Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| 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) |
- ^ a b Cammeron, Brenna (August 14, 2017). "Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise". BBC News. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
- ^ a b "Who are the Antifa?", Anti-Defamation League, 2017; retrieved June 12, 2018.