Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
| This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Biographies
| Inviting further discussion whether brief (passing) mention that Sweeney is a Registered Republican is consistent with WP:DUE given (new) mainstream coverage of this fact in relation to her career (see above for prior discussion).HardScience (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic
| Should this article to remove all cities under "Place of Death" for the List of deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic article? A proposal made by User:Kevin McE from a previous subject titled "Place of death II".
Two options:
Feel free to comment to encourage the proposal on why have you propose the plan made by User:Kevin McE with your extensive comments. Steam5 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
Should this article include a mention of West Ford, such as in the following sentence that is currently part of the body:
Pinging the non-IP editors who were involved in the three previous discussions (, , ): Redvans, Adavidb, Gwillhickers, Heavenlyblue, Shearonink, Bruce leverett, Nikkimaria, Tepkunset, ErnestKrause, Drdpw, GoodDay. Bill Williams 20:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| In light of the previous discussion failing to achieve consensus, I am opening this RfC.
Should the first paragraph include the following sentence:
Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the article include a brief mention noting that in 2020 Pablo Hidalgo received criticism over the “emotions are not to be shared” comment and later apologized, based on coverage in Variety, TheWrap, and Deseret News?
For reference, the proposed sentences are: In 2020, Hidalgo received criticism after posting "emotions are not to be shared" in response to online discussion of a fan’s emotional reaction to the season two finale of The Mandalorian. He later apologized, stating that the comment had been intended as sarcastic self-mockery and that he had not meant to hurt anyone. Relevant sources:
Artimaeus Creed (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Which of the following should be used as Sydney Sweeney's infobox image? 22:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Rihanna be described as a "songwriter" in the lede and infobox? 17:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
How should we format his place of birth in the infobox?
Absolutiva 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| There is disagreement over whether it is appropriate to describe Stella O’Malley as an “anti-trans activist” in the lead. The sources do not refer to her as such overall. Some use “anti-trans” language, but often in attributed statements or activist commentary. Other reliable secondary sources do not use this characterisation, instead describing her views and activities in more neutral terms.
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) |
How should James Fishback's relationship with white supremacy and white nationalism be covered on the page?
|
Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson
| Would welcome input into how Wikipedia readers should navigate the topic of sexual abuse allegations made (not saying they are true) against Michael Jackson. A navigation box like this (see box above this) that I have drafted? A list page? A category? There are 13 named accusers scattered across these pages but it is hard to find the information. |
| Should Susan Abulhawa's controversial comments on Ukraine be included at all? JPHC2003 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
| The original RFC was posted in October 2025 (#RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business), but the discussion veered onto another topic and there was no consensus on this issue. Another section was posted in January, 2026 (#National allegiance of Moroccanoil) and again failed to achieve consensus. Yet another section was posted in March, 2026, questioning the source for the phrase "An Israeli company" (#Remaining tags and references to Israel).
It should be noted that the article describes the Israeli origins of two of the company's founders and the Moroccan ancestry of one of them, and there is no proposal to change that. There is also a surprisingly long discussion of where in Israel one of their factories is located, but that is an issue for another day. Julian in LA (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Polar Bears International
| Following up on the earlier discussion above with a more focused question.
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) |
| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
History and geography
| Should this article use the Template:Infobox civilian attack instead of Template:Infobox military conflict?
Pinging users previously involved, it seems like it didn't work the first time, @Moritoriko, GreenMeansGo, DiodotusNicator, and Genabab: Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 21:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Hello, I am contacting you regarding a disagreement on the origin of the Daghaghra, let me explain.
My counterpart, Hilali Z, reports the Daghaghra are of Arab origin, specifically Banu Sulaym. He bases this on a source attributed to Mohamed Bouzrara (p.115). However, I disagree with this source and its reliability because, despite presenting Bouzrara as a historian, I found nothing about him. When I asked him to justify his claim, he presented this source, describing him as a radio host and a member of the labor movement since 2016, who had completed secondary education. I would add that, in my opinion, the author is uncertain about the Daghaghra's Banu Sulaym origins and hesitates between them and an Omani origin. He also added this source (p.367), which doesn't give an author's name but says nothing about the origin of the Daghaghra, but presents the tribal faction to which they belong and nothing specific about their origin:
In my case I rely on André Louis (p.115) who dealt with the question based on local tradition as well as the texts of the medieval historian Ibn Khaldoun who reports that they are Berber. This source is not reliable for him because " just a random theory of 50 years". The work of André Louis will be taken up by several academics including Manel Znidi (who will confirm the Berber origin based on him p.120 on the note), Gianni Albergoni,François Pouillon and Sonia Ben Meriem (p.10) in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb (which aimed to modernize his work but without going into detail on the origin of the Daghaghra). There is also Zouhir Gabsi (p.11) who will quote André Louis directly, which will facilitate the translation: There's also the inclusion of "Bedouin" in the origin section, which, in my opinion, doesn't belong there because it refers more to the nomadic way of life, especially since he already mentioned this in the history section, referring to André Louis himself, even though he considers his source unacceptable for the origin section. There's also this source on the tribe's founding, which raises the same reliability concerns for me because it comes from a web article and lacks the necessary rigor to discuss origins. Furthermore, I think we all agree it's not real; we don't know where this myth comes from, and it's never been repeated before, which I consider unprecedented.
Mhmdgrd (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC) |
Should this article include a mention of West Ford, such as in the following sentence that is currently part of the body:
Pinging the non-IP editors who were involved in the three previous discussions (, , ): Redvans, Adavidb, Gwillhickers, Heavenlyblue, Shearonink, Bruce leverett, Nikkimaria, Tepkunset, ErnestKrause, Drdpw, GoodDay. Bill Williams 20:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
How should the "phoenix flag" (File:Royal flag of Goryeo (Bong-gi).svg) be used in this article?
Please see the above section, § Flag issue, for previous discussion. 16:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia
| Shoud the killing of Tsarevich be described as "murdered" or "executed"? --Altenmann >talk 17:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| The V-DEM Institute has reclassified the Republican Party (at a national level) as a far-right populist party with personalist and authoritarian tendencies. These claims were asserted in its 2026 report for political regimes, in its V-Party Dataset Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V-Party) ranking, and by its head, Staffan I. Lindberg.
According to pages 33-39 of the 2026 report:
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?
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:
Requesting a clear, unambigious consensus for both choices before closure. Jollyrime (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria
| After the fall of Assad, there was discussion about how to refer to his government—whether as a "regime" or a "government," as noted above.
Should the terms "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime" in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles), such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria, and Ahmed al-Sharaa, and in other articles that generally relate to the topic, be changed to "Assad government" or "Ba'athist government"?
|
| For military conflict infobox. Compare the edits here:
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) |
Talk:List of Byzantine emperors
| There's a debate at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Heraclius/1 about the correct naming convention for emperors in this period. "Byzantine" seems to be the standard terminology used on Wikipedia for this period per WP:COMMON, but the pages for emperors show no consistency. Some infoboxes for emperors use "Roman", "Eastern Roman" or "Byzantine". Can we build a consensus on what the correct terminology should be?
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) |
| Should the "Battle of France" be defined as (A) encompassing the German invasion of Western Europe as a whole or (2) being limited to the German invasion of France itself? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
What should be the short description of the Golan Heights?
|
| Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb talk 19:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
Should this article make the following statement in WP:WikiVoice?
|
| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 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) |
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
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:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
Language and linguistics
Maths, science, and technology
| Should the article Mathematics have a short description? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Polar Bears International
| Following up on the earlier discussion above with a more focused question.
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) |
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:
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. |
| Should the "Software applications included in OpenDesk" table in the Components section include the logos of OpenDesk's applications (as seen in Special:Permalink/1335161316 § Components)? — Newslinger talk 14:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| (This was moved across from WT:VG/S as that board rarely holds RfCs.) The previous discussion has reached a stalemate unfortunately. I did update the VG/S page in good faith, but was reverted by @NegativeMP1. I've got no issue with this. What I do feel needs to happen however, is for there to be an agreeable compromise for Valnet. I can speak for myself here, but I feel that other VG editors will agree, the Valnet topic is tiresome. Some of you may be aware that I help keep Cite Unseen updated on GitLab. A recent discussion on Discord with @SuperGrey established that specific sources can be marked as reliable per writer. So a source can be marginally reliable generally, but if a cited article is written by a whitelisted writer, it will be marked as reliable in that instance. I think we established in the previous discussion that TheGamer (and other Valnet sites) do have some very experienced writers. If these writers, for all Valnet sites, could be compiled. A page could be created such as WP:VALNETWRITERS that lists writers the community agrees are reliable (with specific writers proposed here). These writers can then be added to Unseen's whitelist. This would mean all Valnet sites become marginal generally (or another classification), but those writers would be the exception. I've set this up as a formal RfC so that it can at least be made official in some capacity. We've all got opinions on this, so for this, I am basically prohibiting myself from being able to support a specific option. Here are the options for RfC purposes:
I'm not going to ping anyone from the previous discussions, as this will no doubt be seen. I really hope this can help resolve some of the issues we've faced with Valnet sites, and that keeping the topic specific can prevent tangents. 11WB (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
| Inviting further discussion whether brief (passing) mention that Sweeney is a Registered Republican is consistent with WP:DUE given (new) mainstream coverage of this fact in relation to her career (see above for prior discussion).HardScience (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
How reliable is Zee News, to be used in Wikipedia?
|
| Which of the following should be used as Sydney Sweeney's infobox image? 22:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Rihanna be described as a "songwriter" in the lede and infobox? 17:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Should the guideline on infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines be changed from:Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. However, current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project. Links to the various infobox-related discussions from 2007 to 2013 are provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions. to: Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article.(strikethroughs are original text at start of RfC; bold is amended text as of March 27) Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
How should we format his place of birth in the infobox?
Absolutiva 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels
| Should awards navboxes (Hugo Award, Nebula Award, Locus Award, Ignyte Award, etc) contain a decade-by-decade split? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Is it due to label Dhurandhar: The Revenge as "propaganda" in the lead sentence? 01:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing dispute about whether to include a brief reference in the plot summary to a scene in which Casey apologizes to Teddy for past actions.
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) |
Talk:List of fake news websites
| What should the criteria for inclusion in List of fake news websites be?
Per the above discussion, there is disagreement on what qualifies for this article, and no clear consensus has emerged. The areas of disagreement are:
EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
| When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
| Inviting further discussion whether brief (passing) mention that Sweeney is a Registered Republican is consistent with WP:DUE given (new) mainstream coverage of this fact in relation to her career (see above for prior discussion).HardScience (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
The current proposal is: How should Wikipedia discuss the topic of Arab expulsion as relating to Zionism?
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline
Should the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline be updated to align with the current standard for U.S. county articles by explicitly allowing the inclusion of presidential election history tables for municipalities, provided the data is sourced from official election results and the page's formatting remains proper?
|
Should this article include a mention of West Ford, such as in the following sentence that is currently part of the body:
Pinging the non-IP editors who were involved in the three previous discussions (, , ): Redvans, Adavidb, Gwillhickers, Heavenlyblue, Shearonink, Bruce leverett, Nikkimaria, Tepkunset, ErnestKrause, Drdpw, GoodDay. Bill Williams 20:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
| In light of the previous discussion failing to achieve consensus, I am opening this RfC.
Should the first paragraph include the following sentence:
Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
| Should there be a standardised guideline or policy for the government type that you see on the infoboxes (Unitary parliamentary republic, federal presidential republic, federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, etc). Almost as if an unwritten rule was formed eventually but I'm trying not to be biased in this RfC by manipulating the results. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| The V-DEM Institute has reclassified the Republican Party (at a national level) as a far-right populist party with personalist and authoritarian tendencies. These claims were asserted in its 2026 report for political regimes, in its V-Party Dataset Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V-Party) ranking, and by its head, Staffan I. Lindberg.
According to pages 33-39 of the 2026 report:
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?
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:
Requesting a clear, unambigious consensus for both choices before closure. Jollyrime (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria
| After the fall of Assad, there was discussion about how to refer to his government—whether as a "regime" or a "government," as noted above.
Should the terms "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime" in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles), such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria, and Ahmed al-Sharaa, and in other articles that generally relate to the topic, be changed to "Assad government" or "Ba'athist government"?
|
How should James Fishback's relationship with white supremacy and white nationalism be covered on the page?
|
Talk:FBI files on Michael Jackson
| Would welcome input into how Wikipedia readers should navigate the topic of sexual abuse allegations made (not saying they are true) against Michael Jackson. A navigation box like this (see box above this) that I have drafted? A list page? A category? There are 13 named accusers scattered across these pages but it is hard to find the information. |
Template talk:Time zones of Canada
| In the table below the map, which time zone should the red area of the map (UTC−07:00 & UTC−07:00/UTC−06:00 DST) be labeled as? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the Doug flag (File:Doug flag.svg) be included in this article under a non-free use rationale? If so, where in the article should it be displayed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Shouldn't there be a section on foreign involvement in color revolutions, due to confirmed outside activities in some instances?
01:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should this article (Crime in Minnesota) include any mention of Feeding Our Future, Operation Metro Surge, the Killing of Renee Good, or the killing of Alex Pretti?
See the above talk section for WP:RFCBEFORE. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:History of Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul
Should this article (History of Somalis in Minneapolis-Saint Paul) mention Feeding Our Future and Operation Metro Surge?
See the above talk section for WP:RFCBEFORE. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Ukrainian attacks on the Russian shadow fleet
Editors disagree about the inclusion of two elements in the section describing the LNG tanker Arctic MetagazItalic text incident:
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:
AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb talk 19:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
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:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
Religion and philosophy
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
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:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
Society, sports, and culture
How should James Fishback's relationship with white supremacy and white nationalism be covered on the page?
|
| Is it due to label Dhurandhar: The Revenge as "propaganda" in the lead sentence? 01:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the Doug flag (File:Doug flag.svg) be included in this article under a non-free use rationale? If so, where in the article should it be displayed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb talk 19:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Which of these photos should be used in the infobox? Belbury (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox "Place of origin" field for Sfenj be changed from "Al-Andalus" to "Morocco" or "Maghreb"? Bohosquare1 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox "Place of origin" field be changed from "Ottoman Empire" to "Morocco" or "Morocco/Maghreb"? Bohosquare1 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
| When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
| Should {{humor}} and Category:Wikipedia humor be removed from this essay? Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic
| Should this article to remove all cities under "Place of Death" for the List of deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic article? A proposal made by User:Kevin McE from a previous subject titled "Place of death II".
Two options:
Feel free to comment to encourage the proposal on why have you propose the plan made by User:Kevin McE with your extensive comments. Steam5 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the article Mathematics have a short description? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria
| After the fall of Assad, there was discussion about how to refer to his government—whether as a "regime" or a "government," as noted above.
Should the terms "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime" in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles), such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria, and Ahmed al-Sharaa, and in other articles that generally relate to the topic, be changed to "Assad government" or "Ba'athist government"?
|
| For military conflict infobox. Compare the edits here:
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) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Should the guideline on infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines be changed from:Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. However, current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project. Links to the various infobox-related discussions from 2007 to 2013 are provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions. to: Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article.(strikethroughs are original text at start of RfC; bold is amended text as of March 27) Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
For countries that were struck by Iran, what label should we use for them in the Infobox?
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam
| Maybe it's time to revise WP:VIETPLACE? Given that Vietnam has implemented a new local government system since July 2025, the current convention – which applies to cities (thành phố), towns (thị xã), urban districts (quận) and rural districts (huyện), all of which were abolished after the administrative reform – no longer works.
Some issues to consider are:
Kynguyenvuonminh (talk) 15:50, 14 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:
09:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
Should this article make the following statement in WP:WikiVoice?
|
Template talk:Interlanguage link
| Should the documentation for {{ill}} be revised to either remove the statement that "more than 2 or 3 links are very rarely recommended" or to indicate that while some editors believe this to be the case, other editors believe that attempting to "curate" the list of languages in this manner is counter-productive? Fabrickator (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong
| This RfC is intended to discuss whether the sovereign state should be included when Hong Kong is mentioned in templates. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| (This was moved across from WT:VG/S as that board rarely holds RfCs.) The previous discussion has reached a stalemate unfortunately. I did update the VG/S page in good faith, but was reverted by @NegativeMP1. I've got no issue with this. What I do feel needs to happen however, is for there to be an agreeable compromise for Valnet. I can speak for myself here, but I feel that other VG editors will agree, the Valnet topic is tiresome. Some of you may be aware that I help keep Cite Unseen updated on GitLab. A recent discussion on Discord with @SuperGrey established that specific sources can be marked as reliable per writer. So a source can be marginally reliable generally, but if a cited article is written by a whitelisted writer, it will be marked as reliable in that instance. I think we established in the previous discussion that TheGamer (and other Valnet sites) do have some very experienced writers. If these writers, for all Valnet sites, could be compiled. A page could be created such as WP:VALNETWRITERS that lists writers the community agrees are reliable (with specific writers proposed here). These writers can then be added to Unseen's whitelist. This would mean all Valnet sites become marginal generally (or another classification), but those writers would be the exception. I've set this up as a formal RfC so that it can at least be made official in some capacity. We've all got opinions on this, so for this, I am basically prohibiting myself from being able to support a specific option. Here are the options for RfC purposes:
I'm not going to ping anyone from the previous discussions, as this will no doubt be seen. I really hope this can help resolve some of the issues we've faced with Valnet sites, and that keeping the topic specific can prevent tangents. 11WB (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline
Should the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline be updated to align with the current standard for U.S. county articles by explicitly allowing the inclusion of presidential election history tables for municipalities, provided the data is sourced from official election results and the page's formatting remains proper?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
How reliable is Zee News, to be used in Wikipedia?
|
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should the Articles for deletion process be renamed to Articles for discussion? 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria
| After the fall of Assad, there was discussion about how to refer to his government—whether as a "regime" or a "government," as noted above.
Should the terms "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime" in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles), such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria, and Ahmed al-Sharaa, and in other articles that generally relate to the topic, be changed to "Assad government" or "Ba'athist government"?
|
Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
| Should the list of reasons to block be expanded to include "Persistent usage of large language models"?
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) |
| Should the Doug flag (File:Doug flag.svg) be included in this article under a non-free use rationale? If so, where in the article should it be displayed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC) |
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:
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:
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. |
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) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Should the guideline on infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines be changed from:Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. However, current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project. Links to the various infobox-related discussions from 2007 to 2013 are provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions. to: Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article.(strikethroughs are original text at start of RfC; bold is amended text as of March 27) Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
| Should {{humor}} and Category:Wikipedia humor be removed from this essay? Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the "Click here to start a new topic" link be updated? Should it be adjusted to remove the "click here" wording as redundant? Should it be changed into an action button? Is it acceptable as it is? SilkTork (talk) 16:38, 26 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:
09:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| (This was moved across from WT:VG/S as that board rarely holds RfCs.) The previous discussion has reached a stalemate unfortunately. I did update the VG/S page in good faith, but was reverted by @NegativeMP1. I've got no issue with this. What I do feel needs to happen however, is for there to be an agreeable compromise for Valnet. I can speak for myself here, but I feel that other VG editors will agree, the Valnet topic is tiresome. Some of you may be aware that I help keep Cite Unseen updated on GitLab. A recent discussion on Discord with @SuperGrey established that specific sources can be marked as reliable per writer. So a source can be marginally reliable generally, but if a cited article is written by a whitelisted writer, it will be marked as reliable in that instance. I think we established in the previous discussion that TheGamer (and other Valnet sites) do have some very experienced writers. If these writers, for all Valnet sites, could be compiled. A page could be created such as WP:VALNETWRITERS that lists writers the community agrees are reliable (with specific writers proposed here). These writers can then be added to Unseen's whitelist. This would mean all Valnet sites become marginal generally (or another classification), but those writers would be the exception. I've set this up as a formal RfC so that it can at least be made official in some capacity. We've all got opinions on this, so for this, I am basically prohibiting myself from being able to support a specific option. Here are the options for RfC purposes:
I'm not going to ping anyone from the previous discussions, as this will no doubt be seen. I really hope this can help resolve some of the issues we've faced with Valnet sites, and that keeping the topic specific can prevent tangents. 11WB (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should the Articles for deletion process be renamed to Articles for discussion? 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC) |
Unsorted
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:
09:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |