Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
editIn the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
| Should this story be included in the article?
"In January 2022, Mbappé was involved in a minor traffic accident, after the car he was in was struck by a drunk driver. He did not suffer any major injuries." -- FMSky (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
What should be present in the first sentence of the article?
|
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we add a "Personal life" section to reference her relationships, health struggles, activism, and religion? natemup (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the lead include claims of Indian interference in the lead? Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
| From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
 — Caption may be added to tie graphic to narrative text such as User Space4Time3Continuum2x's recently added narrative. The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
edit| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Universal basic income by country
| Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party.[1]" - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nashville International Airport
| Should BNA have maps showing domestic and international destinations? King airaglub (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
| Should the word "pseudoscientific" be in the first sentence of the lead? Vells (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography
edit| Should this article include an infobox? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? Herostratus (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Comments would be appreciated to achieve an accurate and supportable consensus regarding references to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut - an unincorporated village which is sometimes referred to as Storrs. The community is notably home to the main campus of the University of Connecticut, and, naturally reflects cultural differences both as a New England fixture but also due to some misplaced or incorrect historical usage.
The request would be to alter the lead section of the article to read as follows:
Several points of discussion, including the preference and differences between census-designated place boundaries and postal town boundaries are included on the article talk page. It is not appropriate to immediately dismiss the need for a new consensus, due to the substantial official and community usage of both names. Thank you, Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:
Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is) Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening) Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening) Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.) Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? |
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
edit| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
| There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
edit| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? |
| There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Find your source
| How should Bypass Paywalls Clean (a browser extension that circumvents paywalls on news websites) be listed in Wikipedia:Find your source § Newspaper articles? — Newslinger talk 06:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
edit| In light of the recent rebranding, there’s been a lot of back and forth about whether X (social network) and Twitter are different media services. We’ve seen many discussions on this topic, but there’s still no clear consensus on how to move forward.
The closer of a recent RM noted this: |
| Should the article contain the flag-reenactment and Japanese reaction sections added in this and this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we add a "Personal life" section to reference her relationships, health struggles, activism, and religion? natemup (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we refer to season numbers, primarily, as their networks' season number instead of overall season number? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:
RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
edit| Should this article include an infobox? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:
Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is) Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening) Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening) Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.) Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Universal basic income by country
| Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party.[1]" - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the party be described in the lead as centrist or conservative? JSwift49 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the subject in the article (the Islamic Action Front) be classified as Right-wing or Far-right? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the short description for the page include the label "white-supremacist"?
A review of the term as used by reliable sources cited on the page can be seen here. ClifV (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:
RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Eurocommunism be placed in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
| During the close request for a the previous RFC I suggested that a consensus could be found if the options were narrowed. The two remaining options received the most support.
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as: |
| — Caption may be added to tie graphic to narrative text such as User Space4Time3Continuum2x's recently added narrative. The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
edit| Request for Comment: Does the section on Josephology give undue weight to this article?
I am seeking community input regarding the current description of the Josephology in this "Catholic theology" article. I believe that Josephology is central to Catholic theology as major doctrinal topics like Christology, Triadology, or Mariology, which are more widely recognized as pillars of Catholic theology. I propose that the description of Josephology should be there to ensure that the article maintains a balanced and proportionate representation of Catholic theology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Has the neutrality of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022?
Current:Landmark Worldwide Feb 2022: [1] Diff[2] DaveApter (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
Society, sports, and culture
edit| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Hazaras people be included in this template, a navbox? This RfC was malformatted, so I'm assuming this is what @Joseph—the guy who opened this RfC—meant to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use Bitcoin? Note Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ says to use lowercase bitcoin in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Has the neutrality of this article been improved or compromised, by changes made since the lifting of Discretionary Sanctions in February 2022?
Current:Landmark Worldwide Feb 2022: [3] Diff[4] DaveApter (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
| Should the word "pseudoscientific" be in the first sentence of the lead? Vells (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
| From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ a b "Policies - Sustainable Australia Party". sustainableaustralia.org.au. Sustainable Australia Party. Retrieved 23 March 2024.