Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

• A - Hämeenlinna, Finland, Russian Empire
• B - Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire
• C - Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland
• D - Hämeenlinna, Finland

Absolutiva 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that this is a biography of a living person and a potentially contentious characterisation, the question is whether the available sourcing is sufficiently clear, consistent and high-quality to support the use of “anti-trans activist” in wikivoice in the lead. Should this wording be included in the lead on the basis of the current sources? Editors are invited to comment with reference to WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE.

RiverArchivist2000 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, here we are. I've included the three images that have gotten support for use on the page. Please discuss civilly and follow Wikipedia policy in deciding which image to use.
Disclaimer: I am an involved editor in the sense that I have an opinion on which photo to use and have shared it. However, I will not be expressing it in this RfC.
Ping for every editor who previously expressed an opinion: Camilasdandelions, Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång, ArturSik, GrandDukeMarcelo, Szmenderowiecki, Médicis.
Thanks, all.
I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 02:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Should the subsection titles “Support of skin trade” and “Support of trophy hunting” be revised to more neutral, source-aligned language (e.g., “Position on CITES trade proposals” and “Position on regulated hunting”) per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL?

The current titles appear to characterize Polar Bears International’s policy positions rather than reflect how those positions are described in the cited reliable sources. The sources primarily describe opposition to specific CITES uplisting proposals and views on regulated hunting systems, but do not appear to explicitly frame these positions as “support of skin trade” or “support of trophy hunting.”

Per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, section titles should avoid editorial interpretation and instead reflect the language used in reliable sources. There is also a potential WP:SYNTH concern if the current titles combine multiple facts to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in sources.

Input on whether the current subsection titles meet neutrality standards—and, if not, what more appropriate wording would be—is appreciated.

~~~~ FourBrane (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

According to pages 33-39 of the 2026 report:

The scale and speed of autocratization under the Trump administration are unprecedented in modern times. Within one year, the USA’s LDI score has declined by 24%; its world rank dropped from 20th to

51st place out of 179 nations. The level of democracy on the LDI is dwindling to 1965 level – the year that most regard as the start of a real, modern democracy in the USA. Democracy in the USA is now at its worst in 60 years.

We are not alone in this assessment. Professor Steven Levitsky at Harvard University says the regime in the USA is now some type of authoritarianism... [Further listing of those saying similar]... The Steady State, an organization of over 300 former national security and intelligence professionals, concluded in its report that the USA is moving into competitive authoritarianism, pointing to executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks.

One notable shift is the transformation of the Republican Party to endorsing a far-right, nationalist, and anti-pluralist agenda. Nationalist, anti-liberal, far-right parties and leaders have largely driven the “third wave of autocratization.” Yet the USA stands out as the only case where such movement seized control over one party in a rigid two-party system.

V-DEM claims that the party's designation as "far-right" and "authoritarian" is firmly established in the political science literature and that the Republican Party should not be viewed analogously to traditional Western center-right governments since at least Trump's first presidency and particularly after his current tenure. How should the party's description in the article and infobox be covered in light of the V-DEM Institute's claims about the Republican Party?

• Option 1: Far-right [Cited to V-DEM, but with no note going into the historical positions of the party.]

• Option 2: Far-right [With note saying it was traditionally seen as either center-right or right-wing until sometime between 2016-2025.]

• Option 3: Right-wing to far-right [With note that there is an emerging consensus the party is broadly far-right at a national level.]

• Option 4: Right-wing [With note that there is an emerging consensus that the party is far-right at a national level.]

• Option 5: Right-wing [Status quo, exclude V-DEM's designation; optional to include it elsewhere in article depending on question 2.]

• Option 6: Center-right to right-wing

• Option 7: Center-right

• Option 8: Big tent

• Option 9: No political spectrum in infobox.

The second dispute is over whether V-DEM itself is reliable enough to meet the standards of being referenced in the article. The two options are:

• V-DEM is a reliable source; inclusion is permissible.

• V-DEM is not a reliable source; inclusion should be restricted or prohibited.

Requesting a clear, unambigious consensus for both choices before closure. Jollyrime (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Should the term “Assad regime” or “Ba'athist regime” in the article be changed to “Assad government” or “Ba'athist government”?

• Option A: Include the “Assad regime.”
• Option B: Include the “Assad government.”
• Option C: Include the “Ba'athist government.”
• Option D: Include the “Ba'athist regime.”
• Option E/Other: Include it, but with different wording. HurricaneEdgar 14:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Prairie_II&diff=1345121416&oldid=1344997126

The previous consensus edit stated casualties section which states reported casualties figures as being from US Sources. I edited to include "Per US" while keeping the Vietnam War body count controversy link.

I made edits to remove original research in the results section, and made the template more consistent with other campaign boxes. A user is now making edits which makes the infobox less informative/accurate. Summerhall fire (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I'm in favor of using Byzantine. @A.Cython, Donner60, and Teotzin190: were involved in the original discussion. Edward056686 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• A:"Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967" this was the text until 2 weeks ago
• B: something else. If B is chosen, we will take a new RfC to determine which

Huldra (talk) 20:37, 23 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)

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)

Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community.

Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:

Following the mass departure of Algerian Jews in 1961–1962, the 1963 Nationality Code granted Algerian citizenship to those with Muslim civil status. While the Évian Accords provided a three-year window for French citizens in Algeria, including the remaining Jewish population, to apply for Algerian nationality, few chose to do so. Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin note that because the 1963 code explicitly defined the new nation in terms of Muslim status, it effectively alienated the non-Muslim population. Consequently, almost all the remaining Jews felt excluded from the new Arab-Islamic national identity and retained their French citizenship.^[1][2]

Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section.

Option C/Other: Include, but a different text.

Andre🚐 02:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Should the subsection titles “Support of skin trade” and “Support of trophy hunting” be revised to more neutral, source-aligned language (e.g., “Position on CITES trade proposals” and “Position on regulated hunting”) per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL?

The current titles appear to characterize Polar Bears International’s policy positions rather than reflect how those positions are described in the cited reliable sources. The sources primarily describe opposition to specific CITES uplisting proposals and views on regulated hunting systems, but do not appear to explicitly frame these positions as “support of skin trade” or “support of trophy hunting.”

Per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, section titles should avoid editorial interpretation and instead reflect the language used in reliable sources. There is also a potential WP:SYNTH concern if the current titles combine multiple facts to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in sources.

Input on whether the current subsection titles meet neutrality standards—and, if not, what more appropriate wording would be—is appreciated.

~~~~ FourBrane (talk) 16:46, 20 March 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)

• A - Hämeenlinna, Finland, Russian Empire
• B - Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire
• C - Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland
• D - Hämeenlinna, Finland

Absolutiva 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Is it due to label Dhurandhar: The Revenge as "propaganda" in the lead sentence? 01:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The current proposed wording (or similar variants) is: "During their encounter, Casey awkwardly apologizes to Teddy for what he did to him years earlier while acting as his babysitter, describing it as wrong and a 'power thing.'"

Casey explicitly refers to "what I did to you," calls it "wrong," and characterizes it as a "power thing," but the film does not label the act more specifically.

The material has been removed and restored multiple times by different editors, indicating an ongoing disagreement about whether it belongs in the article. MollyRealized (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

According to pages 33-39 of the 2026 report:

The scale and speed of autocratization under the Trump administration are unprecedented in modern times. Within one year, the USA’s LDI score has declined by 24%; its world rank dropped from 20th to

51st place out of 179 nations. The level of democracy on the LDI is dwindling to 1965 level – the year that most regard as the start of a real, modern democracy in the USA. Democracy in the USA is now at its worst in 60 years.

We are not alone in this assessment. Professor Steven Levitsky at Harvard University says the regime in the USA is now some type of authoritarianism... [Further listing of those saying similar]... The Steady State, an organization of over 300 former national security and intelligence professionals, concluded in its report that the USA is moving into competitive authoritarianism, pointing to executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks.

One notable shift is the transformation of the Republican Party to endorsing a far-right, nationalist, and anti-pluralist agenda. Nationalist, anti-liberal, far-right parties and leaders have largely driven the “third wave of autocratization.” Yet the USA stands out as the only case where such movement seized control over one party in a rigid two-party system.

V-DEM claims that the party's designation as "far-right" and "authoritarian" is firmly established in the political science literature and that the Republican Party should not be viewed analogously to traditional Western center-right governments since at least Trump's first presidency and particularly after his current tenure. How should the party's description in the article and infobox be covered in light of the V-DEM Institute's claims about the Republican Party?

• Option 1: Far-right [Cited to V-DEM, but with no note going into the historical positions of the party.]

• Option 2: Far-right [With note saying it was traditionally seen as either center-right or right-wing until sometime between 2016-2025.]

• Option 3: Right-wing to far-right [With note that there is an emerging consensus the party is broadly far-right at a national level.]

• Option 4: Right-wing [With note that there is an emerging consensus that the party is far-right at a national level.]

• Option 5: Right-wing [Status quo, exclude V-DEM's designation; optional to include it elsewhere in article depending on question 2.]

• Option 6: Center-right to right-wing

• Option 7: Center-right

• Option 8: Big tent

• Option 9: No political spectrum in infobox.

The second dispute is over whether V-DEM itself is reliable enough to meet the standards of being referenced in the article. The two options are:

• V-DEM is a reliable source; inclusion is permissible.

• V-DEM is not a reliable source; inclusion should be restricted or prohibited.

Requesting a clear, unambigious consensus for both choices before closure. Jollyrime (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Should the term “Assad regime” or “Ba'athist regime” in the article be changed to “Assad government” or “Ba'athist government”?

• Option A: Include the “Assad regime.”
• Option B: Include the “Assad government.”
• Option C: Include the “Ba'athist government.”
• Option D: Include the “Ba'athist regime.”
• Option E/Other: Include it, but with different wording. HurricaneEdgar 14:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

01:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

See the above talk section for WP:RFCBEFORE. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes
• No

See the above talk section for WP:RFCBEFORE. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• a photo of the Arctic Metagaz illustrating the incident;
• an attributed quotation from Vladimir Putin describing the explosion as a "terrorist attack".

Reliable sources report the incident and the subsequent accusations that Ukraine may have been responsible, while also noting that no conclusive evidence has been presented. The article currently reflects this through attribution.

Some editors argue that including the image and the quotation gives the incident undue weight in an article about Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet. Others argue that these elements are normal encyclopedic material: the image illustrates the vessel involved in the reported incident, and the quotation represents a notable reaction reported in reliable sources.

Relevant policies mentioned in the discussion include: WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:IMAGEUSE.

Question:

• A — should the article include the photo of the LNG tanker Arctic Metagaz?
• B — should the the attributed quotation from Vladimir Putin in the section describing the incident?

AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community.

Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:

Following the mass departure of Algerian Jews in 1961–1962, the 1963 Nationality Code granted Algerian citizenship to those with Muslim civil status. While the Évian Accords provided a three-year window for French citizens in Algeria, including the remaining Jewish population, to apply for Algerian nationality, few chose to do so. Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin note that because the 1963 code explicitly defined the new nation in terms of Muslim status, it effectively alienated the non-Muslim population. Consequently, almost all the remaining Jews felt excluded from the new Arab-Islamic national identity and retained their French citizenship.^[3][4]

Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section.

Option C/Other: Include, but a different text.

Andre🚐 02:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community.

Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:

Following the mass departure of Algerian Jews in 1961–1962, the 1963 Nationality Code granted Algerian citizenship to those with Muslim civil status. While the Évian Accords provided a three-year window for French citizens in Algeria, including the remaining Jewish population, to apply for Algerian nationality, few chose to do so. Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin note that because the 1963 code explicitly defined the new nation in terms of Muslim status, it effectively alienated the non-Muslim population. Consequently, almost all the remaining Jews felt excluded from the new Arab-Islamic national identity and retained their French citizenship.^[5][6]

Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section.

Option C/Other: Include, but a different text.

Andre🚐 02:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Is it due to label Dhurandhar: The Revenge as "propaganda" in the lead sentence? 01:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Prairie_II&diff=1345121416&oldid=1344997126

The previous consensus edit stated casualties section which states reported casualties figures as being from US Sources. I edited to include "Per US" while keeping the Vietnam War body count controversy link.

I made edits to remove original research in the results section, and made the template more consistent with other campaign boxes. A user is now making edits which makes the infobox less informative/accurate. Summerhall fire (talk) 12:31, 24 March 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)

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)

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)

We are seeing an increasing amount of threads at WP:ANI where users are creating large amounts of LLM-generated content and then blocked, which require excessive clean-up. This has been escalating over the past year and I believe is only going to get worse. We are getting to the stage where we should treat LLM content with the same seriousness as copyright violations, and block even when a user's actions are in good faith, to avoid wasting communities time in clean-up.

Adding the proposed text would directly change the blocking policy such that any administrator would be able to block on sight for LLM usage, and have a solid policy-backed reason for doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Since the last RFC about how to define the article as a series, I think we didn't consider something: the videogame subject itself. I considered this after some involvement in the Tetris article and reading its RFC. They define the subject as just videogame. In the case of the Sokoban article, I think it is the most natural subject — why? Because the videogame was created in 1981, and the first commercial game in 1982, and with time it became a series.

The article is not about the 1982 first commercial release, and is mostly about the series — but I noticed it would be more convenient to change the subject to just videogame, with the clear understanding that this does not refer to the first commercial release, like in Tetris, where the lead refers to when the game was invented, not its first commercial title. In the Sokoban article — as happens with Tetris — a subject is chosen, but inside the article other subjects are mentioned (in Tetris, the subject is "a videogame," and in the same lead a series is mentioned). For Sokoban, I think the subject must be the videogame — the one created in 1981 — and mention the series as "Sokoban series." Why? Because the article mentions AI research — that is not about the series, it is about the videogame in its definition and form. Same about solvers: saying "Sokoban puzzles" means puzzles of the Sokoban videogame, in its form and definition. And mentioning this, I'm not saying that it is the same as a genre. Genres are posterior classifications; people invent videogames, and other people later classify them as genres.

In the article, there are natural expressions that remind us the main subject is the videogame (not referring to the first commercial release). Examples: "The game is viewed," "Sokoban's core mechanics." If we could use two subjects in the lead, it would be "Sokoban is a puzzle video game and series" — but that could result in confusion. "Sokoban is a videogame" is clearer.

I noticed that the infobox videogame template seems designated for specific videogame titles, requiring a publisher field. It is not for videogame inventions — thus I consider it fair to change the subject to Sokoban videogame, mention the series in the lead, and use the series infobox, because it is the best option. This mirrors the approach used in Tetris — which has a lot of sense and many things in common with Sokoban: both born as videogame hobbies, not as commercial videogames. In the case of Sokoban, a 1981 vg for PC-8001; in the case of Tetris, a 1984/1985 vg for Elektronika 60 — those are the videogames that later got commercial releases, ports, versions, or titles. Also, both have variant timelines: for Sokoban, related to the first commercial title year (1982/1983); for Tetris, the invention year (1984/1985). Carloseow (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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 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)