Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

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)

A proposed revision (described in detail above in this section) replaces the current Legacy text with material supported by reliable secondary sources discussing the substantial reassessment of Bassnectar’s reputation and career following the 2020 allegations and subsequent developments. The current version (restored after reverts) focuses primarily on descriptions of live performance style and technical aspects of shows, with less emphasis on the documented post-2020 reputational impact.

The question for community input is:

Should the Legacy section be revised to incorporate the proposed sourced material regarding the post-2020 reassessment of Bassnectar’s legacy and public perception, and if so, how should due weight be balanced between pre-2020 artistic impact and subsequent controversy per Wikipedia policies (e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:RS)?

For reference:

• Current Legacy section (restored version): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassnectar#Legacy

• Proposed replacement version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bassnectar&diff=prev&oldid=1325283347

The rationale and sources supporting the proposed revision are outlined in the discussion above. Editors are invited to comment on which approach best reflects Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, sourcing, and due weight. OctaviusBCS (talk) 10:28, 22 February 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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Wheeler%2FWallowa&diff=1339949068&oldid=1339838624

Requesting comment on this article, since this user has a history of edit warring me for some reason. The results section stating Operational Success, and these are original research evaluations that are neither stated or supported in the actual cited articles and seemingly openly contradicted in the aftermath discussion.

I am requesting comments on whether the result section of the template box should be modified, and whether my contributions should be kept.

I wrote a longer form discussion here, since this is a pattern across many articles describing US military operations in the Vietnam War:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history Summerhall fire (talk) 15:48, 21 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

19:10, 20 February 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)

19:10, 20 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

We would like your input on the solutions proposed on our project page. We are considering several options, which can be combined if desired by the community.

• Changing the default pattern for automatically generated reference names (currently ":n", e.g. ":0", ":1"...) to use the reference type instead (e.g. "book_reference-1").
• Providing a simple mechanism for communities to configure a different default name.
• Generating automatic reference names based on the domain name (if it’s a web citation).
• Generating automatic reference names based on template parameters (e.g. "title" or "last"+"first") – defined by the community.

Feedback

Visit our project page to read about our proposal in detail and share your thoughts on metawiki – or just comment below.

Please note: We will only implement a solution if there’s clear consensus among the global community. Our intention is not to build the perfect solution, but to find a simple and lean one that alleviates the pain caused by auto generated names. We are aware that some experienced VisualEditor users might prefer an option to manually change reference names in VisualEditor, but such a UX intervention is difficult to achieve across reference types and thus out of scope for our team, we can only improve the auto-naming mechanism. We are happy about suggestions for improving certain details of the proposed solutions. Any other feedback and alternative proposals are also welcome – even though it’s out of scope for us, it might still be relevant for future work on this topic.

Please support us interpreting consensus by clearly indicating your opinion (e.g. by using support/neutral/oppose templates). We are aware of WP:NOTVOTE, but given that we are facilitating this discussion with users from different wikis, potentially commenting in their native language, clearly indicating your position helps us avoid misunderstandings.

Thank you for participating! --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:46, 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)

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)