Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:PNS Ghazi

I'm not sure how the ship articles are treated... do transferred ships have different articles for services with the two navies or are split on normal reasons of articles being long? I think the history with US Navy can be accounted for in the same article. Better to have a single article and take it to GA status? Propose merging the article about the same submarine for its service with the US Navy, USS Diablo (SS-479), here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Berlin

Should there be an image of the "Buddy Bears" in this article? This has been a contentious issue that has evaded consensus so far. Sindinero (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gopalanand Swami

Correct name is "Torda" not "Tolda" I'm not sure exactly what the RfC has been filed to address. If you have reliable sources which indicate that the name as included is inaccurate, by all means feel free to change it. Also, if there is an existing article about the location, by all means feel free to add a link to it. If there are other reasons behind the filing of the RfC, please indicate them below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:7 World Trade Center

Should the section of this article on the collapse of the original 7 World Trade Center be shortened to a summary given the material's inclusion in Collapse of the World Trade Center?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Hunnic Empire

There is a discussion whether the Hunnic Empire article should be merged to the article about the Huns. There are several arguments for and against the merge, but the matter is still not concluded. In order to resolve the stalemate situation, we are seeking additional opinions. Please, help us with your ideas. Koertefa (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Romanians of Serbia

There is a proposal and attempt to clarify, merge parts of and clean up the articles Romanians of Serbia and Vlachs of Serbia. If interested to help with the consolidation/clarification and/or if you want to make any suggestions, please do on there corresponding talk pages. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Should the section for "Suggested historical precedents" include the Reichstag Fire as a common comparison made by conspiracy theorists?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Should the article include the categories for denialism, pseudoscience, and/or pseudohistory?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

WP:SOVEREIGN says that royals should have their names in English or in the way most historians use. This rule led to situations where a list of monarchs is inconsistent, such as with German Emperors, where we can find William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. One name in English and the other in German. Another good example is John VI of Portugal (João VI), whose mother was Maria I (not Mary I) and whose children were Pedro I (not Peter I) and Miguel I (not Michael I). I've seen a few editors claim that anglicized names are preferred because they are easier to pronounce. This would make sense if everyone else, not just royals, had their names in English. We have a Kaiser William I among Albrecht von Roon, Karl Friedrich von Steinmetz and Helmuth von Moltke. Another example would be Charles IV of Spain (Carlos IV), surrounded by Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Francisco Javier de Balmis and José Moñino y Redondo. Thus, should royals have their names in their native tongues instead? Jean II of France, Nikolay II of Russia, Carlos III of Spain, Karl VI, Holy Roman Emperor, etc... I'd like to warn you all that I'm talking about royalty that uses the Latin Alphabet. This discussion does not involve Arab, Chinese, Indian and other royals. Also, in the case of Roman Emperors, names wouldn't be spelled as AVGVSTVS or VITELLIVS, but Augustus and Vitellius, respectively. As they already are, in fact. --Lecen (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine

Which map should be at the top of this article? Current options are: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Feel free to add more options. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.