Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture

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

Talk:Darts world rankings

I'm requesting comments for what constitutes the official World Rankings for darts put simply the world governing body is the World Darts Federation which globally ranks players competing in all WDF recognised tournaments the result of the Tomlin order findings were that the Professional Darts Corporation recognised the WDF as the governing body of the sport as stated in Anne Kramers book The Ultimate Book of Darts: A Complete Guide to Games, Gear, Terms, and Rules. my main issue is that I added the WDF ranking for players articles e.g. Darius Labanauskas who is the current World No1 according to the WDF here: http://www.dartswdf.com/tables/world-darts-federation-rankings/wdf-mens-rankings/ these keep being reverted on the basis that the British Darts Organisation rankings are the official world ranking and this is not the case their rankings are used to determine qualification and seedings for tournaments it runs and for players only registered with them and they are one of 66 national bodies federated to the WDF. The WDF is officially registered with SportAccord as are FIFA I believe the BDO rankings should be either be a separate article or that we change the template infobox for darts players to include both.--Navops47 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Veganism

This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article? Zippy268 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input, since the discussion below, this, this and the related discussion at Talk:Woman indicate that wider input is needed. My commentary below is the older commentary. The RfC concerns whether or not to expand the guideline that was formed via this discussion to cover all topics about large human populations. Some editors also wonder whether the guideline should only focus on lead images. I will alert the WP:Image use policy talk page and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States

I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Other editors seem to disagree with me, and it would be good to have some additional eyes on this. See above discussion under Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it although I think this same critique applies to lists of incidents outside the colleage campuses section. Thanks.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

Many of the snooker player and tournament articles depend on self-published sources. Do they violate WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLOGS? Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

I've gone ahead and turned this poll into a WP:RfC. The WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include regarding Lawrence's ties to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. For more information regarding the dispute, see the discussion above on the article talk page. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charli XCX

Per MOS:SURNAME, a person should be referred to by her surname in subsequent mentions, and pseudonymous surnames should be used for people who are best known by pseudonyms. According to this guideline, referring to the singer as "XCX" in subsequent uses as a pseudonymous surname may be appropriate, although I can see an argument that "XCX" is not a proper surname. Looking at relevant articles, the styles used are very inconsistent. For example, this article uses "Charli XCX"; Boom Clap uses "XCX"; and Sucker (album) uses "Charli". It may be a good idea to standardize the style across different articles, but which style should be used? sst✈ 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Shall the |image_size = parameter be retained or removed from infobox? --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Media franchise

(For those joined us from Wikipedia:Requests for comment, we are discussing about whether the Engrish term media mix deserves an own entry or not, when it is no different from 'Western' media franchise.) 07:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT in Islam

Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from: "Today, in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted." To: "Prejudice remains, both socially (edit: or) and legally, in most of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts." Beyond a problem of a clear generalization being presented in regard to LGBT people not being "socially accepted", the issue here, that has already received a lengthy introduction in the previous two paragraphs, is one of prejudice. As the next sentence clearly demonstrates, the issue may frequently be a matter of life and death. "... In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty." In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned. I will leave a link to this thread at WP:LGBT and WP:Islam and Ping recent contributors to the article: Alexis Ivanov, AstroLynx, BethNaught, Bgwhite, BorgQueen, Chrisdike95, Contaldo80, Deisenbe, DMacks, Dialectric, Erodes43, Flyer22 Reborn, GermanJoe, GorgeCustersSabre, I dream of horses, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Instantpancakes350, JCO312, Jeff5102, Lutipri, Maplestrip, Nematsadat, Nøkkenbuer, Philip Trueman, Rupert loup, Serols, Tadeusz Nowak, Talebhaq, Tymon.r, Winner 42 GregKaye 10:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II

The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Tomahawk

Include your !votes in the Survey. Yes means to remove the adjective. No means to keep the adjective. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion. If any editors want any other RFCs, I will try to work with them to develop neutrally worded RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.