Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For more information, see the main page Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
This page transcludes multiple pages: click if out of date.
DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE TO ADD REQUESTS! Please put requests on the appropriate subpage.
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
| Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][2]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| *Question: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK? 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Elizabeth Warren {{rfcquote|text= Re: [1]
As far as I can see, User:Marteau's sole rationale for inclusion is that it has been reported in a couple of places. I direct them to WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. Is this information significant or relevant enough to include? If so, how? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)|Marteau]]'s sole rationale for inclusion is that it has been reported in a couple of places. I direct them to WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. Is this information significant or relevant enough to include? If so, how? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)]] Talk:Mohamed Hadid
Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?
|
Should the following sentence be added to a new Early Life section?
Sources: Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio sufficiently notable in her own right to have a separate article in Wikipedia?
Comments
|
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
| To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded TALK 15:39, 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) |
| Is the opening sentence under the section "Early and personal life" supported by the source? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:15, 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) |
| Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
| As you can see from the section above, we have a dispute that is getting a little heated concerning the extent to which critical comments about the subject should be covered. The current sticking point seems to be over the content added in this edit. This has since been removed. Opinions and guidance on this would be appreciated. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
| 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:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church
| Should Susan Block's own blog support her inclusion in this list? Should Ministers solely backed by the NNDB be removed? How reliable is Ashmore's own book whom is used as a source for many on this list? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
| 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) |
| It had been noted that there was some redundancy and maintenance inconsistencies between several longevity related lists including the list this talk page belongs to as well as List of the verified oldest people and others. There is some disagreement with the merger of several of these lists and a suggestion that the discussion be broadened has been proposed. In addition to the thumbs up/thumbs down options on the merger, there may be alternative ways to resolve this discussion that have not yet been considered. aremisasling (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Some users have been removing perfectly sourced content using BLP guidelines as excuse, but that argument is rather invalid. Or is it? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
| The motives for Berg’s assassination by members of The Order referenced in the body of the article all mention his being Jewish. Should the lede summary also contain the fact his religion was a motive for his killing? N0TABENE (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Is the available sourcing sufficient to justify Jarret Myer having his own Wikipedia article?
Comment: I want editors to be aware that I have a financial conflict of interest, which I disclosed here. I suggested an updated draft for the article in October and asked others to review, since I will not make edits myself due to my COI. Another editor thought the draft was fine, but that the article should be deleted due to lack of notability. Heatherer (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash
| The section contained just daily stock quotes from Shanghai Composite Index (re-edit)before it was removed. Older quotes had been replaced by newer quotes. Shall we reinsert or omit the "Year on year" section? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:List of best-selling music artists
| As far as what I am seeing here, that this page is having some of its own policies for content that are way different compared to rest of the wikipedia.
As discussed before,[2] one editor removed the source published by Wiley.com, a highly WP:RS,[3] because it is not a "news agencies, and/or music magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone", with relation to the 500 million sales figure about Beatles, while accepting[4] a totally non-expertised one liner about Elvis Presley having 500 million sales[5]. So we have two proposals here:-
or |
| Should the topic of this article be: |
| Expert attention requested also if somebody here reads Sinhalese readily.
About a week ago, Ceylonpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added material to the article about destruction of a banyan tree during production of the movie. I rewrote a compromise version of the text, but Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) deleted it outright. The issue seems to be the Divaina story used as a source.[8] It's in Sinhalese, and I'm reading the Google machine-translated version of the text. As best as I can see, the newspaper is accusing the production company of destroying the tree. It's hard to tell if this is an editorial opinion or the result of journalistic investigation, but it feels like the former. So, that creates an issue of verifiability and self-sourcing. I'd like some fresh eyes to look at this and help determine a few things:
Again, I think getting a few more editors involved would help, especially if they can read the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section:
|
History and geography
| Should this article, "Salt Mud Slide" (which is a translation into English from its Slovenian name), be moved to "Slano Blato landslide" (which is based on its place name in Slovenia)? — Gorthian (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should Britain go first and the US below in infobox based on the discussion-section above? N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
| Please comment on three related proposals below which are intended to fix a long running structural problem. Currently we have two primary articles on this conflict which (a) cover two separate strands of the conflict, so neither provides a thorough overview, (b) begin in 1948 on the creation of Israel as opposed to the actual beginning of the conflict in 1917-1920, and (c) exclude certain facets of the conflict such as the Iranian involvement. The three proposals below will solve this problem for good. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][3]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| The claim that Laksa originated only from Malaysia can be traced back to the September 21, 2009 claim by then Malaysian Minister of Tourism Ng Yen Yen's attempt to brand those foods as of Malaysian origin. The most recent update to the issue was the public statement on September 23, 2009 that the minister claimed that she wanted to do a study to verify that claim, but up to the point that she stepped down from her post in 2013, that study still has not been made, or at least the results were not published[9]. Recently an editor has been pushing Ng's claim by removing other countries [10] and reverting information/context about the case [11], even claiming that no relevant source had been provided to show that there Malaysia is not the sole claimant of origin for the dish. [12]. Hope to get more eyes on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| NOTE: "January 8 is the eight day of the year" SHOULD BE "January 8 is the eighth day of the year". Quis separabit? 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
Sourced references to violation of human rights during Tito's regime have been added in the article but constantly removed by two users. Wider input from the community is requested to assess if the proposed edit is correctly sourced. The contested edit (and the relevant sourced) is "and several concerns raised about the respect of human rights" in the following sentence:
|
Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
| Request for comments on the paragraph "Notably, the tenets of those operations attempting to make Poles, not Germans, responsible for the genocide, still live in the hearts of some politicians including John Mann, the recipient of the Jan Karski Award, who in his interview for the Jewish Chronicle.com proclaimed, without mentioning the 3 million Polish Jews murdered by the Germans in Poland, that Poles were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and that claiming victimhood by Poland is a "revisionist angle" similar to that of Lithuania and Latvia.", or similar ones, being added by user:Poeticbent with a citation link to an article by John Mann in the Jewish Chronicle [13] called "Europe must focus on Baltic hate". The "operations" referred to are those by ex-Nazi secret service police after WWII mentioned in the section "Operations to whitewash German responsibility for WWII". To me this paragraph seems like original research, POV and are not in the cited source. Rapido (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the article include the slang term "Tunny Wells" ? (I personally don't think it should but as we're not reaching any agreements above I think it's best to seek opinions from outsiders), Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the topic of this article be: |
Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)
Regarding second half of the second paragraph of lede as of RfC posting; (was third paragraph prior to recent edits; see history):
--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Should the honorific-prefix field of the infobox of this article include the prefix "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" as well as "His Eminence Blessed Dr."? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Should Poland be described as existing in "Central and Eastern Europe"? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology
| There is a proposal to move from Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology here and to create separate pages for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine. Your opinions would be welcome, thanks Drsmoo (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles
Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Question: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan)?
The current version of the article makes reference to a photograph in the following terms: A photograph, described as "widely-circulated" and "notorious", reportedly shows Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak civilian during the kiss. The kiss between Plavšić and Arkan is not at issue here, there are many reliable sources that mention it, and it has been accepted as an agreed fact in several prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The question of this RfC is whether Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak, or words to that effect, should be mentioned in the article, given that a significant number of sources mention this detail while a significant number of sources do not. If you consider it should be mentioned in the article, please indicate what wording you consider should be used. Plavšić is still alive, so WP:BLP obviously applies. The table below lists sources/quotes that mention the "Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss Arkan" detail in some form, as well as a list of sources/quotes that don't mention any dead body during "the kiss". This is a bit of a contentious and complex RfC, so it would be appreciated if interested editors would do a bit of fact-checking/reading before placing a comment either way. I suggest editors use the terms Include or Do not include along with their comments and/or suggested wording. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
| Should this article, "Salt Mud Slide" (which is a translation into English from its Slovenian name), be moved to "Slano Blato landslide" (which is based on its place name in Slovenia)? — Gorthian (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| The current mouseover for the IPA symbol "i:" in the IPAc-en template offers the word "bead" as a pronunciation guide word. Might not the word "seed" be a less ambiguous word? KDS4444Talk 15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the title of the article be "Smashing Pumpkins" or "The Smashing Pumpkins"? 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Is the term political correctness primarily or generally a pejorative — or something else outside the binary option?
Edit: note that the earlier discussion was about whether it was to be mainly described as a pejorative at all. The current matter is about the following edit: the swap. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
| Should this article, "Salt Mud Slide" (which is a translation into English from its Slovenian name), be moved to "Slano Blato landslide" (which is based on its place name in Slovenia)? — Gorthian (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| Should Apollo 1 be included in the Fatality Risk section? Both sides' arguments can be found in the section "Does Apollo 1 belong in the Fatality Risk section?"SaltySeas (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox medical condition
In the encyclopedia, the manual of style recommends the following with regards synonyms:
Medical conditions frequently have many synonyms (e.g. Burning mouth syndrome). The idea of including a list of synonyms in the infobox medical condition started on WT:MED (permalink here: [16]). James has kindly made a preview, seen here: Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. Another idea for dealing with the list of synonyms is to have them as a footnote (e.g. geographic tongue, this method discussed on WT:MED here: [17]). If there is support for the above idea, then this raises other questions: should the list of synonyms replace entirely the list of synonyms in the lead, or elsewhere in the article? Or should the infobox be in addition to a list of synonyms in the lead or in a section within the article? Ping to anyone who has expressed opinion on this so far. JakobSteenberg, Little pob, Johnbod, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Boghog, TylerDurden8823, Looie496, Barbara (WVS). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
| I was going to post this but no one seems to check its talk page too much anymore so might as well post this here, and plus is this quite an notable issue. PHL (some people call it by the project name HEC), once agian has reformated their listings of Habitable exoplanets, They have split the list into a "Conservative" and "Optimistic" lists which was well needed indeed. The formatting of PHL's lists is drastically different and included values that List of potentially habitable exoplanets doesn't list, and List of potentially habitable exoplanets lists values like SPH, HZC, and HZA which are no where to be found on the PHL's page (Some older archived lists from PHL used the HZD (like this one), but generally it has been replaced with Stellar flux Denoted as SE, S⊕ or Seff(<- See table 1 in that link) (But generally in Scientific papers Seff appears to be most commonly used) to critique planatary habitability (Just look at that link I just posted)). Not to mention so many KOI's that aren't on PHL's KOI List which we do have a better orginized list than this one that acctually has the ones that are there, plus some other ones that are backed by Nasa's Exoplanet Archive. I'm thinking we should just redo the whole list from PHL's data as since there is no explanatory citation for any of the other units presented it must of all came from thin air. Another question that we have to answer is if we want a two separate tables (on the same page) for exoplanets in the "Conservative" HZ and "Optimistic" HZ or continue on with lumping all of them into one table or have all 3 tables on the same page or a sort of compromise which would be a single table, with some sort of sorter that would allow us to sort out "Optimistic" HZ planets and "Conservative" HZ planets. For the format of the table I nominate the PHL style format which can be seen in use here. Davidbuddy9 Talk 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Expert attention requested also if somebody here reads Sinhalese readily.
About a week ago, Ceylonpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added material to the article about destruction of a banyan tree during production of the movie. I rewrote a compromise version of the text, but Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) deleted it outright. The issue seems to be the Divaina story used as a source.[18] It's in Sinhalese, and I'm reading the Google machine-translated version of the text. As best as I can see, the newspaper is accusing the production company of destroying the tree. It's hard to tell if this is an editorial opinion or the result of journalistic investigation, but it feels like the former. So, that creates an issue of verifiability and self-sourcing. I'd like some fresh eyes to look at this and help determine a few things:
Again, I think getting a few more editors involved would help, especially if they can read the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section:
|
;Summary of my concerns
Biscuittin (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
| 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) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| Should "Sugar Mama (Led Zeppelin song)" be merged with "Sugar Mama (song)"?
"Sugar Mama" is a blues song that was recorded as early as 1934. Although he did not record it until 1937, the song is often attributed to or associated with Sonny Boy Williamson I (Herzhaft, Encyclopedia of the Blues[19]). It has been recorded by numerous artists, often with variations in the lyrics and music (Tampa Red, Tommy McClennan, John Lee Hooker, B.B. King, Howlin' Wolf, Taste, Fleetwood Mac, etc.) with credits to various songwriters. In 1969, during their recording sessions for Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin recorded a preliminary/demo "Sugar Mama" with somewhat different lyrics and arrangement. The song was included on the expanded edition of Coda in 2013. The album lists it as "Sugar Mama (Mix)" and is credited to "Page, Plant". Two reliable sources have identified Sonny Boy Williamson as the source of LZ's version:
A review of other Led Zeppelin biographies has not revealed that their song is a unique, original composition. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs provides the following guidance:
Please preface comments with * Merge – or * Don't Merge –. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 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) |
| Should the title of the article be "Smashing Pumpkins" or "The Smashing Pumpkins"? 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| As the subtitle asks, should this article cover Exposing for the Highlights? Please read the above section before providing opinions. The IP editor appears to believe that any exposure in which the histogram reaches the right edge (without clipping) is a form of ETTR, even if the resultant image is underexposed. There are indeed (non-WP) articles online that make the same assertion, but they do not explain that underexposure negates the benefits of ETTR (in fact, having the opposite effects). Also, should the article explain that ETTR is not intended for high-DR scenes? Unfortunately I have not been able to provide good references for that, and even though it is self-evident with a little experimentation original research is not permitted on WP. nagualdesign 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:List of best-selling music artists
| As far as what I am seeing here, that this page is having some of its own policies for content that are way different compared to rest of the wikipedia.
As discussed before,[22] one editor removed the source published by Wiley.com, a highly WP:RS,[23] because it is not a "news agencies, and/or music magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone", with relation to the 500 million sales figure about Beatles, while accepting[24] a totally non-expertised one liner about Elvis Presley having 500 million sales[25]. So we have two proposals here:-
or |
| 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) |
| 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:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
| Alright. This has gone on waaaaay too long, with no apparent progress. I'm going to try my hardest to present a fair and neutral introduction to this. Additionally, GoneIn60 suggested above that any previous users in this discussion (myself included) should hold off on stating a position in this matter until some (hopefully) third party editors weigh in. With that out of the way, here we go.
The topic being discussed is "Should Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens appear as an alternate title in the lead in the following format: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens) is a 2015 American..." Here is (to the best of my ability) the summaries of both positions, for not including, and including.
I believe that's it. Again, I did my very best to present both sides of the argument equally. If there is one side that does not have some of their points represented, let me know and I will adjust. I will also drop a neutral notices at the film project and some third party editors from the film project who I feel would provide some good comments to this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
| (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) |
| 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) |
| Should the title of this singer's page be capitalised? Btljs (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
User talk:FormelE1ns/sandbox/code5
Politics, government, and law
| Should Britain go first and the US below in infobox based on the discussion-section above? N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
| Please comment on three related proposals below which are intended to fix a long running structural problem. Currently we have two primary articles on this conflict which (a) cover two separate strands of the conflict, so neither provides a thorough overview, (b) begin in 1948 on the creation of Israel as opposed to the actual beginning of the conflict in 1917-1920, and (c) exclude certain facets of the conflict such as the Iranian involvement. The three proposals below will solve this problem for good. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][10]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| *Question: for place of birth in the infobox -- England or UK? 18:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
There's an ongoing dispute over how to deal with an editorial argument in the subsection on the recent AAU report. Specifically, the section presents a statistic that most people who experienced a sexual assault who did not report the incident said that they did so because they "did not believe it was serious enough to report". It then presents this argument from an editorial by Stuart Taylor jr.: "Stuart Taylor, writing for the Washington Post, remarked "This most plausible explanation is that most of those classified by the survey as “victims” of sexual assault or rape did not really think that they had been sexually assaulted."" The question is over where/whether to include Taylor's comment, and over whether or not it is appropriate to note, in that section, statements from past research that challenge arguments similar to the one made by Taylor regarding the AAU study. A few solutions that have been proposed are:
Please use the section below for comments. Nblund (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| A user has added Catalonia is defined as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy. The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia used the term "nation" before being modified by the Spanish Constitutional Court. I don't think it's correct to say Catalonia is defined as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy, but he doesn't let me change it. How could you solve this? — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
| Should Overtime Politics polls be included in statewide opinion polling articles? 108.2.58.56 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio sufficiently notable in her own right to have a separate article in Wikipedia?
Comments
|
Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash
| The section contained just daily stock quotes from Shanghai Composite Index (re-edit)before it was removed. Older quotes had been replaced by newer quotes. Shall we reinsert or omit the "Year on year" section? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 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:Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015
| Three questions:
1) Should Piotr Glinski be mentioned in the background section? 2) Should the Pardoning of Mariusz Kamiński be mentioned in the background section? 3) Should the new Polish media law be mentioned? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
| Request for comments on the paragraph "Notably, the tenets of those operations attempting to make Poles, not Germans, responsible for the genocide, still live in the hearts of some politicians including John Mann, the recipient of the Jan Karski Award, who in his interview for the Jewish Chronicle.com proclaimed, without mentioning the 3 million Polish Jews murdered by the Germans in Poland, that Poles were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and that claiming victimhood by Poland is a "revisionist angle" similar to that of Lithuania and Latvia.", or similar ones, being added by user:Poeticbent with a citation link to an article by John Mann in the Jewish Chronicle [26] called "Europe must focus on Baltic hate". The "operations" referred to are those by ex-Nazi secret service police after WWII mentioned in the section "Operations to whitewash German responsibility for WWII". To me this paragraph seems like original research, POV and are not in the cited source. Rapido (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015
| Should the lead include statements comparing with "after a full term" instances of elections after 4 years of a max 5 year term? etc DrArsenal (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
| Should flag icons, where available, be used for the rump militias involved in this, as per other civil conflict infoboxes such as Waco Siege?
Survey
|
When I originally created this article I used the term "rump militia" in lieu of "militia" (the specific term used by news sources) to provide just a basic level of clarification for our non-American readers that these were not governmental military units. "Rump militia" has wider historic, geographical usage as a term indicating non state-sanctioned paramilitary groups and is often specifically invoked in specialist and lay observer circles to refer to groups associated with the militia movement in the United States and differentiate from the National Guard and State Defense Forces, the latter of which sometimes specifically also use the word "militia" in their names. Recently, IP editors have started changing this to "civilian militia" throughout the article, contending "rump militia" displays bias. What term should be used?
|
| Should the "History" section mention the Transhumanist Party's Immortality Bus campaign? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
| The edit war here is ongoing despite not having been discussed for five years. Moonboy54 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
| 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) |
| Can descriptions of certain countries' laws or policies, carried by generalist publications such as newspapers, which do not describe such practices as ethnocracy (or even mention ethnocracy), be included in the specific sections related to those countries, or does this violate WP:SYNTH? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the topic of this article be: |
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) |
Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:
To:
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 |
| Can we generate consensus for the addition of the honorific prefix of "The Honorable" on the articles of the United States Presidents? 1. Should we add them in the first place? 2. Should we keep them on ALL US presidents, or just the living ones? 3. Should it be boldened? CatcherStorm talk 06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
| 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) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles
Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][11]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) |
| 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) |
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) |
| As you can see from the section above, we have a dispute that is getting a little heated concerning the extent to which critical comments about the subject should be covered. The current sticking point seems to be over the content added in this edit. This has since been removed. Opinions and guidance on this would be appreciated. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Ásatrú in the United States
| Basic question: Should this article be renamed "Heathenry in the United States"?
More information: This article is currently titled "Ásatrú in the United States", and is devoted to the subject of Heathenry, a modern Pagan new religious movement, as it exists in the United States. As the GA-rated article on Heathenry makes clear, "Heathenry" is the term which is commonly used (in particular by academics) as a catch-all to cover the entirety of this new religious movement. Other terms, such as "Asatru" and "Odinism", are favoured by some practitioners but are avoided by others, and lack the wider coverage of the term "Heathenry". Given that many of the Heathens in the United States do not use "Asatru" but instead favour "Odinism" or other terms, it seems problematic to have this page titled "Ásatrú in the United States", with "Heathenry in the United States" being a much more inclusive and apposite title. I believe that this should be a fairly un-controversial change and would like to gain consensus in support of it from various otherwise un-involved editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Other articles, generally outside the context of recognized religions, that involve belief systems which have not been factually verified make this clear either in the text of the article (usually in the introductory section) or by referencing articles that make this clear. So far, Christianity (and, I believe, many of its fellow religions) have gotten special treatment in this regard. It is time, in my opinion, for this to end, which would make the Christianity article consistent with the other articles regarding unverified claims. For example, the following articles all make it clear that the views of the adherents, or the beings in questions, have no confirmed factual basis: astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun. The first three of these (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy) state flatly in the introduction section that the claims have no verified factual basis. The latter three of these (troll, fairy, leprechaun) refer, directly or indirectly, to the mythology article which makes clear that the beings have no verified factual basis. This is not the case with this article, which states various claims by adherents, including stating that "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity," but does not tell the reader that Christians have not backed up these claims with evidence. This article does reference the religion article, but that article does not make clear that the claims of various of the religions are not factually verified, nor, I think should it because not all religions necessarily make claims with no verified factual basis.
The fact that Christianity and some of the other specific religions do not have the same type of disclaimer language, stating that the adherents believe things that they cannot back up with evidence, as is found in the other similar types of articles (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun) is misleading and a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia entries, who are not put on notice that the claims and assertions are not backed up with any evidence. There is no reason NOT to put the reader on notice of this when reading this material, and the failure to do so heretofore is, I suspect, an example of bias in favor of Christianity (and its fellow religions). I decided to start with this article, since Christianity is the most popular religion worldwide, but my edit was reverted. |
| Should the honorific-prefix field of the infobox of this article include the prefix "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" as well as "His Eminence Blessed Dr."? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:
To:
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 |
| The motives for Berg’s assassination by members of The Order referenced in the body of the article all mention his being Jewish. Should the lede summary also contain the fact his religion was a motive for his killing? N0TABENE (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
| 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) |
| 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) |
| 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) |
| 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) |
| (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) |
Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:
To:
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 |
| 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) |
| 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) |
Wikipedia style and naming
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| I think that this article should be moved to the title Meshblock or possibly Mesh Block. Where an article is about something that can be both singular or plural a singular title is probably a better title. From what I can tell, the term meshblock is used by Statistics New Zealand, while the term Mesh Block is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have fairly similar definitions. The only articles that currently link to the article about Mesh blocks are all related to Statistics New Zealand surveys. Also this article is ranked as a mid-importance New Zealand article. Currently there are two(2) Wikipedia articles relating to Australia that use mesh blocks or Mesh Blocks. Also when it is used elsewhere it is usually written as a proper noun Mesh Block, often as a pural, from Australian sources mostly concerning the Austrailan Census. However, there are at least ten(10) New Zealand related Wikipedia articles that contain Meshblock or Meshblocks. Elsewhere the term meshblock is dominated by material from New Zealand sources and while these are also generally related to the New Zealand Census, the breadth and scope of these sources are far wider than for Australia. There is no obvious evidence that meshblock or mesh block are used elsewhere in the world. Although other agencies may have a similar concept, they use different names and definitions. Considering this, my preferred title is Meshblock. At this stage I don't think there is a need for a separate Mesh Block article, as I suspect the Australian term has been borrowed from the New Zealand usage. Does anyone have any other thoughts before I move the page? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
| Should flag icons, where available, be used for the rump militias involved in this, as per other civil conflict infoboxes such as Waco Siege?
Survey
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles
Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
| Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles? Currently, different constructions are used for WP article titles: "Frog Went A-Courting", "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall", "Hear My Train A Comin'", "Here We Come A-wassailing", "Hold On, I'm A Comin'", "A-Hunting We Will Go", "Keep A-Knockin'", "The Times They Are a-Changing", "Train Kept A-Rollin'", etc. The current guideline addresses capitalization for composition titles, but not for "a-prefixing" ("a-Comin'" vs "A-Comin'", etc.).
A recent discussion has identified several options ("Hear My Train A Comin'" is used to illustrate the differences):
Which of these is preferable for a guideline for all composition titles? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
| The claim that Laksa originated only from Malaysia can be traced back to the September 21, 2009 claim by then Malaysian Minister of Tourism Ng Yen Yen's attempt to brand those foods as of Malaysian origin. The most recent update to the issue was the public statement on September 23, 2009 that the minister claimed that she wanted to do a study to verify that claim, but up to the point that she stepped down from her post in 2013, that study still has not been made, or at least the results were not published[29]. Recently an editor has been pushing Ng's claim by removing other countries [30] and reverting information/context about the case [31], even claiming that no relevant source had been provided to show that there Malaysia is not the sole claimant of origin for the dish. [32]. Hope to get more eyes on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
| Previously, we had an RfC which asked,
Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:
and the result of that RfC was, Yes. The full result can be read here. In that close, the closer, Elvey made these points:
Implementing the plain language resulting from that RfC has, however, created more edit warring. There have been concerns that unreliable sources will make their way onto Wikipedia, but those concerns were already heard in the original RfC. Still, adding language to ensure that unreliable sources do not find their way onto Wikipedia may be necessary. Or it may not. This RfC seeks to resolve that by asking, based on the closer's 5 points, what version does it best? Of the versions that address all five points, these are proposed:
Both of these options meet all five points, but I also ask the community for additional options that meet the five criteria outlined above and found in the original close. Please vote #1, #2 or an altogether different option below. LesVegas (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| If a file is up for FFD re-deleting and re-flagging?--Elvey(t•c) 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Please share your thoughts on two RfCs regarding updates to the edit filter guideline and enabling the extension's blocking ability. Sam Walton (talk) 18:13, 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) |
| 2601:140:4100:A517:7008:2327:A031:1279 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responded to my request to add sources to his additions by citing Boi's website. Is this an acceptable source in this instance? --Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Making the Privacy Policy link more prominent on our main page.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Can descriptions of certain countries' laws or policies, carried by generalist publications such as newspapers, which do not describe such practices as ethnocracy (or even mention ethnocracy), be included in the specific sections related to those countries, or does this violate WP:SYNTH? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
| ITN is occasionally dominated by news of a single type, which is a consequence of several newsworthy items of that type happening at the same time. Should ITN have in-built controls against this happening?
Example: if five countries have elections at the same time and all the articles are updated, ITN may wind up featuring all five elections at the same time. Since there is only so much space, this means ITN becomes politics-dominated. Under the status quo, we live with this until such time as more news items are nominated and posted. Option 1: Yes. A single news type dominating ITN is a problem. |
| Was any policy violated by the IP-User and if so did it justify a block? Checkuser proofs no edits have been made from a registred account the by IP-user, as no registered accounts actually excist. The checkuser log shows failed registration attempts, but those did not pass the profanity test and have not been registerd. This can be confirmed by visiting the userpages User:PoopKopf, User:Scheiße Kopf and User:Poep Temp. Since regular users can not view the checkuser log, examinaning what is filtered out and what is not, can not be considered WP:POINT. The accounts do not excist. The IP-user has never made any edits while logged in to an account, neither did he ever log in. I'm asking this question because the selective reading of moderators involved make it very hard to understand this. Note that that I am no longer blocked. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions, it is stated that:
This RfC seeks the community's opinion on the following question:
Jimbo Wales's additional ceremonial role in appointing the members of the Committee is not within the scope of this question. — Scott • talk 13:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
| Should the editor's name be wikilinked to his article, and the location be set to New York? Chuntuk (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| As the first step to the adoption of Wikidata, I propose the following:
A. That we recognize that it is advantageous to read the information about the Commons category on Wikidata rather than to keep it locally - meaning removing the category name parameter from {{commonscat}} (in the situation Wikidata has the info) would not be considered as disruptive and can be, in principle, carried out by bot on a large scale. (I do not intend to do it myself). B. If we agree on A, there are two ways to visualize the information (note that they are not mutually exclusive): B1. To continue doing what we are already doing, i.e. using {{commonscat}}, {{commonscat-inline}}, and having the dedicated field in some specialized templates (for example, it is included in {{Infobox Russian district}}, see Rzhevsky District for an example of an application). B2. To keep the link to the category on Commons on the left panel, similarly to how it is used in Wikivoyage and some other Wikipedias, see voy:Fontainebleau for an example). PS. I am not aware of any previous discussions of this topic; I will appreciate links if appropriate. PPS. I in principle intend to advertise this as RfC, however, I would like to wait for a day for comments before adding the template - possibly the issue has been discussed already, or some good ideas will be forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
| There are a handful of instances where the shadowing of commons files is done deliberately, either as a placeholder to prevent poorly-named uploads (such as File:Background.jpg), or because Commons has a bizarre picture for a simple name (i.e. the widely used File:Otters.jpg which shadows Commons:File:Otters.jpg). Nevertheless, these images are tagged with {{ShadowsCommons}} and appear in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons as backlog items to be cleared.
I propose that an optional parameter, |
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| As the first step to the adoption of Wikidata, I propose the following:
A. That we recognize that it is advantageous to read the information about the Commons category on Wikidata rather than to keep it locally - meaning removing the category name parameter from {{commonscat}} (in the situation Wikidata has the info) would not be considered as disruptive and can be, in principle, carried out by bot on a large scale. (I do not intend to do it myself). B. If we agree on A, there are two ways to visualize the information (note that they are not mutually exclusive): B1. To continue doing what we are already doing, i.e. using {{commonscat}}, {{commonscat-inline}}, and having the dedicated field in some specialized templates (for example, it is included in {{Infobox Russian district}}, see Rzhevsky District for an example of an application). B2. To keep the link to the category on Commons on the left panel, similarly to how it is used in Wikivoyage and some other Wikipedias, see voy:Fontainebleau for an example). PS. I am not aware of any previous discussions of this topic; I will appreciate links if appropriate. PPS. I in principle intend to advertise this as RfC, however, I would like to wait for a day for comments before adding the template - possibly the issue has been discussed already, or some good ideas will be forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC
| ==Introduction
Background See also: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC
Requests for adminship (commonly abbreviated as "RfA") is the process by which the Wikipedia community selects its administrators, trusted users who have the ability to perform certain technical actions. There is widespread consensus that the RfA process is broken, for various reasons, and many reform efforts over the past years have been unsuccessful. In late 2015, a new project, RFA2015, was launched. In the first phase of this project, which consisted of an RfC, the community successfully identified the problems with the RfA process. One of those problems is a hostile environment. In the same RfC, it was suggested that to remedy this problem, we allow certain users (called "clerks") to maintain order and decorum at RfA. In his closing statement, the closer of that RfC concluded that the "community would like to discuss the idea of clerking", and we will do that in this RfC. Originally, the issue of clerking was to be discussed as a part of the Phase II RfC for RFA2015, but it was determined that because of the issue's complexity, it would be best to discuss it in a separate RfC. Set forth below are proposals concerning: (1) The responsibilities of RfA clerks; (2) Which users are authorized to perform those tasks. This RfC will run for 30 days and will be as widely advertised as possible, since the results may have a major impact on the RfA process. Biblioworm 23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Unsorted
|
Closing comments (To be filled out by closing administrator) Background The religion entry in infoboxes has been a contentious issue for many years, with multiple participants disputing what, if anything, should come after the "Religion = " entry. Previous discussions and RfCs have made it abundantly clear that only actual religions should be listed, never anything that is a non-religion. A previous RfC determined that there is a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties hat have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations. A follow-up RfC determined that the consensus was the same for nations, states, etc. Despite the previous RfCs, we still have a problem with editors edit warring to keep various nonreligions in the religion entry, arguing that their favorite page is not covered by the existing RfCs. This RfC is an attempt to create a bright line answer concerning exactly what the consensus is concerning the religion entry for all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception. Examples
What this RfC is and is not This RfC only applies to infoboxes, not to the body of the article. This RfC only applies to the religion field of the infobox. This RfC does not address whether the religion parameter should be changed to something else or omitted entirely from the template. This RfC does not change the existing strong consensus that religion in the infobox must be relevant (per the template guideline), supported by reliable sources, and covered in the body of the article. Support / Oppose Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the religion parameter ("Religion = ") of the infobox.
|
| Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC) |
User names
 |
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under 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:
- For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post 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 has made no recent edits, as there is no need to take any action.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator. Generally, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking.
Before adding a name here YOU MUST ensure that:
- the user in question has been notified and allowed time to discuss the concern on their talk page. You may use the {{subst:uw-username}} template for this purpose. Only post the issue here if they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.
- the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
If, after having followed all the steps noted directly above, you still believe the user has chosen an inappropriate name under 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, possibly with the {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} template. You may also invite comment from others who have expressed concern on the name by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
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.
Poepkop
Liberalarmb
Liberalarmb (talk · contribs)
- I issued a {{uw-username}} warning on September because I noticed this username seemed too similar to that of User:Liberalartist. The user has now recently edited, so I thought I would bring it here. --TL22 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Allow The two names are easily distinguishable. I believe that criteria is only for names that are so close that one appears to be imitating the other, or where it is reasonable that they would nearly always be mistaken for the other user. For example, if it was "Liberalart1st" I'd agree it was probably no good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Allow - Usernames are not too similar, no issue. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Allow - Sufficiently distinct. HighInBC 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Disallow - I wrote this in October in response to User:ToonLucas22's {{uw-username}} warning from September: "I want to presume good faith, but I think User:ToonLucas22 was right to have some concern. Since your first edit to Wikipedia seems to have been the AfD proposal for 8x8, and I had objected to the PROD of 8x8 shortly before that, it seems like the similarity of our usernames might confuse people. Perhaps you could explain your thoughts?"
User:Liberalarmb has not responded. I might be persuaded to change my view if Liberalarmb does explain any significance they attach to the name (e.g. my user name is partially a play on the liberal arts) and/or engage in discussion about ways to mitigate confusion, but in the absence of that, my concerns still stand.
In particular, I would note that the recent editing ToonLucas22 refers to above seems to have been, according to User talk:Liberalarmb#About PRODs (again), "revert[ing] [ToonLucas22's] procedural PROD removal recently … restor[ing] the PROD added 2 months ago along with its timestamp." According to Special:Contributions/Liberalarmb, this was the only edit Liberalarmb has made, ever, other than on September 19, which (to repeat myself) was shortly after I had objected to the PROD in question on August 23.
I want to be sure that Liberalarmb, especially as a new user, has every opportunity to explain their thoughts, but I think the circumstances may indicate a somewhat heightened level of review. LiberalArtist (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just noting that this user has not edited since the day this was opened nearly a month ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Allow. They aren't close enough to worry about. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ a b c d Cyril Glassé; Huston Smith (January 2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 320. ISBN 978-0-7591-0190-6.
- ^ Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
- ^ Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
- ^ Cohen, Bertram D.; Ettin, Mark F.; Fidler, Jay W. (2002). Group Psychotherapy and Political Reality: A Two-Way Mirror. International Universities Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8236-2228-2.
- ^ Andjelic, Neven (2003). Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. Frank Cass. p. 36. ISBN 0-7146-5485-X.
- ^ Tierney, Stephen (2000). Accomodating National Identity: New Approaches in International and Domestic Law - Page 17. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 90-411-1400-9.
"Human rights were routinely suppressed..." - ^ No More: The Battle Against Human Rights Violations - Page 37, D. Matas, Canada, 1994.
"Human rights violations were observed in silence... It was not only that the wide list of verbal crimes flouted international human rights law and international obligations Yugoslavia had undertaken. Yugoslavia, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paid scant regard to some of its provisions." - ^ Rights Before Courts - Page 183, W. Sadurski. Springer. ISBN 978-94-017-8934-9.
"The name Tito does not only symbolize the liberation of the territory of present-day Slovenia... it also symbolizes the post-war totalitarian communist regime, which was marked by extensive and gross violations of human rights and fundamentals freedoms." - ^ Café Europa: Life After Communism, Slavenka Drakulic. Hachette.
"He was responsible for the massacre of war prisoners at Bleiburg and forced labour camps such as Goli Otok, for political prisoners and the violation of human rights" - ^ Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
- ^ Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
