User:Ned Scott

Per the above discussion, there is disagreement on what qualifies for this article, and no clear consensus has emerged. The areas of disagreement are:

1. What level of specificity do we require from WP:RS? If a site is described as "fake news" by RS, it clearly warrants inclusion, but what if it is only described as being propaganda? As a hoax? As "utter BS" or "fabricated"?
2. To what degree must a website's contents be so described to warrant inclusion? Is a single instance (e.g., an RS says "Article X on site Y is fake news") enough for inclusion? Does the RS have to explicitly describe the site as being or publishing fake news?
3. Does content created by generative AI ("AI slop") count as fake news?

EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

PBugaboo (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: capitalize "The", eg Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Option B: lowercase "the", eg Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Option C: remove "the", eg Zombie (Cranberries song)

Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Brett Ratner fled Hollywood for Israel and lost work following several documented allegations of rape, sexually misconduct and harassment by several woman, and mention in the Epstein files.

There is a debate on whether mention of this should be included in the WP:LEAD, which according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

I will just note that the following text is what is currently in dispute:

Melania is Ratner's first film since sexual assault allegations were made against him in 2017.

However, as the RfC states, please suggest how we should word this should you offer support. ~2026-10151-41 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Some issues to consider are:

• Naming conventions for former cities, towns and districts:
  • All district (quận and huyện) articles currently have the word "district" appended after the placename. This is fine and we can leave them as it is.
  • But most of the cities and towns are currently still the primary topic (e.g.: Thủ Dầu Một, Mỹ Tho, Bắc Giang, Hạ Long, Đồng Hới, Đông Hà...). This makes little sense since they no longer exists. Should they be changed to "Placename (city/town)" instead?
• Wards/communes named after the former cities, towns and districts (e.g. Thủ Dầu Một, Ho Chi Minh City, Mỹ Tho, Đồng Tháp, Bắc Giang, Bắc Ninh...). Should they be the primary topic? Or there's no primary topic for these cases?
• Places named after people when there's no article on the person it's named after (e.g. Dương Minh Châu, Trần Văn Thời, Lục Sĩ Thành, Hồ Đắc Kiện...). One issue with this kind of placename in Vietnam is, they are mostly the exact name of the person, rather than just taking their first name or last name of the person like other countries? Therefore, I personally think that leaving the title as it is can be misleading, since it can obviously refer to the person, not the place. Maybe appending the province's name after the place's name?

Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Like other Jewish ethnic groups, the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah.

إيان (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: capitalize "The", eg Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Option B: lowercase "the", eg Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Option C: remove "the", eg Zombie (Cranberries song)

Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Cedar_Falls&diff=1339950814&oldid=1339730550

The formatting of this campaign battle template is irregular and inconsistent compared to the standard format of other types of wars. I noticed most edits are being reverted and blocked by a user. Several articles in this conflict seem to have similar issues with having a consistent format or following template conventions.

A second issue is wounded figures are missing despite being found in the article itself.

I would suggest this campaign box be edited to follow the format of Siege of Mariupol. In particular the casualties section and figures for non-combatants, including internal relocations.

Summerhall fire (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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:

1. Should the Engineering Council’s published lists be used as the primary source for identifying UK engineering institutions for this article?
2. Should verifiable institutions be included in this list even if they do not yet have a Wikipedia article?
3. 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)

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)

Before:

• Wikipedia:General disclaimer, links to Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia disclaimers
• Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
• Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer
• Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer
• Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer
• Wikipedia:Survey disclaimer

After:

• User:Szmenderowiecki/sandbox/Disclaimers

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)

Should R3 be retired, as RFD can be reasonably be used instead? TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Context: A prior RfC established consensus that he should not be described as "the leader" of the protests and found no consensus on alternatives. Editors now disagree on whether listing him under "Lead figures" in the infobox is consistent with WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:INFOBOX. Tasasiki (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)