Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

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

Biographies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row incident

Ladies and gentlemen I come to you with questions three:

1. Should the article include details on the police investigation against Bahar Mustafa?
2. Should the article include details on the allegations of bullying against Bahar Mustafa and her subsequent resignation?
3. Should the article include details of the email received by Pamella Gellar?

See the above talk page sections for further context. --Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the lead include mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct on Trump's part? --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Moore

A. The lead currently says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition to Moore". Should we edit that to say, "President Donald Trump supported Moore's opponent during the primary, and endorsed Moore a week before the final election,[9] prompting some Republicans to withdraw their opposition to Moore"?

B. The lead currently says, "During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him". Should we insert ", after the primary" immediately before the comma? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Unite the Right rally

The first paragraph of this article currently contains mention of Trump/Pence signs sourced to one analysis article in a highly reliable source. The issue with inclusion is WP:NPOV with particular attention to the following exhortation in WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also note that NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Earlier discussion can be found at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Trump/Pence_signage.

Should the text "Trump/Pence signs" be included in the lead and/or body? Please respond with:

Yes, Yes – Include in the lead and body
Yes, No – Include in the lead only
No, Yes – Include in the body only
No, No – Do not include
O3000 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The New York Times

Should obituaries in the New York Times NOT be counted toward notability for people that live in the New York Metropolitan area because it is a local paper when tributing local people? Does Wikipedia actually ban local content when accessing notability? We are excluding the paid obituaries that are carried as advertisements in this argument. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Strzok

Should the lead say that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division....” instead of only saying that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

Editors of this article are discussing which information to include in the list.

• Which columns of information are most helpful to readers? Sparkie82 (t•c) extended 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:George Pell

I think that this section is completely unnecessary. Pell is not a world-renown intellectual nor thinker, he is just one of bureaucrats inside the Catholic clergy hierarchy. He became exposed to the public limelight for being the highest ranked official of the RCC accused for sexual abuse coverup and for sexually abusing the children. In the current version we have six pages dedicated to his views and only four dedicated for the abuse coverup and the sexual abuse itself.

I do not see any significance of his views. My proposal is completely eliminate the Views section or reduce it to no more than a half of the page.--Taribuk (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Slobodan Praljak

----

1. (fix)Section Reaction: The sentence "Former US Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp compared Praljak's suicide by poisoning to that of another war crimes convict, Hermann Göring, ..." shall be replaced by Praljak, a convicted war criminal staged publicly his suicide. Like Göring, he drank a cyanide capsule due to the fact that the same type of statement belong to many (>50) around the globe, not just to former US Ambassador, and shall be the first sentence in this section.
2. (fix)I've tried to fix In 2008, Croatian Ministry of Culture deemed that 18 of his works about Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War, and relations between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were not books but brochures of schund literature, by changing were not books but brochures of schund literature to were not books but works categorised and taxed as pap, trash and pornography. The fix was directly supported by the reference
   
   Krešimir Žabec (4 July 2012). "Ministarstvo generalu Praljku: Vaše knjige o ratu spadaju u šund i pornografiju, platit ćete 628.726 kuna poreza!" Translation: Your books belong to šund (pap, trash) and pornography, you shall pay tax in the amount of 628.726 kuna
   
   Further in the text: "Odnosno, ocijenjeno je da Praljkova djela spadaju u šund i pornografiju, na što se mora platiti PDV." Translation: Therefore, the Praljak works were appraised as šund (pap, trash) and pornography for which he had to pay VAT (value added tax)
   
   In addition the schund literature phrase is semanically wrong. The schund is a German word and it's opposite to the literature; therefore saying schund literature is equally meaningless as heiß (hot) ice. The current phrase "wortless literature" equally makes no sense in English language.
3. (remove)Out of context, not a main point: However, ICTY agreed that the bridge was a legitimate military target.[10] In addition to the responsibility and whether it was a legitimate military target, ICTY also examined whether the earlier siege by JNA and Bosnian Serb forces contributed to the bridge's collapse. - these claims are just the Court responses to the Praljak's defense
   
   (remove)False statement: He was acquitted of some charges related to the destruction of Stari Most.[3][6]
   
   The verdict details are here
4. Section Regional reaction.
   (fix)False statement: "All the party caucuses of the Croatian Parliament except the SDP and GLAS issued a joint statement ..." It was about a Croatian Parliament session statement which SDSS, GLAS and SDP members did not attend. Only one IDS MP was present but no information whether he supported the statement
   (add and update)Missing reactions:
   a. After publicly displeased disagreement coming from the diplomatic corps in Zagreb and Brussels, both Kitarovic (the president) and Plenkovic (prime minister) relativized their statements (the details are here, and here)
   b. The action of praising Praljak as an innocent man and hero was orchestrated by the far right.
   c. Journalists(Štefica Galić, for example) and some politicians (Mesic, former president, Pusic, former state secretary) received death threats for not honoring this war criminal as a hero.
   d. Actually a small number of Croats attended public commemoration of the Praljak suicide (the details are here).
   e. Also, there were Croatians who commemorated the victims of the group of war criminals Praljak belonged to.--Taribuk (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Trace Adkins

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toby Keith

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Reba McEntire

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Miranda Lambert

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bruno Bettelheim

How early and clearly should our lead talk about fake credentials, as well as plagiarism and abusive treatment of students? We currently state "self-educated psychoanalyst" and that simply is not the case.

There's another issue. When I do a search on Bettelheim, my mobile device truncates our lead and shows the first 35 words. And though we might cry to the heavens that this is not the way people should use wikipedia, all the same, this is in fact how people often do use wikipedia. I think we should endeavor to cover both sides of his career in those 35 words. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Josephine Butler

Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? --John (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Sakwa

To what extent WP:GEVAL applies to academic sources on the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Economy, trade, and companies

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies

Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem

This article is currently named Bitcoin scalability problem. I believe the use of the word problem is a WP:NPOV issue as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem, and what are solutions to it (such as already deployed scaling solutions Bitcoin Cash, SegWit, and Lightning Network which are discussed in the content of this very article). I propose the article be changed to "*Bitcoin Sscaling", thus dropping the word problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pink tide

Requesting other opinions surrounding the inclusion of the role that the 2000s commodities boom played with pink tide governments, their use of populism and unsustainable policies surrounding the boom. I have provided scholarly sources supporting the inclusion of this information though others have called it "subjective". Looking for a more thorough discussion and oversight on this article.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area

The original version, written by me and reviewed by Dr.K. at DYK [1], is thus:

1.The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is an area of the world which has been placed under a permanent quarantine by the United States state of Washington. [2]

This was changed by SounderBruce to this, with the edit summary "rewriting lead sentence: "of the world" is a bit much":

2. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in the U.S. state of Washington. [3]

That was, in turn, changed by me to this, with the edit summary "doesn't make sense - the article itself states the quarantine includes Oregon, California, Idaho so incorrect to say it is "in the state of Washington"":

3. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area. [4]

SounderBruce further revised it to the following with the edit summary "at least include the country":

4. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in the United States. [5]

I undid that change, reverting it to version 3, with the edit summary "edit makes lede inconsistent with article which states "All "foreign countries where apple maggot is established" have also ..."" - resulting in this:

5. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area. [6]

SounderBruce further amended this with the edit summary "Should be clear that the quarantine only applies within Washington state":

6. The Apple Maggot Quarantine Area is a permanent quarantine area in effect within the U.S. state of Washington. [7]

Any further edits will run afoul of 3RR, however, (with deference and respect to SB's GF efforts to improve the article) I'm not satisfied with version #6 and would like to solicit feedback as to which version of the lede is more correct to the body of the article: 1, 2, 3/5, 4, 6, or none of those? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

Editors of this article are discussing which information to include in the list.

• Which columns of information are most helpful to readers? Sparkie82 (t•c) extended 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative

Should the lede mention Hungary as being a Central European country? --T*U (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ponzi scheme

It's clear that speculative asset bubbles are an appropriate lens to view some Ponzi-like vehicles but two users are insisting on adding a formal, uncited reference calling crypto a Ponzi scheme with no clear citation, explanation or POV. Jathomas (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

History and geography

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

Talk:Gråen

Should the {{Infobox islands}} template for this article contain multiple levels of maps - for Scania, Sweden and Europe - despite a user claiming the radio button feature to select and display only one at a time doesn't work? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?

Proposed content and sources
Adoption of harsh IMF regulations References

- MrX 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018

Should the "Predicted and scheduled events" section include the 2018 Commonwealth Games as a scheduled event? Jith12 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?

Previous discussions: #Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, #Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict

Indicate support and oppose, and your reasoning.- MrX 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Zwarte Piet

This is really two questions. The first: should the putting on of black make-up as is done with Zwarte Piet, be called blackface or not? The second: if it is blackface, should we link that term, and if so should it be to the wiktionary entry or the wikipedia article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

In the infobox for Israel, the entry for capital city includes a parenthetical comment about the status of Jerusalem. The question for this RfC is what this comment should say. Here are five possibilities:

1. (internationally unrecognized)
2. (limited recognition)
3. (Contested)
4. Only a footnote is needed (e.g. [8]).
5. No information about other countries' views is necessary.

A variety of references related to the history of the city and various countries' views about the status the city can be found in this article. OtterAM (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

Per the recommendation of the closer of the previous Rfc.

How should Charles be defined in the lead? Here are the final options.

1. ...heir apparent to the British throne...
2. ...heir apparent to the British throne [footnote = for other Commonwealth realms]...
3. ...heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II...

GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

Should the Geobox river template continue to be used within river articles, or should it be replaced by the Infobox river template. relisted to generate further discussion Brustopher (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Transitional Council

There is currently a content dispute among three editors, including myself.

These are current major elements of this dispute regarding the existence of the STC:

1. Does the Southern Transitional Council exist, as an independent organization from the Hadi-led government of Yemen?

2. Is the Southern Movement in fact affiliated to the Southern Transitional Council?

3. Are the Southern Transitional Council's territories on the YCW war map (module) effectively under the control of the Hadi-led government?

4. Is the STC at war with the Hadi-led government?

Please keep in mind that the situation is evolving and keep in mind that the current RfC should generally be limited to these questions, and should not go to questions that cannot be resolved without depending on an answer to one of these four questions. Nuke (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)

I have prepared a plan to shorten the article to great extent. I hope you can agree. I also welcome suggestions.:

• The well-written articles often don't cover all the minute details. My suggestion is to eliminate unimportant things that aren't notable beyond one or two sources or don't make a real impact on the battle.
  • This includes elimination of all non-notable killings, or areas captured. For example, x number of terrorists killed or building captured on this day reported by only one or two minor sources and do not have any real impact.
• Separate articles for those offensives of the battle that deserve it like Western Nineveh offensive (2017). Only events of these offensive having major impact on the battle should be included in the main article, for example supply lines was cut after x town was captured.
• I suggest creating a separate article for violations of laws of war incl. killings of civilians. The main article should only have a short summary on the subject.
  • I also suggest that the very notable killings during the battle like the 2017 Mosul airstrike, the other killings should be relegated to the violation of laws of war.

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

Editors of this article are discussing which information to include in the list.

• Which columns of information are most helpful to readers? Sparkie82 (t•c) extended 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Balkans

How shall the position of the Balkans in Europe be described?

1. "a geographic area in southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
2. "a geographic area in Southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
3. "a geographic area in southeastern Eastern and Southeastern Europe with various and disputed borders"
4. "a geographic area in Southeastern Europe, as well as parts of Eastern and Central Europe, with various and disputed borders" --T*U (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Zeila

Avalites is called in the Peripleus Eritrea source. This Havilah is being used indisciminately and would like comments from neutral editors. Authorityofwiki (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Guide

Should the Thomas Guides for cities be used to delineate neighborhood boundaries? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states

Should this list include territories that are "not independent states" or have "contested statehood" according to reliable scholarly sources? My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Robert E. Lee

Should the “Lee’s views on race and slavery" section contain the passage with information from Lee’s letter to his son from Texas and Congressional hearings, quoted in A.L. Long as sourced, and (1) expanding the elements of Lee’s belief reported in the article and (2) replacing the block quote partially mirroring the letter with text written in an encyclopedic style? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Manzanar

Does the Terminology section of this article depend too much on block quotations?

00:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Useful idiot

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

Should the lead section mention that this is a tourist destination? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Istvaeonic languages

We now have a template added to this article saying there is a proposal to merge this article, to Istvaeones and Weser-Rhine Germanic. This was added by User:AKAKIOS. There is a complicated background I will try to explain:

• Actually there were no such articles when the "merge proposal" template was added, so this is not a normal merge proposal. These are effectively new articles (whatever their past) which were started by copying this article. And this was in fact done by the editor proposing, at the same time, that this article should be merged to the new articles. Talk page discussion has not been perfect, but probably the editor involved is actually proposing a split of this article?
• Currently we have all aspects of the term Istvaeones covered in this one article called Istvaeonic languages. There are at least 3 aspects: 1. classical ethnography (the original use of the term by Tacitus and Pliny, arguably the primary use); 2. Linguistics (but Istvaeones is not a common term in that field) and the conventional subject is currently mainly handled under other articles such as Frankish and Low Franconian languages. 3. Archaeological, but the more common term for this aspect seems to be "Rhine-Weser Germanic"? Currently this subject is not really being discuss much on English Wikipedia, except a tiny bit on talk pages.
• The one article approach is not new, but previously the material in this article was in the more generally titled Istvaeones. This was recently turned into a redirect and the material changed a lot and then moved to here, in a series of edits which initiated the current round of edits and discussions. (And then now this action has effectively been partly reversed with the original article receiving a modified copy of material from this new article.)

My proposals (feedback please): 1. First procedural, while this discussion is proceeding, turn the 2 new articles, which are effectively POV forks now, back into redirects to this one article. Move all discussion to here also. 2. My proposal for this "merge" discussion is that, if there is agreement, we stick to a one article approach, but move back to Istvaeones. 3. Make the one article primarily about the history of the term, and therefore primarily about the classical ethnography texts. 4. The conventional linguistic aspect, where the term is occasionally used, is mainly handled elsewhere on Wikipedia, and only needs to be mentioned briefly in this Istvaeones article. 5. It seems to me so far that no one has yet written any material for Wikipedia about the supposed archaeological aspect. Until someone writes something significant it deserves no new article. For now it can still be mentioned in the Istvaeonic article, if sourceable, as yet another field where the term has occasionally been mentioned. 6. FWIW I think that "Rhine-Weser" is a known term, but not "Weser-Rhine". I am not confident about how completely it overlaps with any meaning of Istvaeonic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Million-plus agglomerations in India

Over the last couple of months there have been three versions of this template, with different layouts. Which layout do we like best (and why)?

Batternut (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Language and linguistics

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

Talk:Useful idiot

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Istvaeonic languages

We now have a template added to this article saying there is a proposal to merge this article, to Istvaeones and Weser-Rhine Germanic. This was added by User:AKAKIOS. There is a complicated background I will try to explain:

• Actually there were no such articles when the "merge proposal" template was added, so this is not a normal merge proposal. These are effectively new articles (whatever their past) which were started by copying this article. And this was in fact done by the editor proposing, at the same time, that this article should be merged to the new articles. Talk page discussion has not been perfect, but probably the editor involved is actually proposing a split of this article?
• Currently we have all aspects of the term Istvaeones covered in this one article called Istvaeonic languages. There are at least 3 aspects: 1. classical ethnography (the original use of the term by Tacitus and Pliny, arguably the primary use); 2. Linguistics (but Istvaeones is not a common term in that field) and the conventional subject is currently mainly handled under other articles such as Frankish and Low Franconian languages. 3. Archaeological, but the more common term for this aspect seems to be "Rhine-Weser Germanic"? Currently this subject is not really being discuss much on English Wikipedia, except a tiny bit on talk pages.
• The one article approach is not new, but previously the material in this article was in the more generally titled Istvaeones. This was recently turned into a redirect and the material changed a lot and then moved to here, in a series of edits which initiated the current round of edits and discussions. (And then now this action has effectively been partly reversed with the original article receiving a modified copy of material from this new article.)

My proposals (feedback please): 1. First procedural, while this discussion is proceeding, turn the 2 new articles, which are effectively POV forks now, back into redirects to this one article. Move all discussion to here also. 2. My proposal for this "merge" discussion is that, if there is agreement, we stick to a one article approach, but move back to Istvaeones. 3. Make the one article primarily about the history of the term, and therefore primarily about the classical ethnography texts. 4. The conventional linguistic aspect, where the term is occasionally used, is mainly handled elsewhere on Wikipedia, and only needs to be mentioned briefly in this Istvaeones article. 5. It seems to me so far that no one has yet written any material for Wikipedia about the supposed archaeological aspect. Until someone writes something significant it deserves no new article. For now it can still be mentioned in the Istvaeonic article, if sourceable, as yet another field where the term has occasionally been mentioned. 6. FWIW I think that "Rhine-Weser" is a known term, but not "Weser-Rhine". I am not confident about how completely it overlaps with any meaning of Istvaeonic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Maths, science, and technology

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem

This article is currently named Bitcoin scalability problem. I believe the use of the word problem is a WP:NPOV issue as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem, and what are solutions to it (such as already deployed scaling solutions Bitcoin Cash, SegWit, and Lightning Network which are discussed in the content of this very article). I propose the article be changed to "*Bitcoin Sscaling", thus dropping the word problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

I'd like to know what people who have not worked on this article think of the difference between the current article and this version [9]. Note especially the more concise lead and foregrounding of the explanation of the collapse mechanics in the alternative version. Note also that it acknowledges and explicitly dismisses the conspiracy theories that have grown up around this event. My view is that it is more informative and easier to read than the current one and is a step in the direction of WP:GA. I'm looking forward to hearing what people think.--Thomas B (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Darwin (operating system)

Addition of a list of Release history does not provide any addition information to the readers of the article and bloats the page content. This should be in the software documentation which Wikipedia is not and violates WP:CHANGELOG, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTGUIDE. Hagennos (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident

Should this report of the incident be included as an external link, keeping in mind it has been verified by one of our sources as genuine? AdA&D 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International System of Units

These articles, both GA and of significant merit, have substantially duplicate content, titles and focus. While Metric system is not quite synonymous with International System of Units, surely, with a paragraph or section to detail one from the other, the articles are the same. A lot of hard working editors have a stake in each article, and their contributions should not be lost. But I think it irrational that the information should not be one place, and be the best article quality that we can produce. These could be a combined Featured Article. Sbalfour (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Art, architecture, literature, and media

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media

Talk:Elizabeth II

Should instances of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg? (See above discussion.) nagualdesign 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Times of Israel

Should this article use {{Infobox newspaper}} or {{Infobox website}}? (see thread above) --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)

Should the "Genre" section of the infobox describe this as science fiction? see these edits: [10] [11] [12] Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)

Should this article have both Child Categories and Parent Categories listed? (See discussion at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)#Excessive removal of several categories.) Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark

Do you agree with this. One journalist finding OMD to be an inspiration on another specific singer/band is not sufficient. It requires reliable sources with quotes of concerned musicians. Woovee (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:White House press corps

Should the "correspondent" section include only correspondents of organizations with "hard passes"?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Game of Thrones

Should this article be in the "LGBT-related" category? 02:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

One view is that an Audience (fan) response section is unencyclopedic and/or WP:Undue in this case because the backlash to the film is mainly reflected in polls that can be easily manipulated and those who have issue with the film are a significant minority. The other view is that, per MOS:FILM#Audience response, an Audience (fan) response section can be encyclopedic and that it is WP:Due to include fan response in this case because various reliable sources have noted that there is significant discontent with the film among fans, which goes beyond polling, and that this discontent clashes with what professional critics are stating.

Thoughts? If seeing this from the RfC page or from an alert on your talk page about RfC participation, see previous discussions on the article talk page, including Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Fan reaction, for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:More Life

There have been several editors argue "playlist" should be added in the infobox, because Drake himself called it a playlist and was supported by reliable sources [13] [14], but playlist is not a valid album type for the infobox, you can see it right here. I think it should be called mixtape in the infobox because some publications have referred to it as a mixtape, including Metacritic [15] [16] [17]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Trace Adkins

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toby Keith

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Reba McEntire

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Miranda Lambert

As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music

So, nobody seems to agree on how this should be dealt with. The current version (actually: the one that was there before page protection) is, arguably, not satisfactory: why those 20 composers? is this really the best picture we can have to represent classical music? why composers?

In the above section (Talk:Classical music#Gallery of composers), "No such user" argues that having an arbitrary gallery goes against the result of some RfC from February last year. While I personally disagree with that interpretation (which seems to have been aimed at something completely different in the first place), it remains true that a gallery of composers might not be the best option.

As I see it, the following options present themselves:

Option A Reinstate the removed version (File:Classical music composers montage.JPG)

Option B Change/remove some composers (make a new version)

Option C Put something other than composers (example only for demonstration purposes File:Cesare Gennari Orfeo.jpg)

Option D Remove the image completely (and do not replace)

What is your opinion, and more importantly, why? 135.23.202.24 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Only Connect

Should the Ratings section be removed? There has already been a discussion about this on the talk page. BangJan1999 16:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Arrowverse

One view is that the Supergirl television series should be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because a number of reliable sources state or imply that the show is a part of Arrowverse and because the show has been a part of Arrowverse crossovers. The other view is that Supergirl should not be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because the creators/showrunners have not identified it as being a part of Arrowverse. Thoughts?

For those viewing this discussion from the RfC page or an alert on their talk page, see the Talk:Arrowverse#Supergirl discussion for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Politics, government, and law

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

Talk:Donald Trump

Should the lead include mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct on Trump's part? --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Roy Moore

A. The lead currently says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition to Moore". Should we edit that to say, "President Donald Trump supported Moore's opponent during the primary, and endorsed Moore a week before the final election,[9] prompting some Republicans to withdraw their opposition to Moore"?

B. The lead currently says, "During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him". Should we insert ", after the primary" immediately before the comma? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey

For the word Secularism, which is found in the second sentence of the article, I propose adding a caveat to this bold statement, given that Turkish society has changed considerably over the years.

I propose modifying the sentence to:

“ Turkey is officially secular, despite recent policies by the ruling AKP to create a more Islamic society. It is a unitary, parliamentary republic; slated to transition to a presidential system in 2019, following a 2017 referendum. ”

I also strongly suggest to move the secular, unitary, and parliamentary stuff out as the second sentence of the article, and move it to a more appropriate section in the lead, namely the parts of the lead that talk about secularism and government. The first couple of sentences of such an article should not bother talking about referendums and Islamist curtailing of secularism. And just a reminder: I am not going against any RFC conclusion by doing this. Secularism and parliamentary republic would still be in the lead, but this modification will give a more accurate description of the developments in Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?

Proposed content and sources
Adoption of harsh IMF regulations References

- MrX 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Unite the Right rally

The first paragraph of this article currently contains mention of Trump/Pence signs sourced to one analysis article in a highly reliable source. The issue with inclusion is WP:NPOV with particular attention to the following exhortation in WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also note that NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Earlier discussion can be found at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Trump/Pence_signage.

Should the text "Trump/Pence signs" be included in the lead and/or body? Please respond with:

Yes, Yes – Include in the lead and body
Yes, No – Include in the lead only
No, Yes – Include in the body only
No, No – Do not include
O3000 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?

Previous discussions: #Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, #Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict

Indicate support and oppose, and your reasoning.- MrX 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

Per this RFC and this discussion, should the following sentence in the lede include:

1. The statement “most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”
2. State that the media “Have stressed” number 1.

“The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”

Please answer for as follows.

1. Yes, Yes
2. Yes, No
3. No, Yes
4. No, No

Casprings (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

In the infobox for Israel, the entry for capital city includes a parenthetical comment about the status of Jerusalem. The question for this RfC is what this comment should say. Here are five possibilities:

1. (internationally unrecognized)
2. (limited recognition)
3. (Contested)
4. Only a footnote is needed (e.g. [18]).
5. No information about other countries' views is necessary.

A variety of references related to the history of the city and various countries' views about the status the city can be found in this article. OtterAM (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

Per the recommendation of the closer of the previous Rfc.

How should Charles be defined in the lead? Here are the final options.

1. ...heir apparent to the British throne...
2. ...heir apparent to the British throne [footnote = for other Commonwealth realms]...
3. ...heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II...

GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

Does the following text on the Trump administration's Ukraine policy belong in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Ukraine?:

In December 2017, the Trump administration agreed to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, including long-sought FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles. Source: Wilkinson, Tracy (2017-12-26). "U.S. decision to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine angers Russian leaders". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2017-12-29. 

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian presidential election, 2018

Alexei Navalny's campaign section should be deleted his not a candidate anymore/ 2 his campaign section is to much more then other candidates.Max.Moore (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Strzok

Should the lead say that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division....” instead of only saying that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pink tide

Requesting other opinions surrounding the inclusion of the role that the 2000s commodities boom played with pink tide governments, their use of populism and unsustainable policies surrounding the boom. I have provided scholarly sources supporting the inclusion of this information though others have called it "subjective". Looking for a more thorough discussion and oversight on this article.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Transitional Council

There is currently a content dispute among three editors, including myself.

These are current major elements of this dispute regarding the existence of the STC:

1. Does the Southern Transitional Council exist, as an independent organization from the Hadi-led government of Yemen?

2. Is the Southern Movement in fact affiliated to the Southern Transitional Council?

3. Are the Southern Transitional Council's territories on the YCW war map (module) effectively under the control of the Hadi-led government?

4. Is the STC at war with the Hadi-led government?

Please keep in mind that the situation is evolving and keep in mind that the current RfC should generally be limited to these questions, and should not go to questions that cannot be resolved without depending on an answer to one of these four questions. Nuke (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Mexico–United States border

This section seems very editorialized, I am unsure if it is fit for inclusion. I have tagged the section for further review. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:White House press corps

Should the "correspondent" section include only correspondents of organizations with "hard passes"?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital

Should the following text be included inUnited States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#Israel?

Yousef Jabareen, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament said that U.S. recognition has legitimized the right wing position that Israel can control the whole of Jerusalem by sheer force and "by creating facts on the ground," adding that the Israeli "religious right's narrative will now seem persuasive" in other disputed territories.

References

Indicate Remove or Include with reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative for Germany

Should the sentence "Many supporters of the AfD have shown racist,[19][20] Islamophobic,[21] and/or antisemitic[22] tendencies connected to movements such as Neo-Nazism[23] and identitarianism.[24][25]" be removed or amended due to concerns of it being biased and opinionated and not complying with WP:NPOV . Diak4 (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Austrian People's Party

Hi

What do you think ? Does we changed OVP's black color to turquoise ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative

Should the lede mention Hungary as being a Central European country? --T*U (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

Is the statement in the "Jerusalem" footnote of the article's infobox that Taiwan recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital adequately supported by sources? Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Targeted killing

Should the killings in Philippine drug war belong to Targeted killing or Extrajudicial killing? Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem

Should the following text be included in the "American reactions" section?

In December 2017, more than 130 Jewish studies scholars from across North America criticized the Trump administration's decision, calling on the U.S. government to take actions to deescalate the tensions and to "clarify Palestinians' legitimate stake in the future of Jerusalem." According to Haaretz, many of these scholars have been critical of the Trump administration and the current Israeli government.

References

Indicate Remove or Include with reasons. --Wiking (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of sovereign states

Should this list include territories that are "not independent states" or have "contested statehood" according to reliable scholarly sources? My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Sakwa

To what extent WP:GEVAL applies to academic sources on the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Useful idiot

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

The official UN stand point on Jerusalem as Israel's capital has not changed, and therefore just because the United States of America has recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it is still internationally unrecognised as the majority of the world still disagrees with this. Thoughts? –GH (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Because of an ARBCOM decision that states any modification to the lead requires an RFC, here we are. Once Trump officially recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, several parts of the lead needs to be rewritten. Below are the places I found that needs to be modified. Because this RFC is not a simple Yes/No, I think people should propose modifications and we can discuss those modifications.

---

""Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as the State of Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there while the State of Palestine ultimately foresees the city as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally."

The ending of this sentence needs modification, along with the NOTE3 that it references.

---

"The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. "

I propose "Most of the international community does.... (or OTher than the US, most of the international community.....)...." 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tudeh Party of Iran

Should the infobox contain Stalinism as an ideology? Pahlevun (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:National Rifle Association

Should the following text be added to a subsection entitled "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" in the "Criticism" section:

The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in cases involving gun rights and black gun owners. The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias. Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners, such as the case of Philando Castile, is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement.

The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop. Castile had a valid firearm permit, informed the police officer about his gun, and was subsequently fatally shot by the police officer when he was allegedly attempting to retrieve his wallet. According to The Washington Post, the NRA has typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting. Some critics attributed the NRA's silence to the fact that Castile was black. On July 9, an NRA spokeswoman commented on the incident, saying it was "a tragedy" that "could have been avoided". Further comments were made by NRA spokeswoman, Dana Loesch, who stated "He was also in possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and a firearm simultaneously, which is illegal."

Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, noted that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s and 1930s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities. Winkler added that it was under this legislation that Martin Luther King Jr. had an application for a concealed carry license turned down in 1956 when he applied for one after his house was firebombed. Winkler also argues that the Gun Control Act of 1968, which the NRA took credit for, was motivated out of a fear of black radicals and race riots. According to Robert Slayton, Professor of History at Chapman University, there is a precedence to NRA silence on gun-rights cases involving African-Americans. Slayton mentioned as an example the case of Earl D. Brown, an African-American security guard who carried a licensed weapon and was shot by police after Brown raised his hands and said "I'm security"; the NRA did not comment on the case. The widow of Brown criticized the NRA for its silence, "Honestly, I hear the N.R.A. talking about the right to bear arms. He had the right to bear his that night; they just never told us he wouldn’t have the right to life. It seems like white men and police officers are the only ones who have the right to bear arms in this country." Critics of the NRA also noted the organization's lack of a response and failure to offer condolences after Alton Sterling was killed by police while legally carrying a firearm.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Canada
Government	Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy

I propose we use the terms in the infobox I included, because the term "democracy" is too subjective, especially in the context of modern rhetoric where "Democracy" is held to be the greatest ideal. I think using "democracy" causes bias where a supposedly neutral encyclopedia article is effectively calling a certain country a "good" country, which in that case you might as well officially define the United States as a free country in its article, or using opinionated terms like "evil" in Nazi Germany's article. My point is, Wikipedia should be neutral, and even if you agree that Canada is a democracy, or the US is a free country, or Nazi Germany was evil, which many people including me do, it is not up to Wikipedia, which its only role is to provide objective facts.

I also want to note that pretty much all of what would be seen as free democratic constitutional monarchies also don't use "representative democracy" in its infobox including United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, or Luxembourg. Neither do other commonwealth countries with Elizabeth II as its head of state such as New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, The Bahamas and others. Australia also uses "democracy" but I'm willing to bet its the same person who added it to Canada. I'm told its irrelevant what other articles do, but I think a hint of consistency is also good sometimes. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion and philosophy

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

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

Talk:The Bible and violence

Should this article contain these definitions? Should they be revised and partially included? Should they be completely removed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Society, sports, and culture

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

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?

Proposed content and sources
Adoption of harsh IMF regulations References

- MrX 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018

Should the "Predicted and scheduled events" section include the 2018 Commonwealth Games as a scheduled event? Jith12 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?

Previous discussions: #Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, #Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict

Indicate support and oppose, and your reasoning.- MrX 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

Per this RFC and this discussion, should the following sentence in the lede include:

1. The statement “most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”
2. State that the media “Have stressed” number 1.

“The media and the intelligence community have stressed that most of the accusations in the dossier have not been verified.”

Please answer for as follows.

1. Yes, Yes
2. Yes, No
3. No, Yes
4. No, No

Casprings (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Zwarte Piet

This is really two questions. The first: should the putting on of black make-up as is done with Zwarte Piet, be called blackface or not? The second: if it is blackface, should we link that term, and if so should it be to the wiktionary entry or the wikipedia article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

Does the following text on the Trump administration's Ukraine policy belong in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Ukraine?:

In December 2017, the Trump administration agreed to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, including long-sought FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles. Source: Wilkinson, Tracy (2017-12-26). "U.S. decision to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine angers Russian leaders". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2017-12-29. 

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Johor Darul Ta'zim F.C.

I would like to suggest the section of Sultan Ibrahim Larkin Stadium be slimmed done a bit as there is only ready an article on it at Sultan Ibrahim Larkin Stadium so a merge would probably work as well. Also trying to slim the article down as it should be able to split on its own separate articles, as such to comply MOS to make it more easier to read and find facts as the article is currently way to big. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

One view is that an Audience (fan) response section is unencyclopedic and/or WP:Undue in this case because the backlash to the film is mainly reflected in polls that can be easily manipulated and those who have issue with the film are a significant minority. The other view is that, per MOS:FILM#Audience response, an Audience (fan) response section can be encyclopedic and that it is WP:Due to include fan response in this case because various reliable sources have noted that there is significant discontent with the film among fans, which goes beyond polling, and that this discontent clashes with what professional critics are stating.

Thoughts? If seeing this from the RfC page or from an alert on your talk page about RfC participation, see previous discussions on the article talk page, including Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Fan reaction, for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Current members of the United States Senate

Editors of this article are discussing which information to include in the list.

• Which columns of information are most helpful to readers? Sparkie82 (t•c) extended 06:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

For post-2013 articles, should each unique entry in the Teams and Drivers table be defined as a driver/team/number/car combination or as a driver/team/number combination? FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative

Should the lede mention Hungary as being a Central European country? --T*U (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music

So, nobody seems to agree on how this should be dealt with. The current version (actually: the one that was there before page protection) is, arguably, not satisfactory: why those 20 composers? is this really the best picture we can have to represent classical music? why composers?

In the above section (Talk:Classical music#Gallery of composers), "No such user" argues that having an arbitrary gallery goes against the result of some RfC from February last year. While I personally disagree with that interpretation (which seems to have been aimed at something completely different in the first place), it remains true that a gallery of composers might not be the best option.

As I see it, the following options present themselves:

Option A Reinstate the removed version (File:Classical music composers montage.JPG)

Option B Change/remove some composers (make a new version)

Option C Put something other than composers (example only for demonstration purposes File:Cesare Gennari Orfeo.jpg)

Option D Remove the image completely (and do not replace)

What is your opinion, and more importantly, why? 135.23.202.24 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

Should the lead section mention that this is a tourist destination? Cpaaoi (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Arrowverse

One view is that the Supergirl television series should be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because a number of reliable sources state or imply that the show is a part of Arrowverse and because the show has been a part of Arrowverse crossovers. The other view is that Supergirl should not be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse because the creators/showrunners have not identified it as being a part of Arrowverse. Thoughts?

For those viewing this discussion from the RfC page or an alert on their talk page, see the Talk:Arrowverse#Supergirl discussion for more detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia style and naming

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming

Talk:Kiznaiver

Should the character sections be trimmed to just one sentence with respect to WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem

This article is currently named Bitcoin scalability problem. I believe the use of the word problem is a WP:NPOV issue as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem, and what are solutions to it (such as already deployed scaling solutions Bitcoin Cash, SegWit, and Lightning Network which are discussed in the content of this very article). I propose the article be changed to "*Bitcoin Sscaling", thus dropping the word problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Times of Israel

Should this article use {{Infobox newspaper}} or {{Infobox website}}? (see thread above) --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Should names of traditional games and sports, and of game-play items and other terminology associated with them, be capitalized?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Noticed we had a few editwars over links removed from "See also" sections because the links were in the footer template (pointing here for validations). I think our rule on this needs updating as 50% plus of our readers dont see footers because of mobile view limitations. Think its best we remove the bold text as outdated that makes navigation harder for our mobile readers.--Moxy (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Swastika

(1) Sould the tessellation image be in the lead or in the section discussing tessellation? (2) Should the images throughout the article be above the header of their sections or inside their related section? (3) Should text be sandwiched between images in the subsection East and Southeast Asia? Bright☀ 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Cary Grant

Q: Should this article include an infobox?

The result of this RfC is to be accepted along with a 2 year mandatory freeze on a repeat RfC, from the date of this RfC's closure. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should we simplify the advice of the WP:Manual of Style to choose between a pronunciation-based option and a uniform "add apostophe and s" option, in favor of just the uniform approach, since the pronunciation-based approach is complicated, seems to be misunderstood, and is hard to apply? Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Josephine Butler

Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? --John (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Talk:Kiznaiver

Should the character sections be trimmed to just one sentence with respect to WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles

Should we merge the headings in the article or keep them? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Following the discussion above here and via the prior, withdrawn-for-revision RfC here, am proposing a revised version.

Should the following paragraph be added to What Wikipedia Is Not? Jytdog (talk) Changed date to 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

See Category:Lists of airline destinations.

These 444 pages are lists of every single city each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of Wikipedia is not a directory? 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

All right, since the point has been raised (in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2) that it's difficult to close a reconfirmation RFA within existing policy without invoking IAR, let's see if we can come up with some wording. I propose the following, to be included in WP:RFA#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures.

If an administrator files a request for adminship (commonly known as reconfirmation) without resigning the administrator user right first, the RFA should proceed as if it was any other request. When determining consensus, the closing bureaucrat should review it as if the admin had resigned before the RFA for the purposes of determining community support. If the closing bureaucrat determines that the request has failednot succeeded, they are authorized to consider this as a self-request for removal of permissions and proceed as specified in the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats policy. If they determine that the request has succeeded, it shall be considered a successful request for adminship.

If the administrator withdraws from the RFA before the bureaucrat begins the closing process, then regardless of the current state of the discussion, it shall be closed with no further action taken.

I think this will resolve most of the issues short of howdareyouwasteourtimedoingthis. I'm not happy with allowing withdrawing before close, but I don't see any good way to handle it short of major rewriting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Noticed we had a few editwars over links removed from "See also" sections because the links were in the footer template (pointing here for validations). I think our rule on this needs updating as 50% plus of our readers dont see footers because of mobile view limitations. Think its best we remove the bold text as outdated that makes navigation harder for our mobile readers.--Moxy (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Based on the above proposal and leaving out point number 2. Should we do the following?

Under "Becoming an administrator" after the 2nd paragraph as a separate paragraph include:

"Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay."

And under "Misuse of administrative tools" as the 3rd sentence in the 1st paragraph, include

"Administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Be bold

Therefore I would like to suggest two additions: The first one says how not to use WP:BB, the second one says that instead slapping someone with WP:BB, with possible subsequent further bickering, you better boldly edit yourself.

(shortcut: WP:NOTBOLD) Being bold is not compulsory: People may have valid reasons for not being bold: one may have not enough time or expertise, one may be unsure in their criticism and wanting more feedback, etc. Therefore a reference to this guideline should not be used as a reprimand for something not done.

[author's comment: I suppressed my urge to dwell more on the last statement: possible exceptions (e.g. when validly discussing someone's (mis)behavior) or consequences, such as hurt feelings of the criticized.]

(shortcut: WP:BOLDBACK) Being bold works both ways: If you meet with a non-boldness, just fix the article yourself, and readers will see a better article much sooner. After that you may write in the talk page something like: "Thank you for pointing the issue out. I fixed it. Next time please be bold and don't hesitate to fix the problem yourself".

[author's comment: I did this quite a few times as a follow-up when IP readers report in talk page some weirdness in an article.]

Since this is a non-trivial addition, I am askin for extra opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjects and collaborations

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations

Talk:Kiznaiver

Should the character sections be trimmed to just one sentence with respect to WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates

Talk:Gråen

Should the {{Infobox islands}} template for this article contain multiple levels of maps - for Scania, Sweden and Europe - despite a user claiming the radio button feature to select and display only one at a time doesn't work? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

Should the Geobox river template continue to be used within river articles, or should it be replaced by the Infobox river template. relisted to generate further discussion Brustopher (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Yesno

Should this template support the common on/off binary options in addition to the rest it already handles?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

In late March - early April 2017, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Rfc: Remove description taken from Wikidata from mobile view of en-WP ended with the WMF declaring[19] "we have decided to turn the wikidata descriptions feature off for enwiki for the time being."

In September 2017, it was found that through misunderstanding or miscommunication, this feature was only turned off for one subset of cases, but remained on enwiki for other things (in some apps, search results, ...) The effect of this description is that e.g. for 2 hours this week, everyone who searched for Henry VIII of England or saw it through those apps or in "related pages" or some such got the description "obey hitler"[20] (no idea how many people actually saw this, this Good Article is viewed some 13,000 times a day and is indefinitely semi-protected here to protect against such vandalism).

The discussion about this started in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Wikidata descriptions still used on enwiki and continued mainly on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (you can find the discussions in Archive 5 up to Archive 12!). In the end, the WMF agreed to create a new magic word (name to be decided), to be implemented if all goes well near the end of February 2018, which will replace the use of the Wikidata descriptions on enwiki in all cases.

We now need to decide two things. Fram (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia proposals

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles

Before I begin I want to say that I am all for a funny and creative joke, but we need to draw the line somewhere to avoid this becoming a collection of titles.

The entries that I removed included:

• Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

• Both of these have no humor attached to them other than being "freaky titles". So I did a quick search to find more "freaky titles" and found: Bbbb [21]. Surely this is a "freaky title" but was deleted as pure vandalism.

• My proposal? Lets limit this list to article names that are creative and/or have a funny backstory to them. If we don't do this then thee list will become a repository for any title that an editor may think is "Freaky". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should cross-wiki recirects to Wiktionary be deleted, all or in part? Huon (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Should the Wikimedia Foundation donate three million dollars to The Internet Archive ? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

In late March - early April 2017, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Rfc: Remove description taken from Wikidata from mobile view of en-WP ended with the WMF declaring[22] "we have decided to turn the wikidata descriptions feature off for enwiki for the time being."

In September 2017, it was found that through misunderstanding or miscommunication, this feature was only turned off for one subset of cases, but remained on enwiki for other things (in some apps, search results, ...) The effect of this description is that e.g. for 2 hours this week, everyone who searched for Henry VIII of England or saw it through those apps or in "related pages" or some such got the description "obey hitler"[23] (no idea how many people actually saw this, this Good Article is viewed some 13,000 times a day and is indefinitely semi-protected here to protect against such vandalism).

The discussion about this started in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Wikidata descriptions still used on enwiki and continued mainly on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (you can find the discussions in Archive 5 up to Archive 12!). In the end, the WMF agreed to create a new magic word (name to be decided), to be implemented if all goes well near the end of February 2018, which will replace the use of the Wikidata descriptions on enwiki in all cases.

We now need to decide two things. Fram (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsorted

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted

User names

Transcluded from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators •

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, 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 in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

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.

---

Sfsymphony

Knetbook