Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies[edit]
| Should the stage name of an artist be styled in all caps if that is the way the artist explicitly wishes it to be styled, and that is how it is most often styled in sources? I.e. should "MF Doom" should be styled as "MF DOOM" per ?
Example of source containing the correct styling: https://web.archive.org/web/20240624134441/https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952519277/mf-doom-enigmatic-rapper-and-producer-dead-at-49 Criedley (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the king's role as the honorary and ceremonial -- but not technically hereditary -- Head of the Commonwealth be mentioned in the main "bio" infobox? If so, in what manner? Should it be mentioned in the article's lead section? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.
Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled? |
Should the first sentence say Swedish-born French, Swedish-Frenchor some other option? Should we omit von Sydow's nationality in the first sentence and explain it later? As for previous conversations, see this, this and this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?
If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity". Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d). I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek". Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published. In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description. As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter. Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity
Should the lede sentence describe the nationality and ethnicity of the subject as:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this statement: "Abdelkader's family was one of the most influential in the Arab Hashim tribe, which, after residing for a long time in the Rif region of Morocco, moved and established itself in the 18th century in the Beylik of Oran.[1][2][3]" be included in the early years section?808 AD (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies
| Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, NationsBank are examples of bank that have been formed by mergers.
The founders in the infobox of them are the CEOs who happen to be in charge when the mergers occured. I would like to ask if this is acceptable to put it like this or would it be considered extrapolation on the level WP:OR. Right now I cannot really see the sources that explicitly call them "founders". Imcdc Contact 04:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Is it okay to add "Rust prevention technology of Terracotta army", to the article list?...the reverted edit dif 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section contain a quote from 1903 in which the Fraktur typeface is used instead of the standard Wikipedia font? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. Vlaemink (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the section Spanish Civil War contain the below paragraphs? For details and arguments exchanged, please see above |
Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)
| Should the lead section mention the border delimitation agreement reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan in April 2024? Please see this section: [1] Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
The genocide in Srebrenica is massively denied in Serbia and parts of Bosnia (and some other countires as well). The term massacre is used by those who deny the genocide not contesting that the killings actually took place but refusing to accept the ICTY ruling the events a genocide". (Changed from this [2], to have sentence that is sourced)
|
There are two questions.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
Jonima family and Principality of Muzaka are listed in the infobox section "Belligerents". Should they continue to stay there?
|
| Should the following map be considered reliable? Super Ψ Dro 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
| A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?
If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity". Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d). I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek". Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published. In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description. As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter. Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this statement: "Abdelkader's family was one of the most influential in the Arab Hashim tribe, which, after residing for a long time in the Rif region of Morocco, moved and established itself in the 18th century in the Beylik of Oran.[4][5][6]" be included in the early years section?808 AD (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Etymology" section also include the (validly sourced) theory that the "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch" is an Anglicization of "Deutsch" as was previously the case? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. Vlaemink (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
| Is it okay to add "Rust prevention technology of Terracotta army", to the article list?...the reverted edit dif 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table? For details see discussions above and also at Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Editor Sandbh is arguing that this is the case, with some other additions. Editors Johnjbarton, Ldm1954 and YBG have questioned this, and both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 have questioned the scientific accuracy. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes
| Should tornadoes with potential F5 / IF5 equivalent winds (260 mph or 420 kmph) indicated by Doppler on Wheels, such as the 2024 Greenfield tornado, be included in the Potential F5/EF5 intensity section of this list? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[7] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Climate section include the IFAPA Almeria station data as shown below? Weatherextremes (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.
Accordingly this Request for Comment asks: What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?
|
| Should the stage name of an artist be styled in all caps if that is the way the artist explicitly wishes it to be styled, and that is how it is most often styled in sources? I.e. should "MF Doom" should be styled as "MF DOOM" per ?
Example of source containing the correct styling: https://web.archive.org/web/20240624134441/https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952519277/mf-doom-enigmatic-rapper-and-producer-dead-at-49 Criedley (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Dorchester Review?
Note, see previous discussions at RSN: here and here. See previous discussion on an article's talk here TarnishedPathtalk 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#Reliability of social media analytic websites)
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Times of India?
|
CGI skeleton Photo of person
|
.jpg)
Should the first sentence say Swedish-born French, Swedish-Frenchor some other option? Should we omit von Sydow's nationality in the first sentence and explain it later? As for previous conversations, see this, this and this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
| In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
There has been a bit of disagreement on which word should describe Twitter's situation (specifically in the first sentence and in the infobox) now that X is its own page.
Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Infobox of the artist include the fact that the town Bruegel in Brabant is a possibility - as one of the two sources of the text is claiming - where Pieter Bruegel was born? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:CONCERT TOUR, says that for an article on a concert tour, " Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Jed Mercurio be listed in the Infobox of this page as a showrunner?TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Project Wingman: Frontline 59
| Refer to the discussions above. Should Project Wingman: Frontline 59 belong to the category of PS5-only games? Jursha (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Utah
Should RFK Jr. be in the infobox? The latest poll of the race, by Deseret News, shows the following results for the candidates:
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza
How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?
|
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)
| Should the lead section mention the border delimitation agreement reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan in April 2024? Please see this section: [4] Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the king's role as the honorary and ceremonial -- but not technically hereditary -- Head of the Commonwealth be mentioned in the main "bio" infobox? If so, in what manner? Should it be mentioned in the article's lead section? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.
Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled? |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should Neo-fascism be included in the infobox?
|
| A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
|
Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:2024 United States presidential election
Should the following sentence be added to the lead:
|
Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
| Please add your votes with your comments and arguments. If you agree to remove the numbering, then vote Remove. If you don't agree to remove the counting or you have other opinions, then vote Keep 14 for PM Modi as 14th PM, or Keep 15 for PM Modi as 15th PM, or provide a custom vote. This discussion will be treated as a consensus for future reference. GrabUp - Talk 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
| Is the official name of this article's subject Syro-Malabar Church or Syro-Malabar Major Archepiscopal Church? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.
Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
| Should the stage name of an artist be styled in all caps if that is the way the artist explicitly wishes it to be styled, and that is how it is most often styled in sources? I.e. should "MF Doom" should be styled as "MF DOOM" per ?
Example of source containing the correct styling: https://web.archive.org/web/20240624134441/https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952519277/mf-doom-enigmatic-rapper-and-producer-dead-at-49 Criedley (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza
How should the statements in this BU Today "Voices & Opinion" article be covered in the lede?
|
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#Reliability of social media analytic websites)
|
There are two questions.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Iga ?wi?tek career statistics
| Should the article include the 21-match winning streak of the French Open? Unnamelessness (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity
Should the lede sentence describe the nationality and ethnicity of the subject as:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
|
| Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There is now a definitive court rulling regarding the records of this club, recognised today by the Romanian Football Federation, which will inform UEFA.
[14] [15] [16] [17] Should we update the Honours section of this article to reflect the correct and definitive records of this club? Gunnlaugson (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. (1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated (as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:CONCERT TOUR, says that for an article on a concert tour, " Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping
| Do you support the enactment of WP:SCOPING as an official policy on Wikipedia? 9t5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have a discussion-only period at the beginning of RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates[edit]
Wikipedia proposals[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping
| Do you support the enactment of WP:SCOPING as an official policy on Wikipedia? 9t5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
As most editors who have been active in AfD discussions for some time have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. A couple of editors, me included, have also seen a couple of issues with AfD, some of which discourage editors from participating in discussions. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:
Should this be done, yes or no? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have a discussion-only period at the beginning of RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
Unsorted[edit]
User names[edit]
|
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; 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[edit]
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?[edit]
Monkeyeatmybannana69[edit]
The Snake Squad[edit]
- ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name and nominals
Name # - ^ Title, regnal name, and nominals
Title name # - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # of country - ^ Title, regnal name, nominals, and realm
Title name # of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name # (title of country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, and realm
Name # (country) - ^ Regnal name, nominals, title, and realm
Name #, title of country
- ^ Brill, E. J. (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936. A - Bābā Beg. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09787-2.
- ^ "ʿAbd al-Ḳādir b. Muḥyī l-Dīn". referenceworks. doi:10.1163/9789004206106_eifo_SIM_0092. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Larousse, Éditions. "Abd el-Kader en arabe 'Abd al-Qādir ibn Muḥyī al-Dīn - LAROUSSE". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Brill, E. J. (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936. A - Bābā Beg. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09787-2.
- ^ "ʿAbd al-Ḳādir b. Muḥyī l-Dīn". referenceworks. doi:10.1163/9789004206106_eifo_SIM_0092. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Larousse, Éditions. "Abd el-Kader en arabe 'Abd al-Qādir ibn Muḥyī al-Dīn - LAROUSSE". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.
- ^ https://freedomhouse.org/country/cyprus/freedom-world/2022
- ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13608746.2024.2304445
- ^ https://www.cyprusprofile.com/page/country-information/politics?lang=en
- ^ https://theconversation.com/cyprus-what-is-elam-the-far-right-nationalist-party-seeking-success-after-the-demise-of-golden-dawn-165639
- ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-hard-right-conservatives-reformists-cyprus-election/
- ^ https://www.barrons.com/news/cyprus-sends-24-year-old-youtuber-to-european-parliament-0c87c444
- ^ https://cyprus-mail.com/2024/06/10/meps-akel-disy-big-losers-victory-for-elam-and-youtuber/
- ^ Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
- ^ Easley, Cameron (January 5, 2024). "Jan. 6 Is Looming Larger for Voters' 2024 Decision". Morning Consult. Archived from the original on January 31, 2024. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
- ^ Fisher, Marc; Flynn, Meagan; Contrera, Jessica; Loennig, Carol D. (January 7, 2021). "The four-hour insurrection: How a Trump mob halted American democracy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
The attack, which some historians called the most severe assault on the Capitol since the British sacked the building in 1814