Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
 | This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Biographies
[edit]| Over the past few months, there has been a slow but considerable churn over the image in the lead of the article. In the interests of establishing an affirmative consensus, I have started this RfC. Please state your preference and reasons for it. The two proposed versions are Option A/Option B, shown below. Feel free to suggest Option C (other) as well.
-- Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
Under MOS:ROLEBIO, should Abdul El-Sayed be described in the lead sentence as a "physician", as a "doctor", or with neither term?
|
| A few editors have disagreed with the categorization of Parenti as a Bosnian genocide denier. Despite this, the more I discover on Parenti, the more it becomes apparent he said exactly what his critics accused him of saying. One: Parenti's minimization of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre, already reported by the website Balkan Witness as appearing on his blog, is also cited by the New York Times as appearing in his book To Kill a Nation. Two: his denial of mass rapes during the genocide, as well as in the Kosovo war, not only was reported on by the New Politics magazine and Congress of North American Bosniaks, was also reported in Suffled How it Gush: A North American Anarchist in the Balkans, which had an excerpt featured in Balkan Witness. Given these sources, could I get some more opinions on whether or not these views should still be attributed? JPHC2003 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the lead in the article 'David Byrne' reflect the fact that he was only a British citizen, while a US resident, when he became notable, or indeed that he remains a British citizen now? Emmentalist (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should we include glam rock in the genre parameter of the Infobox, or should keep the Infobox as is without the inclusion of glam rock? HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/CWC
| A recent influx and reevaluation of GNG-compliant articles on this page, which discuss CWC in a variety of contexts and refer to their work as notable, has sparked new discussion on whether CWC has significant encyclopedic value to justify a page. A draft has been created at Draft:CWC based on these new articles, as relative consensus has been reached regarding CWC's notability. Do the available sources imply an encyclopedic benefit to creating an article about CWC, and if so, does this justify creating an article? Cerrathegreat (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Does including Public transit access in Infoboxes constitute a violation of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK and/or WP:PROMO and thus warrant removal? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Shouls the article still use the name Disney+ Hotstar as the present/de facto name, when the streaming service has formally been JioHotstar for over a year now, and Disney+ Hotstar is not used in any country anymore? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC) |
History and geography
[edit]Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Several passages in this article rely on highly graphic eyewitness descriptions presented in extensive narrative detail. Examples include descriptions such as people being shot “between the eyes”, bodies falling “like dominoes”, or children being killed in explicit terms.
This RfC is not disputing that the events, deaths, and suffering are historically documented. The concern is whether the current presentation gives disproportionate weight to emotionally graphic primary-source narratives, resulting in a tone that departs from standard encyclopedic style. Relevant policies and guidelines may include:
The question is whether the current level of graphic detail and narrative emphasis is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, or whether some passages should instead be summarized in a more neutral and concise manner consistent with Wikipedia’s usual historical writing style. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated regarding:
|
| Content on Palestine was recently removed from this article as three editors considered it a fringe theory. Following extensive discussion, no consensus on revised wording could be reached. This RfC asks editors to vote on three options: 1) No content on Palestine (Option 1); 2) Revised wording for inclusion (Option 2) 3) Shorter revised wording for inclusion (Option 3).
Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC) |
This RFC is about three questions about the origin of the Ayubbid dynasty that governed the Sultanate of Egypt. It is agreed that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin. The three questions are:
Please provide your brief answers in each of the Survey sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Hello, after a Request for Complaints (RFC) on the origin of the Daghaghra (Arab or Berber) which resulted in no consensus, I created a very brief new one to settle the matter. The participants agreed on adding the quote from Ibn Khaldun who describes them as Berber, without taking a definitive stance for either origin.
Should the Daghaghra be described in wikivoice as of Arab origin, Berber origin, or should conflicting claims be attributed and balanced appropriately? Mhmdgrd (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should something resembling this version of the lead be restored to emphasise the Communist, anti-moderate, anti-democratic and militant nature of Antifaschistische Aktion? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of largest church buildings
| Under the table's current definitions of internal and external floor area, how should the disputed area figures for St Peter's Basilica and the Basilica of Our Lady of Aparecida be treated?
This RfC concerns the area figures disputed after recent reverts, including figures first introduced in the 13 October 2025 edit that changed the previous values for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida. The main dispute concerns whether St Peter's Basilica should use 15,160 m2 or 21,095 m2 as internal area, and whether Aparecida's A12 reported 25,000 m2 ground-floor figure should be used as the table's internal area value or only mentioned with a qualifying note. There is also a related exterior area issue: the previously restored 76,800 m2 figure for St Peter's appears to refer to St Peter's Square, and the 142,865 m2 figure for Aparecida appears to refer to the wider National Sanctuary built area. If those figures are not suitable under the table's definition, the exterior area values should be left blank, marked as uncertain, or replaced only when directly comparable sources are available. The relevant table definitions are: "Internal floor area is measured to the internal face of the external walls" and "External floor area is measured to the external face of the external walls" Podz00 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Over the past few months, there has been a slow but considerable churn over the image in the lead of the article. In the interests of establishing an affirmative consensus, I have started this RfC. Please state your preference and reasons for it. The two proposed versions are Option A/Option B, shown below. Feel free to suggest Option C (other) as well.
-- Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of monuments and memorials to Wojtek
| Should the tables be formatted in accordance to what user ArtemisiaGentileschiFan used, or what user Artemis Andromeda proposes. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC) |
 The above discussion resulted in no consensus on whether or not the Joseon Cybernation's inclusion on the page is justified. Several options have been put forward. A. No inclusion at all. |
Language and linguistics
[edit]Maths, science, and technology
[edit]How should the theory that earthquakes cause lights in the sky be categorized?
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
| {{Infobox planet}} is the infobox template used for articles about planets, moons, and minor planets. Should the color scheme presented below be adopted for classifying objects in instances of Infobox planet? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the URL of the site be included in the infobox? 16:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]How should the debut album of Justice be referred to (title of the article, infobox, running text, etc.)?
|
Which of the following timelines should be shown in the article on Evanescence?
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of largest church buildings
| Under the table's current definitions of internal and external floor area, how should the disputed area figures for St Peter's Basilica and the Basilica of Our Lady of Aparecida be treated?
This RfC concerns the area figures disputed after recent reverts, including figures first introduced in the 13 October 2025 edit that changed the previous values for St Peter's Basilica and Aparecida. The main dispute concerns whether St Peter's Basilica should use 15,160 m2 or 21,095 m2 as internal area, and whether Aparecida's A12 reported 25,000 m2 ground-floor figure should be used as the table's internal area value or only mentioned with a qualifying note. There is also a related exterior area issue: the previously restored 76,800 m2 figure for St Peter's appears to refer to St Peter's Square, and the 142,865 m2 figure for Aparecida appears to refer to the wider National Sanctuary built area. If those figures are not suitable under the table's definition, the exterior area values should be left blank, marked as uncertain, or replaced only when directly comparable sources are available. The relevant table definitions are: "Internal floor area is measured to the internal face of the external walls" and "External floor area is measured to the external face of the external walls" Podz00 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Shouls the article still use the name Disney+ Hotstar as the present/de facto name, when the streaming service has formally been JioHotstar for over a year now, and Disney+ Hotstar is not used in any country anymore? Kailash29792 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should we include glam rock in the genre parameter of the Infobox, or should keep the Infobox as is without the inclusion of glam rock? HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the lead of the article describe The Epoch Times as "far-right" directly, or should it use attributed language like "variously described as far-right, conservative, and right-wing"? ClifV (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]| Should the lead section and infobox describe Restore Britain as an exclusively "far-right" political party? Please respond with Support or Oppose followed by your reasoning. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Several passages in this article rely on highly graphic eyewitness descriptions presented in extensive narrative detail. Examples include descriptions such as people being shot “between the eyes”, bodies falling “like dominoes”, or children being killed in explicit terms.
This RfC is not disputing that the events, deaths, and suffering are historically documented. The concern is whether the current presentation gives disproportionate weight to emotionally graphic primary-source narratives, resulting in a tone that departs from standard encyclopedic style. Relevant policies and guidelines may include:
The question is whether the current level of graphic detail and narrative emphasis is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, or whether some passages should instead be summarized in a more neutral and concise manner consistent with Wikipedia’s usual historical writing style. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated regarding:
|
| Content on Palestine was recently removed from this article as three editors considered it a fringe theory. Following extensive discussion, no consensus on revised wording could be reached. This RfC asks editors to vote on three options: 1) No content on Palestine (Option 1); 2) Revised wording for inclusion (Option 2) 3) Shorter revised wording for inclusion (Option 3).
Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory
| I hope I am doing this RfC Correctly, This RfC is two-fold, First, user:cyanmax keeps reverting and disputing any notion of Poland's Transcription of foreign same sex marriages being binding or meaningful. Currently marriages from other EU Countries are transcribed as standard marriages, And the following is already confirm
ZUS (Health Insurance and General Benifiets (Including Retirement) Has begun to treat these transcribed marriages as regular marriages, Meaning that spouses can receive their partners Insurance and benefits from Death [1] It is worth noting that also many large cities such as Warsaw, Gdansk and Krakow (and more) accept these marriages so couples in a same sex marriage are able to get work benefits and presumably family leave for a sick spouse [2] Obviously it is impossible to know what every work place, public or private will accept, however major cities accepting this is all meaningful I could attach many more sources for smaller things, but I believe ZUS accepting these transcriptions is extremely major towards either giving poland a new color for EU law or making it deep purple. Secondly, I would like to ask if the article should be kept as is, With Poland being Dark Purple (if not revert), Or how I changed it to match the Same Sex Marriage map. Anyways, I am a newer editor and feel unequipped to deal with such a large change on my own, However I see many other editors asking for this change on several pages. I am acting under Be Bold and Good Faith guidelines. Please feel free to remove RfC if done incorrectly MillieBeatle (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should something resembling this version of the lead be restored to emphasise the Communist, anti-moderate, anti-democratic and militant nature of Antifaschistische Aktion? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
| Should the subsection use a direct quotation from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), or should the same point be presented as a concise attributed paraphrase? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should WP:DEMOCRACYNOW be changed from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC) |
1) Should we describe IAGS in as the world's leading association of genocide scholars?
2) Should we include the IAGS's internal vote and turnout percentages when presenting their stance?
Previous discussion 1, 2 Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 11#For what it's worth, Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#IAGS, etc. Note: Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words), all participants are limited to 1000 words. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
Under MOS:ROLEBIO, should Abdul El-Sayed be described in the lead sentence as a "physician", as a "doctor", or with neither term?
|
I am proposing to replace the current image in the "Politics" subsection (which shows a 2018 video conference) with a more recent and comprehensive image from September 2025.
Proposed Image:  Rationale for the change:
I am starting this thread to establish consensus as suggested by [[]]. I would appreciate feedback from other editors on this improvement. --Ramb70 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the map used in the infobox for the 2026 Lebanon War stay as it is right now, or be the Template:South Lebanon detailed map? Genabab (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the lead of the article describe The Epoch Times as "far-right" directly, or should it use attributed language like "variously described as far-right, conservative, and right-wing"? ClifV (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]_cropped.png)  This discussion has been initiated to determine whether the current lead image should be replaced. I support changing it with above-mentioned proposed alternative. I arrive at this decision due to several factors which I will discuss here. Current image is heavily cropped, losing its detail at mobile view, due to which image appears as low quality. While, the proposed image depicts subject's widely recognisable form, instantly hitting the minds of viewers that they had arrived at correct article. It's already accessed as quality image at commons. It depicts a idol from a temple in Singapore. All these reasons likely contributes to greater encyclopaedic value than current image per MOS:LEADIMAGE. Art and painting is also used for Krishna's depiction however, Much of Krishna’s widely recognized iconography derives from murti-based devotional traditions rather than painted depictions. Krishna's devotion is very commonly expressed by murti-based worship traditions. Current image looks like merging into black background due to its dark colour, overall reducing contrast and subject-background separation. Images similar to proposed image is used for Krishna representation across devotional, educational, and iconographic contexts. The proposed image is accessed as valued image in relation to Krishna on Wikimedia Commons. These all reasons collectively appears satisfies the principles of MOS:LEADIMAGE. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Does the article have reliable sources for its statements about what most Christians believe? Mevsherd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the URL of the site be included in the infobox? 16:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of monuments and memorials to Wojtek
| Should the tables be formatted in accordance to what user ArtemisiaGentileschiFan used, or what user Artemis Andromeda proposes. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the sentence "Happy Science has been described as a cult" remain in the lead section of the article, or should it be relocated to the body with additional context to comply with WP:LEAD, WP:RS, and WP:LABEL? Disrupt-curb (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]How should the debut album of Justice be referred to (title of the article, infobox, running text, etc.)?
|
Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
| Should guidance be added to MOS:INFOBOXUSE on what types of articles infoboxes are commonly used on, and how to determine consensus on whether to include one in any given article? 07:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
| Should the subsection use a direct quotation from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), or should the same point be presented as a concise attributed paraphrase? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
| {{Infobox planet}} is the infobox template used for articles about planets, moons, and minor planets. Should the color scheme presented below be adopted for classifying objects in instances of Infobox planet? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of monuments and memorials to Wojtek
| Should the tables be formatted in accordance to what user ArtemisiaGentileschiFan used, or what user Artemis Andromeda proposes. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Template talk:Infobox military conflict
| This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the URL of the site be included in the infobox? 16:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| If an event was featured as a blurb on WP:ITN, should that merit automatic inclusion for WP:YEARS' "Main Year Articles", such as 2022, 2026, and 2018? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]| Should the language about "is kept because" be removed from the template? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Template talk:Infobox settlement
| Should we deprecate and remove the use of some or all custom parameters in Infobox settlement? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the language about "is kept because" be removed from the template? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Does including Public transit access in Infoboxes constitute a violation of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK and/or WP:PROMO and thus warrant removal? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| If an event was featured as a blurb on WP:ITN, should that merit automatic inclusion for WP:YEARS' "Main Year Articles", such as 2022, 2026, and 2018? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:57, 7 May 2026 (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.
NYCDOT
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Username resembles the organization NYCDOT (New York City Department of Transportation) in contravention of WP:ORGNAME, and the user has a substantial body of edits in relevant topic areas. They were warned by @Epicgenius: in 2020 and have not replied to the warning. Bringing it here for community discussion rather than taking unilateral action since the account is eight years old. Left guide (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- Disallow '* Pppery * in solidarity 00:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- I can't object, I can see pretty clearly that I'm in the wrong here. I'll be requesting a username change shortly. NYCDOT (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
The land of rizzgod
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The land of rizzgod (talk · contribs)
- User possibly may be impersonating one of Survivor contestants Rizo Velovic. Not to mention being warned for making any more un-constructive edits. —George Ho (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is just a reference to the zoomer/gen alpha term 'rizz', and/or punning on the contestant's name. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Sarsenet. Given the fact that they've almost exclusively edited Survivor topics, I don't doubt that the name isn't at least in reference to the contestant. However, referencing a person in a username is not necessarily impersonation. I see no reason to believe they are attempting to impersonate anyone, and the username is different enough that I don't think that anyone would mistake them for the real "Rizgod". - ZLEA TǀC 21:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider it a violation either: clearly it's referring to Velovic, but that doesn't make it impersonation (nor does it appear to be derogatory). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Allow: I searched on Google and couldn't find any evidence that this group of words is used in the outside world to represent the person it is claimed to represent. The only results are this discussion, and a WikiProject notification for this discussion. We don't block for tenuous unproven connections. The most plausible explanation is that it's a creative indication of the user's fandom, which isn't a policy violation. Left guide (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- Allow. I agree that it's not a username violation. Mz7 (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
- ^ "Zus Begins to accept Same Sex Marriages" (in Polish).
- ^ "Warsaw Accepts first same sex marriage" (in Polish).