Should the first paragraph of the article mention that Hari was disgraced for plagiarism and fabrication, and that experts question the reliability of his current books? The first paragraph is excerpted in the Google results page for “Johann Hari” so it is of particular significance.
Which of the following statements (all verifiable and due) about the critical reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League should be included in the article? And should the consensus here establish a precedent for future discussions about which sentiment to include on the film's other starring actors' BLPs (e.g., Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, etc.)?
A "The cut generated a mixed critical reception."
B "Most critics considered it an improvement over the theatrical cut."
C "Regarded by critics as an improvement over the theatrical version, the cut generated a mixed critical reception."
D "The cut generated a mixed reception, but better received than the theatrical cut."
Not to be confused with Marquis Who’s Who. Which of these best describes the reliability of Who’s Who (UK) , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)
Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [1], [2], [3]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Seeking opinions as to inclusion of the full quote of Yarvin's statement, cited to this primary source? The current version includes a partial quote, cited to two secondary sources (Atlantic article, a book on online extremists). Proposed additional content in bold: "It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot)." sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There's been some edit conflicts from people when it comes to the lead image. I think it's fair to hold an RfC to see which image should be used for this article. Option A is a photo from 2019, Option B is a photo from 2009, and Option C is from 2011. shanghai.talk to me 18:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A) Shekhar Gupta’s views of Chellaney be included in the article?
B) some of the criticisms ([4] & [5]) of Chellaney’s application of his debt trap diplomacy theory to the case of China's takeover of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port be removed?
Should the article use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves", or should it use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans"? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Is there any and what valid reason per WP:NPOV to exclude from citation Croatian and other international sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Should 'Arabian Gulf' be included as an alternative name in the first sentence, and if so how?
Option A: sometimes called the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option B: referred to in Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option C: Exclude from the lead
This article has experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead. There have been numerous discussions, usually short, and one RfC in 2007, which was not formally closed, and it's not readily apparent what the consensus was. Whichever way this RfC lands, it would be helpful to have a solid consensus to point to when editors add or remove 'Arabian Gulf' from the lead. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Is the "country" infobox useful in this article about a period in the history of a former country, the Kingdom of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Question: Should the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers" be included in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang
Option D: Replace the current first sentence with some other descriptive sentence.
How should dualled place names generally be presented in an articles lede and infobox, when the dual name is not the common name?
A: As at Uluru - Both individual names and dual name in the lede as WP:ALTNAMES, with the title as the leading name. Both individual names in infobox.
B: As at Disentis - Both individual names and dual name in lede as WP:ALTNAMES, with the title as the leading name. Dual name in infobox.
C: As at Bradshaw Sound - Only the dual name in lede, dual name in infobox.
The RFC is held at this central location as it affects articles about places in Australia, France, New Zealand, and Switzerland, but it is not intended to alter the MOS. The context of the RFC is ongoing debate about the ideal format, which this RFC is intended to resolve in a consistent manner. 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Can Lord Hardinge, and Harcourt Butler be termed as the founders of the university, for they laid the foundation stone, and presented the bill in parliament, as then Education Minister and Viceroy respectively?
Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [6], [7], [8]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language punditWilliam Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />"
This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see the above "Stating the number of countries in which the tiger is found"
I would like to state the number of tigers in Tibet in the third paragraph of the article. BhagyaMani disagrees.
Specifically, I propose
"India's tiger population was estimated at 2,603–3,346 individuals by 2018. Around 300–500 individuals are estimated in Bangladesh, 220–274 in Nepal, 103 in Bhutan as of 2005, and 10-12 in Tibet. BrightOrion (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
We've been discussing the use of WP:excerpts a lot, but haven't really come to a conclusion about when their advantages outweight their disadvantages. I'm starting an RfC to establish consensus about when to use them, to get a broader input. I hope that we can develop best practises, that may also be used outside of this particular article.
A No particular restrictions
B Only use them when the original text is (1) fully cited & a comment is place in the original article that cites should not be removed (some editors prefer leads to be citation-free, which is allowed per WP:LEADCITE)
C Only use them as above + (2) the text is either recently reviewed (GA/FA), or reviewed by the person replacing article text with an excerpt for basic accuracy + prose quality.
D Only use them as above + (3) also make sure there is no duplication of information with rest of article.
The edit has beenrevertedtwice, the first time with the summary "Already covered in COVID-19 section" (there has been none before) and the other saying that it fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and notability ("not a substantial part of history").
Should the information about the research on the drug about COVID-19 and the rise of popularity of the drug in Poland be included? The model text is quoted [9][10] in these two diffs (for the visual version, see here). Some minor modifications are of course possible. See also Polish Wikipedia. I am able to provide translations from Polish, if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below SSHWS colors, which increase the contrast between the hurricane colors. Please place comments in the formal discussion section below. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:
The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.[12][13] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,[14] fomenting tensions between the US and China.[15] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.[16][17]
QUESTION: Should the following sentence be added to the lead...
Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.[18][19]
... so that it reads ...
The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.[12][13]Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.[18][19] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,[14] fomenting tensions between the US and China.[15] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.[16][17]
Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences (Fire-type, Water-type, Grass-type) or not (fire-type, water-type, grass-type)? Mlb96 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
With the amount of reliable media sources that describe it as such, should The Pinkprint be described as critically acclaimed? shanghai.talk to me 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Should we (A) Should we keep cases filed by Prince Charles and his family against either the Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) or MailOnline here, or (B) should we try to be as accurate as possible and simply move them and other cases that do not necessarily involve Daily Mail to a new subsection on the Mail on Sunday, ANL or MailOnline articles? Keivan.fTalk 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Which of the following statements (all verifiable and due) about the critical reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League should be included in the article? And should the consensus here establish a precedent for future discussions about which sentiment to include on the film's other starring actors' BLPs (e.g., Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, etc.)?
A "The cut generated a mixed critical reception."
B "Most critics considered it an improvement over the theatrical cut."
C "Regarded by critics as an improvement over the theatrical version, the cut generated a mixed critical reception."
D "The cut generated a mixed reception, but better received than the theatrical cut."
Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page. A previous discussion happened above in this section, but an involved editor disputed the consensus from this discussion based on how few editors were involved. Thus, I have started this RfC to gain more involvement as low participation is a valid concern.
The list should not include this information and limit itself just to describing the disability of the character(s); (Table 1)
Add an additional column to the list titled "Character Notes" to include this information and other character descriptors that readers might find interesting or relate to, keeping the disability information in a "Disabilities" column; (Table 2)
The list should include this information in the "Notes" section (status quo) (Table 3)
Should the rule from WP:FILMPLOT "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the `cast` section" be followed rigorously, or not at all? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has twice removed the word "funeral march" from the description of the slow movement. He has justified this by saying that the tempo marking on the movement only mentions "marcia" and does not mention funeral. However, the form is unquestionably that of a Funeral March and not of, for example, a military march, and it is universally referred to in the literature as a funeral march. When I restored the term funeral march to the article, I added a reference, but the anonymous editor removed it again.
I do not want to edit war with this editor, so I am referring to the hive mind to adjudicate the matter. I will abstain from editing for a few days while responses gather here like bees to a honeypot.
West's influence extends far beyond rap, and several current musical acts have publicly expressed that they were influenced by him, or have multiple media outlets saying that their music is influenced by West (eg - Billie Eillish, Frank Ocean etc). He has a lot of influence in hip hop, but also on mainstream pop, RNB and other genres. I think we should change 'one of the most influential rappers of all time' to 'one of the most influential musical artists of all time'.
If that sounds too grandiose, 'one of the most influential musical artists of the 21st century' is also appriopriate. 59.93.255.148 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Should Fox News be described as a "conservative cable news television channel" or should the word "Conservative" be removed from the first sentence without removing other mentions of conservative bias from the lead? KlammedyKlamKlam:Nosh 20:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to expand this list with online encyclopedias that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I believe they are relevant to Wikipedia but don't necessarily need their own articles (other encyclopedia lists also have items without an article). I would use this list compiled for Wikidata properties - plenty of important, academic encyclopedias. When I tried to start expanding the list, my edits were reverted by @MrOllie:. See our discussion about this here. One of his concerns was that the list would be filled with fan wikis - this can be avoided easily that the list only includes non-open reference works. Anyway, could you chip in and tell if it's okay for me to expand the article? Thanks.
Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the "C" company in The CW be referenced as "CBS" or "CBS Corporation"? 2600:1700:C960:2270:8843:93B0:8C46:3FA8 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Should there be an epithets parameter in the infobox?
I think there should be, since most comic book characters have epithets, and also to prevent people from mistaking epithets for aliases and putting them in the aliases section, a mistake I have seen frequently in character articles. Any thoughts? SinkingInMercury (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Should we limit the infobox to the party's key/main ideologies, which I propose as: environmentalism, animal rights and animal welfare. Helper201 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
What evidence do we have of the reliability of Századvég as a pollster? Do they fairly poll respondents across a broad range of all ages and demographics, weight age and sex of respondents etc and ask questions in a neutral manner? For example, if the questions were worded exactly how they are set to be in the proposed changes set out in the referendum, then there could be accusations levelled against their neutrality and wording. Do they have any links to the Hungarian government? I think it is also important that we note how the questions in the poll were worded, the number of people polled and the demographics of those who were polled. Preferably we should also include polls from more than one pollster/polling organisation. Helper201 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The edit has beenrevertedtwice, the first time with the summary "Already covered in COVID-19 section" (there has been none before) and the other saying that it fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and notability ("not a substantial part of history").
Should the information about the research on the drug about COVID-19 and the rise of popularity of the drug in Poland be included? The model text is quoted [11][12] in these two diffs (for the visual version, see here). Some minor modifications are of course possible. See also Polish Wikipedia. I am able to provide translations from Polish, if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Should 'Arabian Gulf' be included as an alternative name in the first sentence, and if so how?
Option A: sometimes called the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option B: referred to in Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option C: Exclude from the lead
This article has experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead. There have been numerous discussions, usually short, and one RfC in 2007, which was not formally closed, and it's not readily apparent what the consensus was. Whichever way this RfC lands, it would be helpful to have a solid consensus to point to when editors add or remove 'Arabian Gulf' from the lead. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Any topics covered by discretionary sanctions are usually divisive enough to invite vandalism. With that in mind, aren't all discretionary sanction topics divisive enough to be deleted? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
A significant amount of Talk page discussion and reverting has focused on the question of whether or not to include a summary of the subsection of the article dealing with Controversies in the lead section. The RFC is to determine if consensus among editors is that article should or should not include a summary of the Controversies section in the lead section, and what form it should take if consensus is that some version of a summary of the Controversies section should be included in the lead section.
Option (A): The lead section should not include a summary of the subsection on Controversies in the lead section, since the article is ostensively about the sporting events taking place at the Olympics.
Option (B): Include a neutral version of a summary of the subsection on Controversies which does not single out any of the nearly two dozen Controversies currently listed in the subsection on Controversies.
Option (C): Include a version of the summary of the subsection on Controversies which lists the human rights issues and Ugyur controversies as examples of the many Controversies currently taking place at the Winter Olympics.
Option (D): Other options.
Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
A) Shekhar Gupta’s views of Chellaney be included in the article?
B) some of the criticisms ([13] & [14]) of Chellaney’s application of his debt trap diplomacy theory to the case of China's takeover of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port be removed?
Question: Should the "Fascism" sidebar and "fascist" categories such as "Spanish fascists", "Christian fascists" and "Fascist rulers" be included in this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language punditWilliam Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />"
This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the desecrations of the Terry Fox statue and the National War Memorial in the lead section of the article? -"GhostofDan Gurney" 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang
Option D: Replace the current first sentence with some other descriptive sentence.
Request for consensus: Should the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" be removed because the category "Category:Extremism" already properly covers the term "wingnut"? --Nicholas0 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the sentence While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit be changed to While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element or regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit, that is, the "and" replaced with an "or"? BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Should we have a longer or shorter description of Brian Rose's podcasting work around the COVID-19 pandemic? Two possible versions for the article text are given. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang
Option D: Replace the current first sentence with some other descriptive sentence.
Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences (Fire-type, Water-type, Grass-type) or not (fire-type, water-type, grass-type)? Mlb96 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
For each of the sports below, should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability? There is one survey for each sub-guideline that includes this presumption, in order to allow each sport to be treated individually.
Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page. A previous discussion happened above in this section, but an involved editor disputed the consensus from this discussion based on how few editors were involved. Thus, I have started this RfC to gain more involvement as low participation is a valid concern.
The list should not include this information and limit itself just to describing the disability of the character(s); (Table 1)
Add an additional column to the list titled "Character Notes" to include this information and other character descriptors that readers might find interesting or relate to, keeping the disability information in a "Disabilities" column; (Table 2)
The list should include this information in the "Notes" section (status quo) (Table 3)
Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
A significant amount of Talk page discussion and reverting has focused on the question of whether or not to include a summary of the subsection of the article dealing with Controversies in the lead section. The RFC is to determine if consensus among editors is that article should or should not include a summary of the Controversies section in the lead section, and what form it should take if consensus is that some version of a summary of the Controversies section should be included in the lead section.
Option (A): The lead section should not include a summary of the subsection on Controversies in the lead section, since the article is ostensively about the sporting events taking place at the Olympics.
Option (B): Include a neutral version of a summary of the subsection on Controversies which does not single out any of the nearly two dozen Controversies currently listed in the subsection on Controversies.
Option (C): Include a version of the summary of the subsection on Controversies which lists the human rights issues and Ugyur controversies as examples of the many Controversies currently taking place at the Winter Olympics.
Option (D): Other options.
Editors are requested to await the conclusion of the RFC before adding further edits about Controversies into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Question: Is there sufficient material in the body of the article for the following sentence (with refs as indicated) to be added to the lede:
"According to language punditWilliam Safire, the term derives from the older phrase "right-wing nut",<ref name=safire2008 /> and although it is occasionally directed at extremists on the political left, it is primarily aimed at those on the far-right.<ref name=safire2006 /><ref name=safire2008 /><ref name="nytimeswingnut" /><ref name=lexico />"
This version of the article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the desecrations of the Terry Fox statue and the National War Memorial in the lead section of the article? -"GhostofDan Gurney" 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What changes should be made to the first sentence of this article?
Option A: Change the first sentence to The Uyghur genocide is the series of ongoing human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.
Option B: Change the first sentence to "The Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option B2 Change the first sentence to "Since 2014, the Chinese government has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang, often characterized as genocide."
Option C: Change the first sentence to The allegations of oppression of the Uighur ethnic group, that some Western academics have characterized as a genocide, constitute a series of alleged human rights abuses committed by the government of China against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang
Option D: Replace the current first sentence with some other descriptive sentence.
I would like to expand this list with online encyclopedias that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I believe they are relevant to Wikipedia but don't necessarily need their own articles (other encyclopedia lists also have items without an article). I would use this list compiled for Wikidata properties - plenty of important, academic encyclopedias. When I tried to start expanding the list, my edits were reverted by @MrOllie:. See our discussion about this here. One of his concerns was that the list would be filled with fan wikis - this can be avoided easily that the list only includes non-open reference works. Anyway, could you chip in and tell if it's okay for me to expand the article? Thanks.
Adam Harangozó (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences (Fire-type, Water-type, Grass-type) or not (fire-type, water-type, grass-type)? Mlb96 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Should 'Arabian Gulf' be included as an alternative name in the first sentence, and if so how?
Option A: sometimes called the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option B: referred to in Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
Option C: Exclude from the lead
This article has experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead. There have been numerous discussions, usually short, and one RfC in 2007, which was not formally closed, and it's not readily apparent what the consensus was. Whichever way this RfC lands, it would be helpful to have a solid consensus to point to when editors add or remove 'Arabian Gulf' from the lead. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Should the origin change to just Acre without a mention of Israel? The dish clearly originated before the establishment of the State of Israel (1948). JJNito197 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
How should dualled place names generally be presented in an articles lede and infobox, when the dual name is not the common name?
A: As at Uluru - Both individual names and dual name in the lede as WP:ALTNAMES, with the title as the leading name. Both individual names in infobox.
B: As at Disentis - Both individual names and dual name in lede as WP:ALTNAMES, with the title as the leading name. Dual name in infobox.
C: As at Bradshaw Sound - Only the dual name in lede, dual name in infobox.
The RFC is held at this central location as it affects articles about places in Australia, France, New Zealand, and Switzerland, but it is not intended to alter the MOS. The context of the RFC is ongoing debate about the ideal format, which this RFC is intended to resolve in a consistent manner. 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below SSHWS colors, which increase the contrast between the hurricane colors. Please place comments in the formal discussion section below. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
For each of the sports below, should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability? There is one survey for each sub-guideline that includes this presumption, in order to allow each sport to be treated individually.
Since most of the people opposing have supported a longer period, I'd like to propose that anything over 90 days old should be ineligible for draftification without consensus at AfD. I'm putting this in a separate section so we can get more clarity on what the consensus is. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion's instructions and user scripts were recently changed from placing new entries at the top, to placing new entries at the bottom. Should we revert to old way (new entries on top), or keep the new way (new entries on bottom)? Changing involves updating multiple pages and user scripts, so let's get a clear consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [15], [16], [17]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I screwed up and erroneously contested a reasonable CSD over the redirect Mike Hart (outfieldr, born 1951), instead causing it to be sent to RFD, wasting other editors' time. I did this because R3 contains the phrase "Implausible typo", which leads to the idea that plausible typos (such as forgetting a letter, as was the case in the CSD I contested) should be kept, or at least sent to RFD. After Tamzin (talk· contribs) told me about what I did wrong, I cast my non-vote as Delete and then proceeded to type this up.
Overall, the word "Typo" in R3 implies that redirects that are NOT plausible, intentional search terms, but are still likely to be accidentally typed, should be kept. This is not the case, and as such, I think we should remove the term "Typo" from the page. This both reduces confusion and sets a clear precedent for dealing with such redirects, as they are now "Implausible Misnomers" and can therefore be deleted. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The current colors have been used across weather for the past decade. I believe these colors are hard to distinguish between on track maps for the dots, particularly between the Category 1-4 range. There simply isn't enough contrast between the colors to tell them apart (C1 and C2, C2 and C3, C3 and C4). This has presented a challenge for me as a reader and editor with normal color vision and decent eyesight with glasses. I have to open the full resolution to tell the difference between the colors and even then it can be a challenge for some. This issue would be even worse for color-blind editors. On the grounds of WP:ACCESS, I am proposing a change to the below SSHWS colors, which increase the contrast between the hurricane colors. Please place comments in the formal discussion section below. NoahTalk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Which icon should replace the currently used ones for PDF files? At #RFC: New PDF icon there was consensus to replace the current PDF icon (File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif) with one that is not based on the Adobe Acrobat logo, but not on a specific replacement. At #Further discussion (PDF icon) all the public domain icons currently available at Wikimedia Commons that are not based on the Acrobat logo were considered and three identified as clearly better than the others, this RFC seeks to determine which of those options should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, what do we think about choosing a different image for this template's top icon? Opinions on the suggested changes? Something different? Thank you for your contributions. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) — Extended. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Should there be an epithets parameter in the infobox?
I think there should be, since most comic book characters have epithets, and also to prevent people from mistaking epithets for aliases and putting them in the aliases section, a mistake I have seen frequently in character articles. Any thoughts? SinkingInMercury (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the Growth features be given to 100% of new accounts, making them the default onboarding experience for English Wikipedia newcomers? -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed [18] to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.
My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news.
Not to be confused with Marquis Who’s Who. Which of these best describes the reliability of Who’s Who (UK) , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)
Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
What is the reliability of Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA)? They are not user-generated content and they try to distinguish themselves from websites like IMDB and it also looks like they fact-check/verify their information with the primary source with a green tick. Past discussions here look like there is no clear consensus on BTVA. After this RfC, I think we should consider putting it on WP:RSP. Here are the past discussions [1], [2], [3], and [4].
Option 1: Generally reliable for the voice or actor of a character/entertainment news
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual news
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated
Which format should we prefer to clarify the surname of biographical subjects with non-English names: hatnotes, explanatory notes, or something else? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Which icon should replace the currently used ones for PDF files? At #RFC: New PDF icon there was consensus to replace the current PDF icon (File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif) with one that is not based on the Adobe Acrobat logo, but not on a specific replacement. At #Further discussion (PDF icon) all the public domain icons currently available at Wikimedia Commons that are not based on the Acrobat logo were considered and three identified as clearly better than the others, this RFC seeks to determine which of those options should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This page has been nominated to be moved to ‘Bengaluru’ 12 times! I think that there should be a moratorium to prevent discussions from happening too frequently. For how long, I’m unsure, but other editors can suggest how long down below. Ale3353 (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Editors above dispute the reliability of Chinese academic publications on subjects censored by the Chinese government. Does the community think Chinese academic publications are WP:INDEPENDENT on subjects censored by the Chinese government?
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:
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 ~~~~}}.
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.
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
, which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)
) with one that is not based on the Adobe Acrobat logo, but not on a specific replacement. At #Further discussion (PDF icon) all the public domain icons currently available at Wikimedia Commons that are not based on the Acrobat logo were considered and three identified as clearly better than the others, this RFC seeks to determine which of those options should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)