The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
| Let's discuss and decide here whether we should mention her as Russian Israeli or as Israeli. This is since the debate is endless and has not been solved until now and it is for a very long time. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Does the last sentence at the end of the ‘Career’ section which begins "As of 2024, dozens of litigation and arbitration cases…" belong on this page? JesseGoodLeap (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Ben Roberts-Smith be referred to as war criminal in the first sentence of the lede?
05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Regarding MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
| This Rfc comes to resolve a dispute regarding when AT&T Corporation was founded. Should the founding date be listed as (A) 1877: the date when Bell Telephone Company was originally founded or (B) 1885: when AT&T was originally created as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company? |
History and geography
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples
The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| NOTE: THIS RFC HAS BEEN REWORDED.
OLD RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute on this page as to the use of the word 'Genocide' in the article's lede. Should the word 'Genocide' be used in the lede of this article? NEW RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute as to the wording of the article's lede. Which of the following drafts for the lede is preferred? A: The Black War was the genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania by British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history". B: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The event has been retrospectively described as an act of genocide by the British colonists. C: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists. D: The Black War is a term used to refer to the violent conflict Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania and British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. This conflict has been characterised retrospectively by many historians as a form of genocide. British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history". Jack4576 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
There has been edit warring over the past weeks over whether or not to use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" in the lead, particularly in the first sentence. (see rev 1224577943 for example) There was a previous discussion over whether or not to include it [1] but little consensus was achieved, perhaps on the side of not including it but the opposing side kept adding the wording. The wording was later moved to the second paragraph of the lead [2] but this may be controversial as well.
Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
| We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties:
Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by:  Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for). Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
Maths, science, and technology
| Should the Climate section include the following statement:
More recently the city neared freezing temperatures with 0.9 °C (33.6 °F) recorded on 23 January 2023. [3] Weatherextremes (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
| Let's discuss and decide here whether we should mention her as Russian Israeli or as Israeli. This is since the debate is endless and has not been solved until now and it is for a very long time. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir)
| Should Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir) § Selected excerpts be removed from the article? See discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)
| @Wikiwickedness disagrees with this article's premise that Haydn's opus 20 quartets were a milestone in the history of quartet composition. Please refer to the discussion on the talk page for details of the disagreement. Ravpapa (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Ben Roberts-Smith be referred to as war criminal in the first sentence of the lede?
05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of best-selling Sega Dreamcast games
| There was some dispute over what the cutoff for inclusion should be. Other pages listed on Template:Best-selling video games have a minimum of 1 million copies sold/shipped for inclusion. However, it was argued here that this page should have a lower minimum due to the shorter lifespan/low performance of the console. Should the minimum requirement be 250,000 or 1,000,000?2601:249:9301:D570:2871:2734:7DEE:FBF4 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Jed Mercurio be listed in the Infobox of this page as a showrunner? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
Talk:Deep state in the United States
| Does the WP:WEIGHT of the currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples
The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
| We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties:
Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for). Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Ben Roberts-Smith be referred to as war criminal in the first sentence of the lede?
05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of the lede read that the subject "... is an American right-wing activist and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators".
Note: at the time of the writing of this RfC, the first sentence of the lede reads that the subject "... is an American right-wing author and social media influencer, who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators". Refer to Special:Diff/1222027778 for a record. TarnishedPathtalk 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
be removed from the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of Legal Insurrection for courtroom reporting of legal trials?
|
Talk:List of states with limited recognition
| Should we remove Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, and North Korea from this article? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
Should the lead include or remove the wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism in the line "Israel and some of its Western allies have rejected the accusation, with Israel often labeling the charge antisemitic."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:True North Centre for Public Policy
| Should True North be described as "far-right" as it is described in multiple sources? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
There has been edit warring over the past weeks over whether or not to use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" in the lead, particularly in the first sentence. (see rev 1224577943 for example) There was a previous discussion over whether or not to include it [3] but little consensus was achieved, perhaps on the side of not including it but the opposing side kept adding the wording. The wording was later moved to the second paragraph of the lead [4] but this may be controversial as well.
Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:
It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions. An alternative might be:
Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Is it appropriate to have a section about ongoing court cases involving living people who are not public figures before a conclusion is reached? XZealous (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Ben Roberts-Smith be referred to as war criminal in the first sentence of the lede?
05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Female finishers be recorded separately for the Barkley Marathons? |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
Should unsubstantiated superlatives in the lead, such as:
be removed from the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Talk:Deep state in the United States
| Does the WP:WEIGHT of the currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| 1. Can WP:DYK feature negative content on WP:Biographies of Living People on the WP:MAIN page and remain in compliance with BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format in its section on the main page (see Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions for more information on DYK). Consider the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, why? If yes, why?4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
| Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
| Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. --19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the Wsection. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be. A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
| Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
| Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. --19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Would it be good to have clearer guidelines on the usage of the "criminal charges" parameter? Criminal charges appear to be much like wedding engagements. They are short-lived preludes to longterm events: Convictions or marriages (write your own joke :)
Considering charges can be dropped against someone, would making the guidelines clearer to limit charges to only those that actually resulted in criminal prosecution? (Whether acquitted or found guilty.) If not, what examples could there be of someone having a lead-level fact relating to a criminal charge that was dropped and didn't result in criminal proceedings (that are not currently ongoing)? 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox criminal
| The guideline currently states that the "criminal_charges" parameter is "What the criminal is accused of (note that this is different from what the criminal is -- later -- convicted of)". Obviously the person can't be a criminal if they've only been accused of a crime, or even charged with one. However this Infobox seems to be restricted to use with notable convicted criminals. So this would imply that "criminal_charges" in this case relates solely to crimes they are currently wanted for (ie. which they have not been tried for yet).
I think there's a chance this parameter could be used to list charges that did not lead to convictions after being processed in the legal system (either because they were dropped, dismissed or otherwise found not-guilty). A short note could help clarify the correct use cases: "What the criminal is currently wanted to be tried for. Do not list charges that were dropped, dismissed or which went to trial and did not lead to conviction." 2A00:23EE:2848:15B0:E196:F555:C031:6D7C (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians
This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the Wsection. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be. A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:
I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
Unsorted
User names
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; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
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.
Malesale in 2007?
Monkeyeatmybannana69
The Snake Squad
- ^ "The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. October 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
- ^ a b Bartov, Omer (10 November 2023). "Opinion | What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 18 December 2023. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
- ^ "0.9C IFAPA Almeria station". Retrieved 15 May 2024.
- ^ "The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. October 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
Recent Comments