
| Considering the three photos shown here, which is the better for the infobox? Choice #1 is the current infobox photo, choice #2 and #3 are being proposed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
| Considering the two photos shown here, which is the better for the infobox? Choice #1 is the current infobox photo, choice #2 is being proposed. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
| I notice User:Onel5969 reverted this edit since I was the one who re-created that page since Taiwan had many historical emblems over the years. With the ongoing redirect on the PRC emblem, should this article be restored/reverted or remain as a redirect? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
| The scope of this list is "attempts to kill sitting and former presidents and presidents-elect". Currently, the See Also section contains an entry about an attempt on Donald Trump who was not a President or President-elect at the time. Does it belong here? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should this article start by describing whataboutism as a Soviet-era propaganda technique or as a recent name for a classic rhetorical device? — JFG talk 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC) |
| RfC should this article contain a "Critique" section? Keith Johnston (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
| Hi. The name of this article should be Executive Order 13799 to match the rest of the Executive Order articles in Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the Calendar article say there are three principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic) or six principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars)?
Discussion on principal calendars The idea of three principal calendars is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary but the page just displays three principal calendars, without saying these are the three principal calendars. The idea of six principal calendars is supported by the U.S. Naval Observatory which states "There are six principal calendars in current use. These are the Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars." [Hyperlink in original.] It has been common to look to astronomy for information about calendars, and in particular, agencies responsible for the publication of nautical almanacs, because these have long been used by sea captains to inform themselves about what they will encounter in worldwide travel. I suggest the U.S. Naval Observatory, and the publication they cite, the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (3rd ed.) are more authoritative on this matter than a dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which of these three versions should be the basis of the lede section on the alt-right article? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| RfC question: Should the article state that Stalin was a "dictator", without qualification, in the opening paragraph of the lead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
| Per WP:COATRACK, the big section here about MIT-SAFE and its history should be split to another article, MIT-SAFE, leaving behind just the small part that's relevant to the actual topic of this article. While it will make the current article more of a stub, that's okay. A lot of material can be written about the topic, and probably would be (with material actually pertinent) if this were made a stub with a proper focus.
The MIT-SAFE material needs more independent sources, but the organization is probably notable, even if 2017 Google hits aren't very helpful; it will probably require sourcing from era material like Wired magazine back issues, etc. One of its founders had an article here for a while, but it was deleted as a bio at AfD, because the individual was determined – just barely – personally non-notable (and also strenuously objected to the personalized attention that he thought should be focused on the organization). I have a conflict of interest (former EFF employee), so am not just editing the page to do the split. Doing this as an RfC, because this page probably has few active watch-listers; a regular discussion thread would likely garner little response. |
Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
| There is an ongoing dispute at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots over whether it is appropriate to say that as of June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. There was an earlier RfC at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump that also explicitly included List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, but it is argued that the earlier RfC doesn't apply. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC) |
| I need help with evaluating which of the following information that should be incorporated into the article:
It was decided to open Sweden for mass-immigration from the 3rd world in 1975: In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden: To compare with 5920 the year 2015: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015: There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015: http://www.bt.se/sverige-varlden/480-000-sexbrott-mot-kvinnor-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar/ http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf At least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by either immigrants or those with at least one immigrant parent: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/vanligt-med-utlandsk-bakgrund-bland-unga-man-som-skjuter/ 94.5% of all career criminals in Stockholm, Sweden, are either immigrants or have at least one immigrant parent: According to the Swedish police department, there are 53 areas in the country where the police has lost control of crime and religious extremism/Islamism. 23 of them are extremely criminal. There are at least 186 social alienation areas in sum total. In 1990 there were only 3 of them: http://www.westmonster.com/8-new-areas-added-to-swedish-police-no-go-zone-list/ http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hemliga-listan-23-omraden-ar-nu-sarskilt-utsatta/ According to the leader of the ambulance drivers' union, Gordon Grattidge, the police, and other rescue workers, cannot enter such areas without being subjected to severe violent assaults, such as stone-throwing lynch mobs: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071 According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war: https://www.svd.se/svenska-attacker-med-granater-sticker-ut-i-varlden There is a floating distinction between the jihadists and extremely violent criminals in Sweden: https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/kronika/flytande-graens-mellan-gaengen-och-jihadisterna-33125 The number of physical assaults against boys between the ages of 15 and 17 in Sweden have increased by 68% during the last two years: The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year, right after taking in 203000 immigrants in 2015: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/brottscentralen/tjejer-ofredas-pa-grona-lund-helt-oacceptabelt-/ The police of Sweden reports that: "Society is not equipped to deal with this great a number of criminal actors (...) Police and other social actors lack the ability to handle the problem." http://www.expressen.se/ledare/rikspolischefen-har-tappat-kontrollen/ The number of genital-mutilated women in Sweden are several times higher than 38000: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mangdubbelt-fler-konsstympade-kvinnor-an-man-trott Sweden will take in 374000 relatives to previous immigrants during the next 4 years: http://www.svd.se/i-asylkrisens-spar-374-000-anhoriga-vantas The number of immigrants that will apply for asylum to Sweden 2016-2020 in sum total: 10000 immigrants arrive in Italy every week, and mostly want to go to northern Europe: 355000 Swedish elderly live below the poverty line: http://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/355-000-lever-under-gransen-for-fattigdom/ 11% of the youths in the suburbs of Gothenburg admit to supporting Jihadism (non-Muslims were included in the survey): 80% of Muslim women in Gothenburg admit to live under the threat of honour culture: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/utbrett-hedersförtryck-mot-flickor-i-göteborg-1.3908432 There are thousands of Jihadists in Sweden: https://www.svd.se/sapo-tusentals-radikala-islamister-i-sverige/om/hotet-mot-sverige https://www.thelocal.se/20170616/thousands-of-violent-extremists-in-sweden-security-police/ The EU admits that extremely few of the immigrants to Europe have been actual refugees, and are rather there for economic reasons: Germany admits that most of the immigrants almost completely lack education and work skills: https://amp.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f 82% of immigrants to Sweden who claim to be underage are really adults: https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/det-visar-tre-manader-av-medicinska-aldersbedomningar/ Over 90% of the young 3rd world immigrants are men, not women: A report about the intense antisemitism in the Muslim communities of Sweden and Europe: http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/PP%203%20Antisemitisms%20160608.pdf A study about antisemitic violence in Europe. The Muslims and the far left are the by far greatest perpetrators: http://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/news-and-events/news/2017/antisemitic-violence-in-europe.html The Muslim Brotherhood has a very strong foothold and influence in Sweden: https://www.msb.se/Upload/Kunskapsbank/Studier/Muslimska_Brodraskapet_i_Sverige_DNR_2107-1287.pdf It is also considering to move its international headquarters to Sweden: https://ledarsidorna.se/2017/03/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-moving-to-sweden/ |
| I need help with evaluating which of the following information that should be incorporated into the article:
It was decided to open Sweden for mass-immigration from the 3rd world in 1975: In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden: To compare with 5920 the year 2015: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015: There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015: http://www.bt.se/sverige-varlden/480-000-sexbrott-mot-kvinnor-i-sverige-pa-ett-ar/ http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf At least 90% of all murders and attempted murders through gun violence in Sweden are performed by either immigrants or those with at least one immigrant parent: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/vanligt-med-utlandsk-bakgrund-bland-unga-man-som-skjuter/ 94.5% of all career criminals in Stockholm, Sweden, are either immigrants or have at least one immigrant parent: According to the Swedish police department, there are 53 areas in the country where the police has lost control of crime and religious extremism/Islamism. 23 of them are extremely criminal. There are at least 186 social alienation areas in sum total. In 1990 there were only 3 of them: http://www.westmonster.com/8-new-areas-added-to-swedish-police-no-go-zone-list/ http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hemliga-listan-23-omraden-ar-nu-sarskilt-utsatta/ According to the leader of the ambulance drivers' union, Gordon Grattidge, the police, and other rescue workers, cannot enter such areas without being subjected to severe violent assaults, such as stone-throwing lynch mobs: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071 According to the Swedish police department, the use of hand-grenades in Sweden among criminals is the highest in the world for countries not currently at war: https://www.svd.se/svenska-attacker-med-granater-sticker-ut-i-varlden There is a floating distinction between the jihadists and extremely violent criminals in Sweden: https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/kronika/flytande-graens-mellan-gaengen-och-jihadisterna-33125 The number of physical assaults against boys between the ages of 15 and 17 in Sweden have increased by 68% during the last two years: The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year, right after taking in 203000 immigrants in 2015: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/brottscentralen/tjejer-ofredas-pa-grona-lund-helt-oacceptabelt-/ The police of Sweden reports that: "Society is not equipped to deal with this great a number of criminal actors (...) Police and other social actors lack the ability to handle the problem." http://www.expressen.se/ledare/rikspolischefen-har-tappat-kontrollen/ The number of genital-mutilated women in Sweden are several times higher than 38000: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mangdubbelt-fler-konsstympade-kvinnor-an-man-trott Sweden will take in 374000 relatives to previous immigrants during the next 4 years: http://www.svd.se/i-asylkrisens-spar-374-000-anhoriga-vantas The number of immigrants that will apply for asylum to Sweden 2016-2020 in sum total: 10000 immigrants arrive in Italy every week, and mostly want to go to northern Europe: 355000 Swedish elderly live below the poverty line: http://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/355-000-lever-under-gransen-for-fattigdom/ 11% of the youths in the suburbs of Gothenburg admit to supporting Jihadism (non-Muslims were included in the survey): 80% of Muslim women in Gothenburg admit to live under the threat of honour culture: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/göteborg/utbrett-hedersförtryck-mot-flickor-i-göteborg-1.3908432 There are thousands of Jihadists in Sweden: https://www.svd.se/sapo-tusentals-radikala-islamister-i-sverige/om/hotet-mot-sverige https://www.thelocal.se/20170616/thousands-of-violent-extremists-in-sweden-security-police/ The EU admits that extremely few of the immigrants to Europe have been actual refugees, and are rather there for economic reasons: Germany admits that most of the immigrants almost completely lack education and work skills: https://amp.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f 82% of immigrants to Sweden who claim to be underage are really adults: https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/det-visar-tre-manader-av-medicinska-aldersbedomningar/ Over 90% of the young 3rd world immigrants are men, not women: A report about the intense antisemitism in the Muslim communities of Sweden and Europe: http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/PP%203%20Antisemitisms%20160608.pdf A study about antisemitic violence in Europe. The Muslims and the far left are the by far greatest perpetrators: http://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/news-and-events/news/2017/antisemitic-violence-in-europe.html The Muslim Brotherhood has a very strong foothold and influence in Sweden: https://www.msb.se/Upload/Kunskapsbank/Studier/Muslimska_Brodraskapet_i_Sverige_DNR_2107-1287.pdf It is also considering to move its international headquarters to Sweden: https://ledarsidorna.se/2017/03/is-the-muslim-brotherhood-moving-to-sweden/ |
Should the lead sentence define and identify this forum community as alt-right?
Notices posted at WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Donald Trump. 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)
| I launch a Request for comment about the Algiers regency's flag in 1541. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following bolded sentence: Foval also said "We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." Foval went on to discuss the legal consequences of voter fraud: "Let's just say, in theory, if a major investigation came up of major vote fraud that way, how would they prove it?...If there's a bus involved, that changes the dynamic... You can prove conspiracy if there's a bus, but if there are cars, it is much harder to prove."[94] Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies.[95] The accuracy of the videos has been questioned for possibly omitting context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[18][92][96][97]
Citation #95 is: Potter, Steven (May 18, 2017). "Scott Foval speaks out about Veritas video". Isthmus. Concerns have been raised about the source's reliability for this purpose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
| Should our article include a table detailing each and every state's response to the PCEI's request for voter data? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Multiple WP:RS call Donald Trump a Liar.
The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false 1. Should the article assume intent and call statements lies, where justified and sourced by WP:RS? 2. Should the article follow WP:RSes, assume that Trump has an intent to deceive, and refer to him as a liar? For Reference: per https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Liar: a person who tells lies has a reputation as a liar Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive |
Talk:List of elevation extremes by country
How should the highest point of Israel be listed?
Note that Mount Hermon is located in the Golan Heights region that nobody except Israel considers the territory of Israel. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia
| Should this article be limited to the single instance of Donald Trump disclosing information to Russia? Or should it be expanded to include other instances of information disclosure by Trump and his administration, and the title modified accordingly?
This article is primarily about a single incident on May 10, where Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador. There were two other disclosure incidents which are currently mentioned in the article but not expanded on: a disclosure by Trump on April 29 of classified Navy information, and a May 24 disclosure to the press by an anonymous Trump administration source of not-yet-released intelligence about the Manchester Arena bombing. I favor adding more information about those two incidents and changing the article title to the more inclusive title Trump administration disclosure of classified information. I thought consensus had been reached to do that and I made the move. Another editor disagreed and moved it back to the current title. Bringing it to the community for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC) |
In this article's "aftermath" section, should there be:
Please comment below. Do not add or remove the gallery until this discussion concludes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC) |
| This is a discussion to arrive at a consensus as to whether the terms "white supremacy" or "white supremacist" belong in this article, especially as to whether the definition is imposed on the Identitarian Movement or not.
Allow - either or both of the terms should be allowed in the article, with reliable sources included |
Currently the statement about misleading sources has been moved from the first paragraph of the lede to a position lower down, apparently without any consensus to do so. This was where it was placed after confirmation that the passage should be included. With a few comments to the effect that it should not be there I seek now to achieve firm consensus as to where it should go. Carl Fredrik talk 14:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack
| Should we include Tommy Robinson's statements via twitter [17] , his subsequent statements on Good Morning Britian [18][19], and the criticism of said comments?Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
| Should the following section be included in this article?
Following the 2017 Tehran twin attacks on the Iranian parliament and the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini and ISIL's claim of responsibility, some observers suspected the involvement of different actors, including MEK. The organization denied that the group was involved.[20] BulkData (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should the Calendar article say there are three principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic) or six principal calendars (Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars)?
Discussion on principal calendars The idea of three principal calendars is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary but the page just displays three principal calendars, without saying these are the three principal calendars. The idea of six principal calendars is supported by the U.S. Naval Observatory which states "There are six principal calendars in current use. These are the Gregorian, Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and Julian Calendars." [Hyperlink in original.] It has been common to look to astronomy for information about calendars, and in particular, agencies responsible for the publication of nautical almanacs, because these have long been used by sea captains to inform themselves about what they will encounter in worldwide travel. I suggest the U.S. Naval Observatory, and the publication they cite, the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (3rd ed.) are more authoritative on this matter than a dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
The following information has been consistently removed from the article on the grounds the section it has been entered into is inappropriate.
Could editors please offer solutions. A consensus exists for inclusion: the problem is simply one of the appropriate heading or section.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the caption of the picture of the inside of a mosque mention a sermon which was delivered outdoors? 151.227.21.236 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the flag used in Mount Athos be at the infobox, given the sources?
References
|
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
Talk:Blue Sky with a White Sun
| I notice User:Onel5969 reverted this edit since I was the one who re-created that page since Taiwan had many historical emblems over the years. With the ongoing redirect on the PRC emblem, should this article be restored/reverted or remain as a redirect? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
| RfC should this article contain a "Critique" section? Keith Johnston (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
| Per WP:COATRACK, the big section here about MIT-SAFE and its history should be split to another article, MIT-SAFE, leaving behind just the small part that's relevant to the actual topic of this article. While it will make the current article more of a stub, that's okay. A lot of material can be written about the topic, and probably would be (with material actually pertinent) if this were made a stub with a proper focus.
The MIT-SAFE material needs more independent sources, but the organization is probably notable, even if 2017 Google hits aren't very helpful; it will probably require sourcing from era material like Wired magazine back issues, etc. One of its founders had an article here for a while, but it was deleted as a bio at AfD, because the individual was determined – just barely – personally non-notable (and also strenuously objected to the personalized attention that he thought should be focused on the organization). I have a conflict of interest (former EFF employee), so am not just editing the page to do the split. Doing this as an RfC, because this page probably has few active watch-listers; a regular discussion thread would likely garner little response. |
Should the lead sentence define and identify this forum community as alt-right?
Notices posted at WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Donald Trump. 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) |
| There has been a huge dispute going on here about whether this is still the same club, following the bankruptcy of its old firm last year. It was re-established prior to the bankruptcy by the merging of two other clubs, with the re-established entity striving to assume the history and legacy of CSKA Sofia. Some fans say it is still the same club, others that it isn't, and some even say another club is the "real" one, but the main thing is those are all opinions by fans i.e. impossible to reach any consensus with each other. An outside opinion is not only needed, it is the only way to pass the deadlock here. The current title of the article is PFC CSKA Sofia and little of the club's subsequent history (post-bankruptcy) is included in it. Including UEFA's refusal to allow it into the Europa League. I am not sure what the policy towards such cases should be (as I have not witnessed any case like it), but any editor with experience with association football could help us here. Mind you, it is not, how to say, healthy for Bulgarian users to edit the article or even take part in the discussion, as they might become targets of off-wiki harassment (another reason why I am filing this RfC).--Laveol T 13:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Editor Dragonmaw removed most of content on this page about 10 times in its near entirety, first using unsigned IP address, then later while signed in under user name Dragonmaw (admitted to using unsigned address previously). I and others have taken his/her criticism of the page and made edits to try and improve (and reduce) it, but no reference appears to be strong enough for him/her. Other editors had appeared at different times to undo Dragonmaw's edits, but have since moved on. We need other opinions as this is getting out of hand. Liefoflife (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC) |
| What should be the title of this article? Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Multiple WP:RS call Donald Trump a Liar.
The article already states that many of his public statements during the campaign were controversial or false 1. Should the article assume intent and call statements lies, where justified and sourced by WP:RS? 2. Should the article follow WP:RSes, assume that Trump has an intent to deceive, and refer to him as a liar? For Reference: per https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Liar: a person who tells lies has a reputation as a liar Lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive |
| Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Is the statement in the introduction of this article: 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest of all time' appropriate for C. Ronaldo?
Like I pointed out: you can find a 'source' for pretty much every claim, but making a statement like this in the introduction of an article gives it the impression as if it's the majority view and an obvious fact. I gave the - rather cynical - example of the painter Bob Ross. What if you can find someone who thinks Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time, is that enough to make a statement like: some consider him to be the greatest painter of all time? This seems absurd to me, but it is the logical consequence if it's possible to say 'C. Ronaldo is the greatest of all time' when only one or two writers are claiming this. So when is it possible to make statements like 'regarded as the greatest of all time' or 'regarded by some to be the greatest'? When are the sources sufficient? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC) |
| I recently added additional top-division leagues to the sidebar under Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017, which were removed. After initiating a related discussion on the deleting editor's talk page, I'd like to open the discussion to others for input.
The section title in the sidebar is Current sporting seasons. Should all current sporting seasons for football/soccer (including top women's leagues) be included in the sidebar? My edit was done to optimize space and keep each country's listing on one line, where possible. For some countries, there is more than one men's league listed. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC) |
| In the lead section of the article, the longstanding consensus is the phrase "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest tennis player of all time." Shall that be amended with the term "male to say "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest male tennis player of all time." Some feel the term is understood and obvious, is sourced without "male", and is simply word bloat if added, while others feel it is a slight on women and the WTA to not include it, and is NPOV, especially since some articles, such as Serena Williams, use the term "female." 18:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
| It was proposed in 2016, without objection, to split what is presently titled Comma#Uses in English to a separate article, per our guidelines WP:Summary style and WP:SPINOFF. WP:Article size#Splitting an article (WP:SPINOUT) is also potentially relevant for future article growth, and WP:Stand-alone lists may be as well, since the bulk of this article is a list of (and sublists of) usage and functions of the comma.
Should this split proceed? I would just do it, but lack of objection is not quite the same thing as a show of support, especially on a page with few watchlisters. I'm including a Nominator's rationale: The section is already long, and overwhelms the rest of the content on the page. Yet it is barely developed compared to what could be written with additional sourcing. It needs a lot more of that, since it seems to principally be drawing on only a handful of sources (mostly The Chicago Manual of Style and The Guardian Style Guide), which are not actually representative of the breadth of usage. For example, I've written and sourced multiple paragraphs about a single particular usage dispute, the punctuation of the abbreviations of id est and exempli gratia in English. That material is presently living at List of Latin phrases (E)#exempli gratia and List of Latin phrases (I)#id est, as long footnotes that are essentially identical, because that's where those phrases redirect to. It would make more sense for us to have a comprehensive and sectional article on comma usage in English, with that material in a subsection on parenthetical and introductory phrases. (If articles were created at Exempli gratia and Id est they would both consist largely of that same text.) This is just one example of the kind of material that can be added, and how much it would expand what is presently an already over-long section here, but which remains poorly developed encyclopedic content when the "Uses in English" material is viewed on its own. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the Kombucha page be formatted as a food or medical article?--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Should the style of music be listed in the lead for singers primarily known for a single genre? And should the wording of the style guideline be changed to include what is agreed upon?
Please note the discussion that started above. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Can we settle this? The article currently uses both and inconsistently. There is also the problem of History of the Gambia, Economy of the Gambia and so on. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/2017 RfC
| The purpose of this RfC is to address some issues with Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In particular, this RfC focuses on the lack of substantive venues for conduct disputes. ANI and ArbCom (the only two venues available now) are notoriously confrontational and, typically, are mostly concerned with sanctioning individuals over addressing the core, underlying substance of the dispute. This RfC also contains proposals regarding MedCom, and proposals aimed at increasing the flexibility of some DR venues.
A1: Mark MedCom as historical MedCom has mediated only one case in the past year—that mediation failed, in any case. Furthermore, MedCom technically has no chairperson. The term of the last chairperson ended in August 2016, and in violation of its policy, MedCom has failed to elect a new chairperson. Thus, it is proposed that MedCom be marked as historical. Support |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
| Currently, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says of red links, "Like navigation templates, infoboxes should... Avoid red links. For more information, see WP:REDLINK and WP:REDNOT." Wikipedia:Navigation template says of red links, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Should MOS:INFOBOX tell editors to avoid adding red links at all to infoboxes? Should it tell editors to avoid red links under certain conditions or to add them under certain conditions? WP:REDLINK outlines Wikipedia's overall editing guideline in regard to red links. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| This is an extension of the failed proposal of a new criteria made some months ago at here.
Prose : G14: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing
Why this helps?
End of long post. Now for the comments. Jupitus Smart 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should move discussions closed by page movers be labeled as such? — JFG talk 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy
| What referrer information should Wikipedia send to an external website when a reader clicks on a link? (Originally initiated by Guy Macon) --Relisting. George Ho (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC) |
| In a lengthy discussion above ("#WP:CITEVAR"), there is substantial disagreement about whether WP:CITEVAR applies to the use of horizontal vs. vertical citation templates, ie. (using Template:Cite journal):
Versus:
{{cite journal
| last =
| first =
| last2 =
| first2 =
| date =
| title =
| url =
| journal =
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| doi =
| access-date =
}}
See these diffs for subject of the edit warring: [21], [22], [23]. WP:CITESTYLE states in part:
WP:CITEVAR states in part:
Since the discussion above ("WP:CITEVAR") shows there is disagreement about whether the current |
WikiProjects and collaborations
| I recently added additional top-division leagues to the sidebar under Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017, which were removed. After initiating a related discussion on the deleting editor's talk page, I'd like to open the discussion to others for input.
The section title in the sidebar is Current sporting seasons. Should all current sporting seasons for football/soccer (including top women's leagues) be included in the sidebar? My edit was done to optimize space and keep each country's listing on one line, where possible. For some countries, there is more than one men's league listed. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC) |
Category talk:Deaths by type of illness
| Considering the other categories of particular diseases or groups by system, I'm astonished not to find one or more categories relating to cardiac conditions and heart disease. A question arose for the page Richard Pryor, appearing in Category:Deaths from multiple sclerosis, while Richard Pryor#Death cites a forensic pathology report giving the cause as "fatal heart attack ... caused by coronary artery disease." Is there some history of previous Categories deleted? How to proceed with this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
| Should the IHDI be included in the infobox along with the HDI? See my rationale above. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should the bullet point lists be simplified as shown in the proposal? Atón (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/2017 RfC
| The purpose of this RfC is to address some issues with Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In particular, this RfC focuses on the lack of substantive venues for conduct disputes. ANI and ArbCom (the only two venues available now) are notoriously confrontational and, typically, are mostly concerned with sanctioning individuals over addressing the core, underlying substance of the dispute. This RfC also contains proposals regarding MedCom, and proposals aimed at increasing the flexibility of some DR venues.
A1: Mark MedCom as historical MedCom has mediated only one case in the past year—that mediation failed, in any case. Furthermore, MedCom technically has no chairperson. The term of the last chairperson ended in August 2016, and in violation of its policy, MedCom has failed to elect a new chairperson. Thus, it is proposed that MedCom be marked as historical. Support |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| This is an extension of the failed proposal of a new criteria made some months ago at here.
Prose : G14: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing
Why this helps?
End of long post. Now for the comments. Jupitus Smart 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Should move discussions closed by page movers be labeled as such? — JFG talk 23:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| So as many people are aware, InternetArchiveBot has been a major help to combating link rot in that it continuously and actively attempts to add archives to any URL that it sees as dead, or is tagged as dead. This really makes sure all of our sources continue to remain accessible and helps with verifiability. However there are those moments, when archives were not created in time and as such are unavailable when the original URL goes down. Having the bot add archives not only allows us users to make sure that it has an archive in case of possible link rot, but for those URLs missing an archive, allows us to take the opportunity to archive them elsewhere before possible link rot and add them, thus also letting IABot know that an archive exists, or vice versa.
So how would this work? Quite simple. Most sources use the CS1 and/or CS2 citation templates, which has the "deadurl" parameter. When set to "no", archive URLs are not made clickable on the rendered page, but when set to "yes" or when the parameter is omitted entirely, it will make the title link to the archive version instead. This allows users that detect dead urls to only have to flip the switch to enable the archived version. The bot will set deadurl=no to all cite templates it adds archives to that are still working, and of course it will set deadurl=yes to the dead ones as it does now. The side effect of this is, the non-cite template references that use external links will have Thoughts?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Apparently, the previous RfC was inconclusive on this point (or at least didn't have enough participants to establish a convincing consensus).[24] Instead of arguing about it, let's just see if there is consensus one way or the other and settle the matter. Should Wikibooks pages be included as part of the sister project results in Wikipedia search results? (See screenshot for an example.) Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC) |
Unsorted
User names
 |
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under 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:
- For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
DO NOT post here if:
- the user has made no recent edits, as there is no need to take any action.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator. Generally, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking.
Before adding a name here YOU MUST ensure that:
- the user in question has been notified and allowed time to discuss the concern on their talk page. You may use the {{subst:uw-username}} template for this purpose. Only post the issue here if they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.
- the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
If, after having followed all the steps noted directly above, you still believe the user has chosen an inappropriate name under 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, possibly with the {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} template. You may also invite comment from others who have expressed concern on the name by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
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.
