|
Talk:Human rights in Iraqi Kurdistan
| Is the inclusion of the 'mixed flag' in the article consistent with Wikipedia policies on WP:RS and WP:OR?
This flag should be deleted because it is an unofficial hybrid that violates several core policies. First, it fails WP:RS; there isn't a single reliable source verifying that this specific flag is used or recognized by any official body. Instead of sources, it is simply WP:OR, a fictional design that doesn't belong in a factual article. Furthermore, we must follow WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is a neutral observer, not a place for custom-made symbols. Using an unofficial blend used by only a few people in social media or in a place is biased and misleading (Especially for Wikipedia, for Wikimedia Commons, this might not be the case). Finally, this doesn't comply with MOS:FLAGS and MOS:DECOR. About the infobox, this is an 'image' parameter and not a flag slot, it should show a standard symbol or a verified map of the region which I suggest this map. And for the claims of 'COI' by @Épine: these are distractions from the core issue of factual accuracy. I'm not homophobic as you told me here, although this is a private thing of my life, I have many friends in NY and Nashville who are part of the LGBTQ community, and I respect them a lot. I suggest we stick to the official Kurdistan flag or a map of the region to maintain the article's professional quality. Zemen (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
| There hasn't been any clear guidance on whether navboxes with an arbitrary number of ranked entries should be allowed. Templates such as this have been deleted in the past but others remain.
Should the following be added to the guideline:
Sections in navboxes should be finite and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries. That is: navbox entries should not use an arbitrary number as its threshold or inclusion criterion. In other words: an arbitrary cutoff should not be used when deciding how many entries to include in the navbox itself or navbox section.
09:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of engineering societies
| There has been some debate over how the UKs Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs) are included in this list. See the collapsed section for history.
The Engineering Council is the statutory regulatory body for the UK engineering profession and publishes the authoritative list of licensed PEIs and affiliate bodies. This makes it unique compared to other list pages as for the UK there is a definitive source of recognised organisations. Not all of them currently have a Wikipedia page (and may or may not meet notability criteria).
The questions for community input are:
- Should the Engineering Council’s published lists be used as the primary source for identifying UK engineering institutions for this article?
- Should verifiable institutions be included in this list even if they do not yet have a Wikipedia article?
- Alternatively, should this list only include organisations that already have their own Wikipedia articles and the premise of the page adjusted to only include notable engineering organisations instead?
We need to ensure both list accuracy and compliance with guidelines such as WP:NLIST. For clarity, this RFC is not about whether every listed body is automatically entitled to a standalone Wikipedia article. It is about whether this list should accurately reflect verifiable engineering institutions, including where some entries are currently unlinked.
Tkerby (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Reactions to the September 11 attacks
| The section on Palestinian reactions has a significant portion of the sourcing from Fox News. Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, "there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News [for pre-November 2020 politics] is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use."
I have marked the Fox sources in that section with the "unreliable source?" template. But should we remove the sourced material entirely as unreliable or keep it in with attribution? Evaporation123 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer
| WP:DISCLAIMER now redirects to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. There are currently six disclaimer pages ("Before"). Should they be replaced with one page, as proposed in the "After" section, and any redirects to the category or these pages go to the "After" version?
Before:
After:
I asked editors at the idea lab to comment about the change, and posted an additional invitation to the talk page of the General disclaimer, but I didn't get much feedback.
ETA: Restarted because there was little comment on the proposal. 21:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
| R3 is quite specific, designed for recent redirects that are not an obvious typo. In addition, interpretation of R3 doesn't seem to be quite crystal clear; I see only redirects with {{R from typo}} deleted under this criterion, and sometimes random other redirects are tagged for deletion as an "implausible typo" even when they are not trying to typo-correct. I suggest Redirects for discussion be used for questionable redirects instead.
Should R3 be retired, as RFD can be reasonably be used instead? TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
|
-6.jpg)
