Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Contents
- 1 Biographies
- 2 Economy, trade, and companies
- 3 History and geography
- 4 Language and linguistics
- 5 Maths, science, and technology
- 6 Art, architecture, literature, and media
- 7 Politics, government, and law
- 8 Religion and philosophy
- 9 Society, sports, and culture
- 10 Wikipedia style and naming
- 11 Wikipedia policies and guidelines
- 12 WikiProjects and collaborations
- 13 Wikipedia technical issues and templates
- 14 Wikipedia proposals
- 15 Unsorted
- 16 User names
Biographies[edit]
| Is the topic Joan Kelley Walker notable as per Wikipedia guidelines for its own stand-alone article? --Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| See above for a prior discussion on this – the question is whether there should be this subsection in Controversies when there is already a full section on this event (2017 purge). Tarafa15 (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
| Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page? RevertBob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should this article mention the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS? The news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
| Should we add the successors of incumbents like this edit? Corky 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
| There is persistent speculation, frequently manifested in news and popular culture, that Prince Harry is the child of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had a relationship. Should his article include this facet of his public image? If so, in what form? Nstouski (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
| Should the following section be added, just before the "additional criteria" section?
This was developed in a long discussion at N, here. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Hi, this image is awful and very poorly reflects the image of the subject. in violation of MOS:IMAGELEAD and wp:blp please see the awful photo here, Doria_Ragland#/media/File:Doria_Ragland.png it was claimed in the previous discussion that the photo is better than nothing, is that the wikipedia policy way? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the 1970 high-school yearbook headshot of Ron Stallworth be used in the "Early life" section of the article? 02:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Requesting comment please so that the article can be edited if needed to be in a place that people agree the close connection disclaimer currently at the top can be removed. My impression is that User:JJMC89 wants it to be reviewed for neutrality. Thanks! Pianolover1979 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
(1) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
(2) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
Please note that both sentences are already in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. They are at the Public reactions and polling section.
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Does the ADF section meet Wikipedia's standards for (1) factual accuracy and (2) neutrality?
63.241.40.127 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| This edit introduced the phrase promotes political violence into the description of Proud Boys in first sentence of the lede, and into the infobox under 'type'.
This RFC does not contest the following lede text which was present in both versions:
Two questions:
|
| Is it appropriate to include material regarding a company's political donations under a CEO's tenure on his BLP? This was previously discussed here, but no consensus was reached.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Background: The most recent infobox RfC on this talk page concluded with 70% support for some kind of infobox, but with 17% in favour of only a default-collapsed infobox, it was ultimately closed as no consensus. The closer suggested a future RfC on the inclusion of a collapsible infobox as a possible next step. This option has recently been brought up again by Willydrach in the section above where it was decided that an RfC was the next step. Let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the consensus on whether a collapsible infobox can serve as a compromise.
Question: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page? Regards, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the opening sentence of this biography describe Louis Farrakhan, in Wikipedia's voice, as an antisemite (in addition to being an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator), or is that an opinion best attributed to its sources elsewhere in the lead section? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
| Due to an ongoing discussion at Tom Pryce, I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.
Should we have it in the infoboxes of British racers - nationalities & flags of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales? See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
| As this discussion is rapidly spinning out of control (witness multiple sections being opened on the same topic and attempts to centralize the discussion being reverted), it appears a more formal (and widely publicized) solution is in order.
The question is: What if anything should we include at this time on the "Nazi salute controversy"? It's also fairly clear we have four choices:
Please indicate your preferences in order from the one that most suits your position to the least suitable, along with your arguments. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should "Aquafadas" remain as part of the Kobo template? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Straight-through processing
| Although a request for citation has been present since May 2017, there have been no citations added to support the claims that Mr James Karat "invented" STP. STP is a well known concept and not an invention created by a single person. It is simply the automation of business processes. There is no mention of what role Mr Karat played in the automation of the process - it appears he was working on an automation project anyway, so is it actually the case that he was the "jobber" and not a business process architect, system architect, system developer or any person who could have claim to "inventing" a concept. It appears that the entries have been made by Mr Karat himself and not someone independent. In fact in April 2016 the Edit History shows Graeme Austin commenting "Origination of phrase is in fact in dispute. James Karat may have been the first but I was deeply involved in STP in the early 90s in London and he is not known to me."
Should references to Mr Karat be removed? Justiceforstp (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
History and geography[edit]
Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident
| How should the infobox for this incident be presented? [1] or [2]? Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Blackwater railway station (Isle of Wight)
| A certain editor objects to this image caption:
He thinks it is too long. My opinion is that the caption is of reasonable length and contains reasonable relevant information needed to understand the picture. Please comment. Mypix (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should tone marks be used in Wade-Giles transliterations? Is it Wei1 Chai2 Shih4 Pʻin1-yin1 or Wei Chai Shih Pʻin-yin?
TLDR: You’d be hard pressed to find anyone other than Wikipedia who transliterates Chinese with Wade-Giles tone marks. I searched for Mao² Tsê²-tung¹ on Gbooks and went away empty handed. Until the early 1980s, Wade-Giles was that standard way to transliterate Chinese characters. It was popularized by A Chinese-English Dictionary (1912) by Herbert Giles. The entry titles in Giles’ dictionary are all-caps and without tone marks: “HUANG.” The idea that the system includes tones marks does not come from the dictionary itself, but rather from usage by Giles in the preface and supplementary tables of his dictionary. The name "Wade-Giles system" is intended to suggest "Wade's system as implemented in Giles dictionary." But in fact the system is usually understood to encompass implementations by Mathew's Dictionary (1943) and others. It is not the property of Herbert Giles. Encyclopedia Britannica`s article on the system includes an extensive list of examples, none of them with tone marks. The multivolume reference work Cambridge History of China is one of the few places where the contemporary reader might encounter Wade-Giles in the wild, so to speak. The CHC implementation does not include tone marks. FineStructure137 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:Campaignbox Vietnam War massacres
| Should massacres in which one side denies an event happened be included in the campaign box? 100.12.237.205 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Please comment on the following proposals for the presentation of the New Caledonian flags. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:List of years in Bulgaria
| Should these "List of years in xxxx" articles go all the way back to the 1600s, even though it's all just redlinks? An anonymous IP has been going round loads of these articles, removing everything before about 1900, and I honestly don't know whether or not to revert them. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
| The usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of the efficient "the British monarch" is improper, and this goes site-wide. With no disrespect to the British, but this site is written in Global English, not "the King's English."-Inowen (nlfte) 01:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC) |
| This article discusses the monarchy of Australia. Should this article use the term "monarch" or "head of state" to describe the monarch? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Can the two maps discussed above be placed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should this page have a military conflict infobox, a civil conflict infobox or no infobox at all? 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations)
| Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations) be adopted as a naming convention?--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should it (or should it not) be mentioned in the lead, that Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Does this article discuss two different things and require a split, or are these two topics relevant enough to stay in one article?Wacape (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
| Can the two maps discussed above be placed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Has the author violated WP protocols?
I have been accused of violating WP protocols in this and other articles. I replaced an accurate article, violating WP: NPOV, NOR, SYN:NOR, UNDUE, OWN. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All of the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article in order to restore the status quo anti which I replaced in 2014. The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace.TBR-qed (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Straight-through processing
| Although a request for citation has been present since May 2017, there have been no citations added to support the claims that Mr James Karat "invented" STP. STP is a well known concept and not an invention created by a single person. It is simply the automation of business processes. There is no mention of what role Mr Karat played in the automation of the process - it appears he was working on an automation project anyway, so is it actually the case that he was the "jobber" and not a business process architect, system architect, system developer or any person who could have claim to "inventing" a concept. It appears that the entries have been made by Mr Karat himself and not someone independent. In fact in April 2016 the Edit History shows Graeme Austin commenting "Origination of phrase is in fact in dispute. James Karat may have been the first but I was deeply involved in STP in the early 90s in London and he is not known to me."
Should references to Mr Karat be removed? Justiceforstp (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the following section be included in the article:
Previous related RfC closed 19 March 2017 is here Talk:Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15/Archive_1#Request_for_comment:_add_three_instances_of_criminal_use Springee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
| There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.
As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:2018 Yilan train derailment
| I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Google+'s reported data exposure be included or excluded from this list? FallingGravity 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should VDARE be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should WorldNetDaily be deprecated as a source in the same way as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use WorldNetDaily as a reference? — Newslinger talk 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Blackwater railway station (Isle of Wight)
| A certain editor objects to this image caption:
He thinks it is too long. My opinion is that the caption is of reasonable length and contains reasonable relevant information needed to understand the picture. Please comment. Mypix (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should this article mention the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS? The news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Background: There are no official reporting agencies for budget or gross figures in Indian cinema. News outlets must rely on their proprietary methods for estimating these values, and sometimes outlets' values conflict.
Some reliable sources, including Times of India[3] have estimated this film's budget at ₹543 crore (₹5.43 billion). Another source generally considered reliable, Bollywood Hungama, has cast doubts on the high figures being reported, presenting a budget estimate of ₹400 crore (₹4 billion).[4] Should we:
Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox television episode
Should the code in data1 be changed from {{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />}}{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}
{{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />|{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}}}
|
| There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.
As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Requesting comment please so that the article can be edited if needed to be in a place that people agree the close connection disclaimer currently at the top can be removed. My impression is that User:JJMC89 wants it to be reviewed for neutrality. Thanks! Pianolover1979 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
| 1. Should this article contain a section about the contemporary artists which it currently mentions?
2. Should "hip house" be used as a genre for contemporary artists making music combining hip hop and electronic dance music? (examples which currently do: Forever (Wolfgang Gartner and will.i.am song), Party Rock Anthem, Like a G6) RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should a lengthy plot section written in colloquial language be added to the article [5] or should the article be left in a bare-bones version with a short plot summary [6] until a more encyclopedic, policy-compliant plot summary can be added? Amisom (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the (alleged) recurring themes be included in the article or does this content fall under WP:NOR? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the (alleged) recurring characters be listed in the article or does this content fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson
| There is disagreement on whether Category:American people with disabilities, Category:Artists with disabilities, Category:Disability media and Category:Disability articles needing expert attention should be retained in this article. One view is that the categories should be retained because Jackson had vitiligo. The other view is that per WP:EGRS, "which requires that categories about disability (and other personal features) only be applied when the subject has reliably and with some consistently been described as disabled and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability," the categories don't belong. Also, Category:Musicians with physical disabilities has been proposed as a replacement for the aforementioned categories. And, additionally, it has been noted that these categories are not in the Michael Jackson article, which is the main biography article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Background: The most recent infobox RfC on this talk page concluded with 70% support for some kind of infobox, but with 17% in favour of only a default-collapsed infobox, it was ultimately closed as no consensus. The closer suggested a future RfC on the inclusion of a collapsible infobox as a possible next step. This option has recently been brought up again by Willydrach in the section above where it was decided that an RfC was the next step. Let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the consensus on whether a collapsible infobox can serve as a compromise.
Question: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page? Regards, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Does this article discuss two different things and require a split, or are these two topics relevant enough to stay in one article?Wacape (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
| Is this article politically biased enough to warrant an NPOV tag? Skirts89 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
| Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page? RevertBob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
| Where should we place terms like 'Acting', 'Elect', 'Designate' etc inside infoboxes of political bios? GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
| Should we add the successors of incumbents like this edit? Corky 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil)
| The following links were added to show that the social liberal party's categorization as far right is disputed.
https://www.heritage.org/americas/commentary/will-jair-bolsonaro-make-brazil-great-again https://www.foxnews.com/world/fascist-populist-debate-over-describing-brazils-bolsonaro The links mentioned above and the "disputed" tag was removed from the article. They were removed with comments that the article does not discuss the party itself. While at the same time, the following citations were allowed to remain, which also do not discuss the party as such, but propose the opposite point of view than the ones that were being presented in the articles that were removed. The effect of removing the links mentioned above while allowing the links given below to remain, was that only a single point of view was allowed to express as a commentary on the political party while the opposing point of views were not allowed to be present. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44919769 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-election.html https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/08/05/politica/1533482571_722395.html I wish to propose that either the other citations which do not discuss the party also be removed on the same grounds that they do not discuss the party as such, or that the 3 links I mentioned above also be added along with a "disputed" tag to show that the "Far-right" designation of the party is disputed. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Wentworth by-election, 2018
| Pertinent to the above discussions, should the infobox exist and should the figures for the two candidates in the box be included? Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the sentence:
be changed to
|
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
| Should the article contain this content on the police investigation into antisemitism? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
| The usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of the efficient "the British monarch" is improper, and this goes site-wide. With no disrespect to the British, but this site is written in Global English, not "the King's English."-Inowen (nlfte) 01:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC) |
| This article discusses the monarchy of Australia. Should this article use the term "monarch" or "head of state" to describe the monarch? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the following section be included in the article:
Previous related RfC closed 19 March 2017 is here Talk:Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15/Archive_1#Request_for_comment:_add_three_instances_of_criminal_use Springee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
(1) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
(2) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
Please note that both sentences are already in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. They are at the Public reactions and polling section.
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
| There has been debate recently about which administrators should be included on school and school district articles. While WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI indicates we should not be including anything other than the principal/head teacher, that is an essay as @Alansohn: has noted. There was a discussion on this talk page on this subject above, but the respondents would have been only those interested in this project. I am therefore seeking wider input via this RfC.
Question: Should school and school district articles include any administrators other than principal/head teacher/headmaster/superintendent even if we have one or more sources to support administrators below the top administrator? Examples: (1) With only the principal; Dublin High School (California) and (2) With others below the principal; Bayonne High School (infobox and Bayonne_High_School#Administration) Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| This edit introduced the phrase promotes political violence into the description of Proud Boys in first sentence of the lede, and into the infobox under 'type'.
This RFC does not contest the following lede text which was present in both versions:
Two questions:
|
Talk:List of cults of personality
| Should this article contain a section on the US? Should that section contain an entry on Donald trump? Edaham (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should it (or should it not) be mentioned in the lead, that Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the opening sentence of this biography describe Louis Farrakhan, in Wikipedia's voice, as an antisemite (in addition to being an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator), or is that an opinion best attributed to its sources elsewhere in the lead section? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
| Should the naming format for elections/referendums be amended to move the year to the front of the title? – re-opened 20 October 2018 by User:Number 57. 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Does this article discuss two different things and require a split, or are these two topics relevant enough to stay in one article?Wacape (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Has the author violated WP protocols?
I have been accused of violating WP protocols in this and other articles. I replaced an accurate article, violating WP: NPOV, NOR, SYN:NOR, UNDUE, OWN. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All of the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article in order to restore the status quo anti which I replaced in 2014. The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace.TBR-qed (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the opening sentence of this biography describe Louis Farrakhan, in Wikipedia's voice, as an antisemite (in addition to being an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator), or is that an opinion best attributed to its sources elsewhere in the lead section? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
| As this discussion is rapidly spinning out of control (witness multiple sections being opened on the same topic and attempts to centralize the discussion being reverted), it appears a more formal (and widely publicized) solution is in order.
The question is: What if anything should we include at this time on the "Nazi salute controversy"? It's also fairly clear we have four choices:
Please indicate your preferences in order from the one that most suits your position to the least suitable, along with your arguments. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should this article mention the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS? The news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Request for comments on the four succeeding images. Which one is better for the lead section of Association football? There are four options: "Current image", "Alternative image", "Option 3" and "Option 4". One Factor (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:F1 Constructors Standings
| I would like to propose that we slightly change the formatting of this table in order to improve the readability of the info. At present, it is quite difficult to distinguish which results relate to which constructor due to there being merged cells for the constructor and points. Towards the beginning and end of the seasons this is less of an issue but during the majority of the season I find myself having to count the number of cells in order to see what result was for each team. I would therefore like to propose that we adjust the table slightly to the format I have prepared here: 11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the sentence:
be changed to
|
Talk:2019 Formula One World Championship
| Seems like this one might split opinions... MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
| There is persistent speculation, frequently manifested in news and popular culture, that Prince Harry is the child of James Hewitt, with whom his mother had a relationship. Should his article include this facet of his public image? If so, in what form? Nstouski (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
| There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.
As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
| There has been debate recently about which administrators should be included on school and school district articles. While WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI indicates we should not be including anything other than the principal/head teacher, that is an essay as @Alansohn: has noted. There was a discussion on this talk page on this subject above, but the respondents would have been only those interested in this project. I am therefore seeking wider input via this RfC.
Question: Should school and school district articles include any administrators other than principal/head teacher/headmaster/superintendent even if we have one or more sources to support administrators below the top administrator? Examples: (1) With only the principal; Dublin High School (California) and (2) With others below the principal; Bayonne High School (infobox and Bayonne_High_School#Administration) Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson
| There is disagreement on whether Category:American people with disabilities, Category:Artists with disabilities, Category:Disability media and Category:Disability articles needing expert attention should be retained in this article. One view is that the categories should be retained because Jackson had vitiligo. The other view is that per WP:EGRS, "which requires that categories about disability (and other personal features) only be applied when the subject has reliably and with some consistently been described as disabled and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability," the categories don't belong. Also, Category:Musicians with physical disabilities has been proposed as a replacement for the aforementioned categories. And, additionally, it has been noted that these categories are not in the Michael Jackson article, which is the main biography article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
| Due to an ongoing discussion at Tom Pryce, I'm seeking a consensus (or lack there of) for making an exemption for British racers' infoboxes.
Should we have it in the infoboxes of British racers - nationalities & flags of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales? See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)
| Whatever the methods the companies use to provide multichannel television services (cable, satellite, analogue terrestrial, DTT, IPTV or OTT), I believe there should be a new disambiguation suffix for such service. How about ([country or area] TV provider)? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 06:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should Wikipedia:Citing sources have an explanatory guideline with a set of accepted citation/footnote styles, with the lists of allowed formats and structures to be decided by future RfCs? Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should tone marks be used in Wade-Giles transliterations? Is it Wei1 Chai2 Shih4 Pʻin1-yin1 or Wei Chai Shih Pʻin-yin?
TLDR: You’d be hard pressed to find anyone other than Wikipedia who transliterates Chinese with Wade-Giles tone marks. I searched for Mao² Tsê²-tung¹ on Gbooks and went away empty handed. Until the early 1980s, Wade-Giles was that standard way to transliterate Chinese characters. It was popularized by A Chinese-English Dictionary (1912) by Herbert Giles. The entry titles in Giles’ dictionary are all-caps and without tone marks: “HUANG.” The idea that the system includes tones marks does not come from the dictionary itself, but rather from usage by Giles in the preface and supplementary tables of his dictionary. The name "Wade-Giles system" is intended to suggest "Wade's system as implemented in Giles dictionary." But in fact the system is usually understood to encompass implementations by Mathew's Dictionary (1943) and others. It is not the property of Herbert Giles. Encyclopedia Britannica`s article on the system includes an extensive list of examples, none of them with tone marks. The multivolume reference work Cambridge History of China is one of the few places where the contemporary reader might encounter Wade-Giles in the wild, so to speak. The CHC implementation does not include tone marks. FineStructure137 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
| I'm a bit irritated by the inconsistency in how Northern Irish people are categorized on Wikipedia. Looking at Category:DJs by nationality, all of the DJs by nationality are categorized by the adjective form (e.g. "American DJs", "Russian DJs", "British DJs", even "Welsh DJs" and "Scottish DJs") but not Northern Irish DJs who are categorized as "DJs from Northern Ireland". I don't like this at all! I once started a CfD to change the DJs category but it was opposed on the basis that all the other Northern Irish people categories use the "xxx from Northern Ireland" form. So I'm proposing to change it on a wider scale, changing all category instances of "xxx from Northern Ireland" to "Northern Irish xxx" for consistency with the other similar categories of different countries. Flooded with them hundreds 13:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox organization
| Should the "motto" parameter be removed from this infobox? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the new proposed convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (works of art) be adopted? 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations)
| Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations) be adopted as a naming convention?--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
| Should the naming format for elections/referendums be amended to move the year to the front of the title? – re-opened 20 October 2018 by User:Number 57. 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Should the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper be replaced with a new version along the lines of the following text?
--21:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should Wikipedia:Citing sources have an explanatory guideline with a set of accepted citation/footnote styles, with the lists of allowed formats and structures to be decided by future RfCs? Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Should the acronym WP:NOTNEWS (of "Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper") be replaced with WP:NOTROUTINENEWS, WP:NOTTRIVIALNEWS, or a similar new shorthand?
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| After what is turning out to be an unsuccessful proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal/RfC - Extend WP:U5 to the draftspace, I have come up with something new. I reckon that we should allow proposed deletions in the draftspace. This will ensure that things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO trash can be PRODed instead of having to go into WP:MfD. Also, WP:PROD has a seven-day wait most of the time before the page is deleted so it can mean that things can be deleted after seven days with proposed deletions in the draftspace without having to go to WP:MfD for basic things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO which have no chance and obviously will get deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Following a prior discussion, I propose we institute an activity requirement for BAG members, much like Admins have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| I am going to propose that WP:U5 gets extended to the draftspace. This is because the draftspace is being abused in a way that there are so many drafts being found daily which are basically WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is mainly point 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST which I am seeing in loads of drafts. Rule 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST is "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace." and I am seeing that new users are using the draftspace in a way so that WP:U5 can be escaped because WP:U5 does not apply to the draftspace at the moment. If this is implemented, there will be less drafts coming to WP:MfD daily that could actually do with being speedily deleted per WP:U5.
My new proposed wording for WP:U5 is: Pages in userspace or draftspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages and drafts, with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should Wikipedia have one set of criteria about articles on schools up to and including the high school level and a different set for articles on schools of higher education? (I.e. beyond high school, e.g. universities.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| Criterion G6 is overloaded with many different things all lumped together as "uncontroversial maintenance" and is the most frequently abused of all criteria. It would never be approved if proposed as is today. The best way to solve this, in my opinion, is to unbundle the various different reasons into separate criteria that are individually objective. I'm not proposing to do this all at once, but to work on it step-by-step so that objections to one aspect don't derail the whole thing.
One aspect of G6 stands out as being a particularly poor fit with the rest: "Deleting redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Commons)." Accordingly I propose to move this criterion, without any changes, from G6 to a new R4 for these reasons:
This does not change what can be speedy deleted, just under which criterion is gets speedy deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil)
| Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view clearly states that if an opnion is stated in a news then it must be clarified in the encyclopedia entry that it is opinion of someone and not a fact
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view The citations given are from websites with questionable integrity like infomoney.br, of whose charter and aims we know nothing about. Also the citations do not explain at all why the labelling of "far-right" has been done, it just uses it casually. It is highly improper to use newspaper articles in this manner. News can be used as citation to say "event x occurred", but not as a conclusive evidence to say "x is a bad person" or "x is a far right" or "x is a far left". I disagree with this kind of biased approach and I request for comments. Berzerker king (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should we make this template hidden in the article mainspace with a code to those who doesn't logged in, especially readers? The articles that linked using this template are mostly only in the interest of the editors and often distract the readers who come here only to read (example: Fair use, Internet troll, International Phonetic Alphabet). We already put links to the project page at the left bar and from the Main Page. Some would probably argue that this hatnote would attract new editors, however that's not our purpose, our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote: "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for", most readers not even intended to look for the project namespace in the first place. This discussion is almost similar to WP:CNR. Hddty. (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
| Should the following section be added, just before the "additional criteria" section?
This was developed in a long discussion at N, here. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
Concerning this 9 year old sentence:
Should this sentence be removed and the text changed to explicitly apply to talk pages, or is the above line a reasonable explanation of the first line of WP:NPOV in that the NPOV policy (and its supplements) only apply to encyclopedic content and not talk pages? -Obsidi (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Should the following section be included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources?
— Newslinger talk 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations
| How do we fix this backlog and make sure it doesn't come back again?Lurking shadow (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates[edit]
Template talk:Campaignbox Vietnam War massacres
| Should massacres in which one side denies an event happened be included in the campaign box? 100.12.237.205 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:F1 Constructors Standings
| I would like to propose that we slightly change the formatting of this table in order to improve the readability of the info. At present, it is quite difficult to distinguish which results relate to which constructor due to there being merged cells for the constructor and points. Towards the beginning and end of the seasons this is less of an issue but during the majority of the season I find myself having to count the number of cells in order to see what result was for each team. I would therefore like to propose that we adjust the table slightly to the format I have prepared here: 11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should we make this template hidden in the article mainspace with a code to those who doesn't logged in, especially readers? The articles that linked using this template are mostly only in the interest of the editors and often distract the readers who come here only to read (example: Fair use, Internet troll, International Phonetic Alphabet). We already put links to the project page at the left bar and from the Main Page. Some would probably argue that this hatnote would attract new editors, however that's not our purpose, our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote: "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for", most readers not even intended to look for the project namespace in the first place. This discussion is almost similar to WP:CNR. Hddty. (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox television episode
Should the code in data1 be changed from {{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />}}{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}
{{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />|{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}}}
|
| Should the deletion, protection, and move log for the corresponding draft article be shown at a non-existing mainspace article? wumbolo ^^^ 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)
| Whatever the methods the companies use to provide multichannel television services (cable, satellite, analogue terrestrial, DTT, IPTV or OTT), I believe there should be a new disambiguation suffix for such service. How about ([country or area] TV provider)? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 06:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should VDARE be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should WorldNetDaily be deprecated as a source in the same way as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use WorldNetDaily as a reference? — Newslinger talk 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:F1 Constructors Standings
| I would like to propose that we slightly change the formatting of this table in order to improve the readability of the info. At present, it is quite difficult to distinguish which results relate to which constructor due to there being merged cells for the constructor and points. Towards the beginning and end of the seasons this is less of an issue but during the majority of the season I find myself having to count the number of cells in order to see what result was for each team. I would therefore like to propose that we adjust the table slightly to the format I have prepared here: 11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
Unsorted[edit]
User names[edit]
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.
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[edit]
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.