"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S." 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
5. The source is:
   1. Generally reliable for sports-statistics data.
   2. Of unclear reliability for biographical data.
   3. Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
6. Another option (please specify)

11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

In the wake of last week's championship and his retirement:

• Secondary source news reports (example) credit Kershaw as a "3-time World Series champion" for 2020, 2024, and 2025.
• His MLB.com profile and the statistics website Baseball Reference instead give him credit for "2x World Series" and "World Series Championship (2020, 2025)", omitting 2024 when he was not on the active WS roster.

Should Clayton Kershaw be called a two-time World Series champion? Or a three-time World Series champion? Long-running content dispute that has gone on for an entire year since the 2024 World Series concluded. 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• A [1]
• B [2]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggest adding new section food security with suggested language and sources below:

Food Security in Yemen: HSA Group leads several efforts to strengthen food security in their home country of Yemen, where more than 17 million people are estimated to not have enough food to eat. (source: https://reliefweb.int/report/yemen/mr-tom-fletcher-under-secretary-general-humanitarian-affairs-and-emergency-relief-coordinator-briefing-security-council-humanitarian-situation-yemen-15-september-2025). HSA Group plays a leading role in assuring that stocks of food like flour, sugar, wheat, and dairy products remain at adequate levels and are distributed to communities in need. (source: https://www.ifc.org/en/stories/2022/yemeni-company-feeds-millions-despite-relentless-challenges) To support these efforts, the International Financial Corporation (IFC) made an investment that provides and mobilizes up to $75 million in debt financing for HSA operations in the country. (source: https://pressroom.ifc.org/all/pages/PressDetail.aspx?ID=26564, https://www.ifc.org/en/pressroom/2021/ifc-partners-with-hsa-group-to-bolster-food-security-in-yemen) The financing package includes a syndicated loan from FMO, the Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank, of up to $20 million. (source: https://www.ifc.org/en/stories/2022/yemeni-company-feeds-millions-despite-relentless-challenges) HSA Group is a key driver of the stability of Yemen's private sector, which constituted 50 percent of GDP and provided employment for around 69.4 percent of the total employed population, prior to the civil war. (source: https://www.ifc.org/en/stories/2022/yemeni-company-feeds-millions-despite-relentless-challenges). Over the last decade, HSA has partnered with UN agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) and the World Food Programme (WFP) on a variety of initiatives and aid programmes that benefit millions of Yemenis. (source: https://www.proparco.fr/en/article/towards-food-security-yemen-hsa-group-concert-un-dfis-and-international-ngos) Its work with the WFP has included milling flour for distribution across Yemen, manufacturing high-energy date bars for school feeding programmes and distributing emergency food baskets across Yemen. (source: https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/towards-advancing-childrens-nutritional-intake-taking-stock-of-evidence-based-effective-school-feeding-programs-in-the-middle-east/) Most recently, HSA Group has been partnering with Tetra Pak on a new initiative in Yemen that will serve as a pilot for introducing fortified milk in school feeding programmes. At HSA Group, we remain committed to working with our partners to address Yemen’s food security challenges. (source: https://www.tetrapak.com/en-us/insights/cases-articles/yemen-school-milk-programme-shows-positive-results) Results of the school milk program include higher child cognition scores, improved children's learning, improved household food security, and enhanced mental health among caregivers and children. (source: https://www.tetrapak.com/en-us/insights/cases-articles/yemen-school-milk-programme-shows-positive-results) Hudsonvalleyedits (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree that this includes lists of goods and services? FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The following language is under discussion:

Primerica conducts quarterly surveys that monitor the financial health of Americans.^[1] earning between $30,000 and $130,000 annually called the Financial Security Monitor.^[2]

In 2023,^[3] the company created the Household Budget Index, a monthly index^[4] that measures middle-income Americans’ purchasing power for necessities such as food, health care, gas and utilities.^[3]

TermLifeOG (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

11WB (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• A [3]
• B [4]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[5][6]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Should similar wording be applied to this article?

Current lede : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
• Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
• Option C keep the existing guideline as is.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: ... is that of an established subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS.
• Option 2: ... is not that of an established subject-matter expert as described by SPS.

Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
• Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
• Option C keep the existing guideline as is.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is really 2 theories here – the sentiment "bot activity online is drowning out humans and it feels depressing" and the sentiment "bot activity online is brainwashing by them to control the world". And although both theories are generally referred to with the article title, they are extremely different in terms of what they propose, how they came about, and what emotions are targeted by their respective theorists. One is rooted in anti-AI and general doomerism which are quite recent phenomena, and the other is a renewed phrasing of the good-ol' "evil people are secretly controlling us" which is as old as antisemitism.

As such, I don't believe it works very well to describe the two in interwoven prose as if they were equal. For example, the topic named "New World Order" has been split across several articles, including the political sense and the conspiratorial sense. Similarly, brainrot is a separate topic from brainwashing although the two concepts largely present the same methodology. And as a third, and blatantly more obvious example, we don't talk about goyslop in Criticism of fast food.

So we should pick one and only one topic to discuss in this article. And it should be whatever the WP:COMMONNAME of "Dead Internet theory" is used for, as to be determined by the community. By my personal unsourced observation, the by far most prominent topic of the two is the anti-AI one.

How to accomplish this and what to do with the other topic should also be a point of debate – we could split or fork it off into a separate article, we could put it under its own heading here, we could deem it not within project scope and delete it, or do something completely different. Let’s hear it.

My personal opinion of how to resolve this: Contentfork this article into its two constituent topics, perhaps titled Dead Internet theory and Dead Internet conspiracy theory. They are separate topics that both deserve coverage but should be covered separately. Any actual overlap between the two may be described in the destination articles. If the community supports this path, I'd be happy to start writing towards it myself.

• Yes
• No

Q2: If No, who should be listed?

• A: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs
• B: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs and whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• C: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs or whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• D: "X#" (e.g. 5, 10, etc.) of the most central cast members as determined by subsequent discussion
• E: Other

Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda also praised the game to investors, noting that 'the game has also received positive feedback on its action features, including its parkour and combat capabilities'." ~2025-32924-72 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• A [7]
• B [8]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Are the below sources sufficient to say in Wikivoice there is consensus among genocide scholars there is genocide?
2. If so, is it WP:DUE to say this in the final sentence of the lead paragraph like proposed?

If 1. is voted true, we will be able to say there is scholarly consensus in Wikivoice with sourcing but without attribution across Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL (this will be considered the global consensus). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's first tenure as the president of the United States began on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021. It was marked by controversy and unsuccessful implementation, with Trump becoming the first sitting president to be impeached twice. During his first term, he was praised and criticized for his actions during the Covid crisis in the U.S." 22:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• Version A: Special:PermanentLink/1322170148
• Version B: Special:PermanentLink/1322011566

— Goszei (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[9][10]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Should similar wording be applied to this article?

Current lede : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see diff for an option; another option would be " also known domestically by its former official name Macedonia". --Local hero ^talk 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Should similar wording be applied to this article?

Current lede : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• A [11]
• B [12]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This should be appended to the end of the article under the Hamburger#See_also section, or removed entirely from the article. Strongwranglers (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
5. The source is:
   1. Generally reliable for sports-statistics data.
   2. Of unclear reliability for biographical data.
   3. Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
6. Another option (please specify)

11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Choices:

• No 1: diff "disputed" "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the disputed Abu Dhabi Grand Prix..."
• No 2: diff "controversial" "Verstappen won his maiden title in 2021 after overtaking Lewis Hamilton on the final lap of the controversial Abu Dhabi Grand Prix..."
• No 3: No change

(Essentially we are adding the word disputed, controversial, or leaving as is). Also has been discussed in the talk page section above this.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

In the wake of last week's championship and his retirement:

• Secondary source news reports (example) credit Kershaw as a "3-time World Series champion" for 2020, 2024, and 2025.
• His MLB.com profile and the statistics website Baseball Reference instead give him credit for "2x World Series" and "World Series Championship (2020, 2025)", omitting 2024 when he was not on the active WS roster.

Should Clayton Kershaw be called a two-time World Series champion? Or a three-time World Series champion? Long-running content dispute that has gone on for an entire year since the 2024 World Series concluded. 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There is really 2 theories here – the sentiment "bot activity online is drowning out humans and it feels depressing" and the sentiment "bot activity online is brainwashing by them to control the world". And although both theories are generally referred to with the article title, they are extremely different in terms of what they propose, how they came about, and what emotions are targeted by their respective theorists. One is rooted in anti-AI and general doomerism which are quite recent phenomena, and the other is a renewed phrasing of the good-ol' "evil people are secretly controlling us" which is as old as antisemitism.

As such, I don't believe it works very well to describe the two in interwoven prose as if they were equal. For example, the topic named "New World Order" has been split across several articles, including the political sense and the conspiratorial sense. Similarly, brainrot is a separate topic from brainwashing although the two concepts largely present the same methodology. And as a third, and blatantly more obvious example, we don't talk about goyslop in Criticism of fast food.

So we should pick one and only one topic to discuss in this article. And it should be whatever the WP:COMMONNAME of "Dead Internet theory" is used for, as to be determined by the community. By my personal unsourced observation, the by far most prominent topic of the two is the anti-AI one.

How to accomplish this and what to do with the other topic should also be a point of debate – we could split or fork it off into a separate article, we could put it under its own heading here, we could deem it not within project scope and delete it, or do something completely different. Let’s hear it.

My personal opinion of how to resolve this: Contentfork this article into its two constituent topics, perhaps titled Dead Internet theory and Dead Internet conspiracy theory. They are separate topics that both deserve coverage but should be covered separately. Any actual overlap between the two may be described in the destination articles. If the community supports this path, I'd be happy to start writing towards it myself.

Should similar wording be applied to this article?

Current lede : Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism—along with accusations that it has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza—from human rights organisations and UN officials.

Proposed : Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and its occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism; experts, human-rights organisations and UN officials have described them as war crimes and crimes against humanity.Cinaroot (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

11WB (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters.

There is no evidence that Category:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing. On the French side, there is no evidence that Category:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid) – because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added.

Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections: Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present but Category:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any reader with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (see Turks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical, either those should be restored or these other 'survivors' merged too.

PS I'm not certain if the RfC type I have selected is the most suitable, please change it if not. Crowsus (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

1. ArbCom-designated contentious topics (WP:CTOPs);
2. Community-designated contentious topics (WP:CCTOPs), which were recently formalized at this recent RfC;
3. ArbCom-imposed topicwide restrictions (for example, the topic of South Asian social groups is subject to an extended-confirmed restriction; the topic of genetically modified organisms is subject to 1RR); and
4. Community-imposed topicwide restrictions (for example, the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan is subject to a community-imposed extended-confirmed restriction; the topic of cryptocurrency is subject to 1RR).

Currently, enforcement requests and appeals arising from categories #1-3 can go to either the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) or the administrators' noticeboard (AN), as appropriate. (Enforcement requests tend to go to AE, whereas appeals can go to either venue at the sanctioned editor's choice, as guaranteed by ArbCom's procedures). By contrast, enforcement requests and appeals arising from category #4 can only go to AN.

The question is: should the community allow enforcement requests and appeals arising from all community-imposed general sanctions (including category #4) to be heard at AE (in addition to AN)? 22:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The RfC closer for WP:NEWLLM stated that a community consensus on identifying AI-generated text would be necessary in order for that guideline to be properly enforced.

The question for this RfC is thus: should this proposal be accepted as a supplementary essay to WP:NEWLLM (and future AI-restricting guidelines) to serve as a consensus standard for how to identify AI-generated text? Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

Deprecate the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. Future decisions about the inclusion or omission of state names in U.S. city article titles should be based solely on Wikipedia’s internal policies and verifiable usage evidence.

Replace the existing paragraph:

"Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named 'City' unless they are not the primary topic for that name."

with:

"Cities are titled by the most common and unambiguous name used by readers and reliable sources, in accordance with WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The inclusion or omission of a state name is determined by actual disambiguation need, not by external style guides.""

Add an explanatory note:

"References to the AP Stylebook in earlier versions of this guideline are deprecated. Wikipedia naming conventions should rely on internal policy and verifiable data, such as reader behavior or reliable source usage, rather than on external editorial manuals."

Background

The current wording of WP:USPLACE incorporates the Associated Press Stylebook as part of its reasoning for which United States cities are exempt from the “Placename, State” format. This reliance on an external publication is unusual within Wikipedia’s system of self-contained policies and guidelines. Other country-specific naming conventions (for example WP:UKPLACE, WP:CANPLACE, WP:NCAUST, WP:NCIND) rely only on internal policy principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Rationale

The AP Stylebook was created for journalistic brevity, not encyclopedic clarity. Wikipedia’s naming standards are designed for reliability and reader intent, not for newspaper copy. No other country’s naming convention cites an external editorial manual as authority. The United States should not be an exception. The AP list of cities without state modifiers is dated and arbitrary, reflecting mid-20th-century newspaper familiarity rather than modern global recognition. Wikimedia’s pageview and clickstream data provide transparent, empirical evidence of what readers mean when they search for a city name. This change aligns WP:USPLACE with WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, ensuring that the same principles apply worldwide.

Intended outcome

Consensus to remove or deprecate references to the Associated Press Stylebook from WP:USPLACE and clarify that U.S. city naming follows the same internally governed, data-based principles used for other countries. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 18:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
• Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
• Option C keep the existing guideline as is.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)