Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

For more information, see the main page Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Economy and trade

Talk:Hallwang Clinic

The Foundation is defending against a suit brought in Germany over the content of this article and has requested review and input by the volunteer community of certain statements and sources in the article. The request is to "review the Contested Statements and/or update the secondary resources or the citations if required. Your input would be constructive for the Foundation in preparing its defense strategy." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?

1. |residence=Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida (current formatting)
2. |residence=Palm Beach, Florida
3. |residence=Mar-a-Lago

--Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology officials

Which style of subheading nesting should be used for the lists of people in this article? (The difference is in the last subheading, "Former officials".)

Option #1

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

== Former officials ==

Option #2

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

=== Former officials ===

Option #3

(Something else, please specify)

Over the last 18 months, the nesting of the list with its subheadings has changed numerous times and has not resolved with talk page discussions, leading to this RfC to try to settle the issue.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

History and geography

Talk:New South Wales Police Force

Should two former NSW Police detectives, Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara, crimes in 2014 be included in the Controversies section?

Note: Roger Rogerson was dismissed from the police force in 1986 and Glen McNamara left the police force in 1990. Melbguy05 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

1. Final paragraph only. (current)
2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
3. No mention.
4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twisters (film)

Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [1])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [2])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change

Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

This cagegorization [3] - characterizing the event as "Massacres committed by Ukraine" - is challenged. Nowhere in the article it says it "was committed by Ukraine", and no sources are saying so. I disagree with the thesis above Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia#Wrong cat that at some level of abstraction, it was committed by Ukraine but I'm the only one opposing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of genocides

Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions

While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick

In 1967, the Government of New Brunswick abolished county municipal governments. Do counties still exist in New Brunswick despite this abolition? (Note: This question has been significantly reworded for clarity.) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Shanghai

I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.

This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).

It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.

Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministry have a qualifier such as Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:White Shirts Society

Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mughal dynasty

Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:

1. "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
   • Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
2. No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Language and linguistics

Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Math, natural science and technology

Talk:Twisters (film)

Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [4])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [5])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

What units should be used for distances between star systems and galaxies? These are measured in light years (ly) in popular news and educational media; professional astronomers use parsecs (pc). Articles currently use a variety of units (some only ly and some ly converted to km) but most commonly use ly converted to pc in infoboxes (often automatically from technical data). If conversion to SI units (like kilometers) is not required in certain contexts, this would be added as an explicit exception to MOS:CONVERSIONS. The maximum distance in the observable universe is under 100 billion light-years, and interplanetary distances (inside a star system) are a fraction of a light-year and are measured in astronomical units (AU or au). 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change

Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nonmetal

Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article? Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Media, art and literature

• Talk:John Byrne I was just wondering what everyone thought about Jimbo Whales deleting most or the John Byrne article after receiving a complaint from John Byrne.--198.93.113.49 20:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tupac Shakur

There is an ongoing dispute about what roles should appear in the lead sentence of the article on Tupac Shakur. Possibilities include (in alphabetical order):

• Activist
• Actor
• Poet
• Rapper
• Record producer
• Songwriter

The relevant policies are MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:ROLEBIO. A previous RfC on the same topic was held in 2017, where the consensus was "rapper and actor". Please comment on what roles should be included in the lead sentence, and why. Thank you, --LK (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

There are two questions:

1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
   1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
   2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
   3. When one major media makes a projection.
   4. Other?
2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

Should South Korean girl groups like Blackpink and NewJeans be referred to as "South Korean K-pop girl group" in the lead? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:J. K. Rowling

Should "anti-transgender activist" be added to the lead or the first sentence of the lead ? 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MJ the Musical

Should a summary of this Guardian review of MJ the Musical be included in the "Critical response" section of this article? Popcornfud (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:RRR

Shall the section on "Reception by International Filmmakers" at the bottom of this RFC be added after the Reception section?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twisters (film)

Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [6])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [7])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kylie Minogue

I would like to change the lead section. This is the process recommended by DRN to avoid the constant stonewalling on this article. I trimmed it down but still kept the same facts. It's now 40~ ish words less than the one being reverted to and is easier to read in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?

1. |residence=Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida (current formatting)
2. |residence=Palm Beach, Florida
3. |residence=Mar-a-Lago

--Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

The reliability of NewsClick is:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Philosophy

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

1. Final paragraph only. (current)
2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
3. No mention.
4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tyrannicide

Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Politics

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

There are two questions:

1. Should 2024 UK Parliamentary constituency articles contain notional results in table format in the election results section?
2. How should results of the 2024 parliamentary constituencies be listed for boundary changes of seats and for brand new seats?

LawNerd123 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement (alternative options below), and some editors have expressed support for using the 2017 portrait for at least one of the following reasons:

1. They never supported switching away from the 2017 portrait in the first place
2. They think that reverting to the 2017 portrait would resolve the ongoing disagreements about which photo to use as a replacement

Should Trump's official portrait from 2017 be used in the infobox of this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

There are two questions:

1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
   1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
   2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
   3. When one major media makes a projection.
   4. Other?
2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Van Buren

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Martin van Buren?

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Emiya1980 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:New South Wales Police Force

Should two former NSW Police detectives, Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara, crimes in 2014 be included in the Controversies section?

Note: Roger Rogerson was dismissed from the police force in 1986 and Glen McNamara left the police force in 1990. Melbguy05 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

1. Final paragraph only. (current)
2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
3. No mention.
4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kamala Harris

Which of the following should we use to refer to Kamala Harris when discussing her African ancestry:

• African-American
• Black

Note: There are cases where she may be referred to as Asian-American either alone or with one of the above two. This RfC is only about her African ancestry as that has been the greatest area of contention. This does not apply to quotes. You will find a lengthy discussion on the subject above at:[8]. --O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tyrannicide

Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of U.S. executive branch czars

While trying to formulate my opinion on the subject, I found that neither discussion above (Asking for consensus: Freeze in compromise version until discussion is resolved and Should Kamala Harris be listed as a "border czar") is very clear as to any proposed changes. So, I am making this section for !votes and discussion on specific versions. Here are the options (taken from the above discussions):

• Option 1: No mention. This is the state of the article at this moment.
• Option 2: Disputed mention. This new state would put "(disputed)" after Harris' name, with a footnote going into some depth concerning the history of Harris being called "border czar".
• Option 3: Normal mention. This was the original listing (note—by "original listing" is meant the original addition of the text to the page), with the only difference between Harris' and others' being a footnote stating that her presidential campaign has disavowed the title.

Option 2 was developed as a compromise between Option 1 and Option 3, given the unusual disagreement over the use of the title. Option 3 treated the media mentions of Harris as border czar as sufficient, followed by the chronologically later disavowal. The supporters of Option 1 have several justifications, mainly (so far as I can see) that the title has always been a source of controversy, ever since President Biden gave her the diplomatic responsibility, and that she has now formally disavowed the title. Wrapped up in this latter argument is the political connection, given that most people who want to bring up the "border czar" title are doing so to the detriment of her campaign. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

To what extent should allegations that Ukraine violated the International humanitarian law (IHL) by utilizing civilian infrastructure for military operations be discussed in this article? I specifically focus on two separate matters.

(1) The inclusion of the allegation that Ukraine may have violated IHL in the specific case of a nursing home in Stara Krasnianka, Luhansk, brought to light in this June 2022 OHCHR report. It is claimed that in March 2022 Ukrainian soldiers utilized this nursing home, populated by elderly persons and disabled people, for military purposes contrary to IHL.

(2) The inclusion of a controversial report by Amnesty International published in August 2022 that there is a "pattern" of Ukraine utilizing civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, for military activity, which they indicate may be a violation of IHL.

• Option A: Include both (1) and (2).
• Option B: Include only (1).
• Option C: Include only (2).
• Option D: Include neither.
• Option E: Other

The matter has been debated extensively immediately above, and in fact for a few years now in older discussions. Thank you for contributing. JDiala (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

This cagegorization [9] - characterizing the event as "Massacres committed by Ukraine" - is challenged. Nowhere in the article it says it "was committed by Ukraine", and no sources are saying so. I disagree with the thesis above Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia#Wrong cat that at some level of abstraction, it was committed by Ukraine but I'm the only one opposing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)

Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology? FropFrop (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of genocides

Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election

Should we include a pairwise-comparisons table similar to the one at 2009 Burlington mayoral election and Draft:Center squeeze#Examples? Such a table would show, for each pair of candidates, how many voters preferred (ranked higher) one candidate or the other. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

How should we format the infobox's "residence" parameter?

1. |residence=Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Florida (current formatting)
2. |residence=Palm Beach, Florida
3. |residence=Mar-a-Lago

--Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions

While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent dictatorship

Should this article contain examples or not? 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministry have a qualifier such as Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:White Shirts Society

Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Religion

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

1. Final paragraph only. (current)
2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
3. No mention.
4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tyrannicide

Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Society and law

Talk:Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics

On the articles for Olympic events, should the venues hosting them be referred to by their regular corporate-sponsor name or their generic name that those venues use specifically for the Olympics? An example to follow would be the articles for Ice Hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics, where the larger of the venues is referred to as "Canada Hockey Place" in the infobox instead of its sponsored name at the time "General Motors Place".

On this article, PeeJay insists on using only the regular sponsored name of the finals arena, under the belief that Wikipedia is not beholden to the IOC's sponsorship rules. PeeJay has not done this with the Gymnastics at the 2024 Olympics articles, however. I'm not going to bother re-inserting the generic name again, because then PeeJay will just drag me into an edit war.Jim856796 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement (alternative options below), and some editors have expressed support for using the 2017 portrait for at least one of the following reasons:

1. They never supported switching away from the 2017 portrait in the first place
2. They think that reverting to the 2017 portrait would resolve the ongoing disagreements about which photo to use as a replacement

Should Trump's official portrait from 2017 be used in the infobox of this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

There are two questions:

1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
   1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
   2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
   3. When one major media makes a projection.
   4. Other?
2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:J. K. Rowling

Should "anti-transgender activist" be added to the lead or the first sentence of the lead ? 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Longcat

Longcat (2002 – 20 September 2020) was a Japanese domestic cat that became the subject of an Internet meme due to her length.

The "known for" field in the infobox, at the time of the article's writing and per the above talk page section, said:

• 1) "Being long"

Over the last year, an editor has been advocating that it instead say:

• 2) "Subject of an Internet meme"

Must it be changed? jp×g🗯️ 07:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif

This RfC concerns the two last sentences in the lead: "No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published.[8] Khelif was born female and identifies as female.[9]"

Should those two sentences be changed to: "Khelif was assigned female at birth and identifies as female". Huldra (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League

How should the ADL's pro-Israel positions be dealt with in the lead?

Location:

1. Final paragraph only. (current)
2. Final with a brief mention in the first paragraph.
3. No mention.
4. Other.

If A or B, what should be the length and emphasis on criticism of the pro-Israel stance in the final paragraph:

1. Three or four sentences, dwelling on criticism (current version)
2. One or two sentences, not giving current emphasis on criticism of the stance as in this version

Coretheapple (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:RRR

Shall the section on "Reception by International Filmmakers" at the bottom of this RFC be added after the Reception section?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists

What should the inclusion criteria be for this list?

• Option 1: 7 wins (status quo)
• Option 2: 10 wins
• Option 3: a different number of wins
• Option 4: the criteria used by ESPN: "current, active fighters who are unbeaten and have accrued at least three wins in a top MMA promotion – UFC, Bellator or PFL".

Preceding discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (United States)

With reference to MOS:ENGVAR and WP:UCRN: Are there reliable sources that substantiate the proposition that the term "social liberalism" is more extensively utilized in American English to denote "cultural liberalism" as opposed to social liberalism proper? 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

In late 2023 and early 2024, User:Spesh531 modified rivalry tables by adding team colors to home/away results columns and overall series columns of the table. Previously, only the individual season series column was shaded After some WP:BRD edits today, I believe it should be examined by the the Baseball wikiproject to gain some consensus moving forward. Below is an excerpt from the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page, in two versions. Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Summer Olympics

The "Participating National Olympic Committees" section is all over the place. The two maps don't match agree with one another, nor do they agree with the text and the table. For example, why is Russia shaded green in the first map? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tyrannicide

Should the see also link to Liber OZ be kept or removed? Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change

Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Evangelos Marinakis

Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of genocides

Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Other

This page has been deprecated. The other topical RFC pages are broad enough to contain any topic brought up on RFC, and it was found that this page was not helpful in bringing topics to the attention of experts. If you are not certain where to put an RFC, feel free to put it in two or three subpages.

• Talk:Urban_legend A question of the semiotics and logic of legendry. 23:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Style issues

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hi,

According to MOS:FILMCAST, common nouns within roles should not be capitalised to distinguish between character names and job descriptions. Currently, the use of sentence case introduces ambiguity for readers; for instance, it does not clarify whether 'Joker' refers to a character name or if 'Joker' describes his job when no character name is provided. I encourage you to refer to my related discussion with the user's talk. Therefore, I recommend adopting lowercase for common nouns in the Role field to ensure alignment with MOS:FILMCAST. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

What units should be used for distances between star systems and galaxies? These are measured in light years (ly) in popular news and educational media; professional astronomers use parsecs (pc). Articles currently use a variety of units (some only ly and some ly converted to km) but most commonly use ly converted to pc in infoboxes (often automatically from technical data). If conversion to SI units (like kilometers) is not required in certain contexts, this would be added as an explicit exception to MOS:CONVERSIONS. The maximum distance in the observable universe is under 100 billion light-years, and interplanetary distances (inside a star system) are a fraction of a light-year and are measured in astronomical units (AU or au). 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

There are two questions:

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions

While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hi,

According to MOS:FILMCAST, common nouns within roles should not be capitalised to distinguish between character names and job descriptions. Currently, the use of sentence case introduces ambiguity for readers; for instance, it does not clarify whether 'Joker' refers to a character name or if 'Joker' describes his job when no character name is provided. I encourage you to refer to my related discussion with the user's talk. Therefore, I recommend adopting lowercase for common nouns in the Role field to ensure alignment with MOS:FILMCAST. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

What units should be used for distances between star systems and galaxies? These are measured in light years (ly) in popular news and educational media; professional astronomers use parsecs (pc). Articles currently use a variety of units (some only ly and some ly converted to km) but most commonly use ly converted to pc in infoboxes (often automatically from technical data). If conversion to SI units (like kilometers) is not required in certain contexts, this would be added as an explicit exception to MOS:CONVERSIONS. The maximum distance in the observable universe is under 100 billion light-years, and interplanetary distances (inside a star system) are a fraction of a light-year and are measured in astronomical units (AU or au). 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

There are two questions:

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions

While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User_names

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators •

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

• the user in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

---

Reports

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.

---

== See also Wikipedia:Current surveys.