Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

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)