Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics 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 (refresh )
Biographies
[edit ]Should there be an infobox on this page? G-13114 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Should we change the language to fit the following? I propose that the article's mentions of "points" (e.g Following the election, she achieved a significant swing of 12.3 points against the incumbent Liberal MP, Paul Fletcher, reducing his margin to 4.2 points be changed to "per cent" where appropriate (e.g Following the election, she achieved a significant swing of 12.3 per cent against the incumbent Liberal MP, Paul Fletcher, reducing his margin to 4.2 per cent). Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Clayton Kershaw pitched in the 2020 and 2025 World Series. In 2024 he pitched in the regular season, but was put on the injured list at the end of August and did not appear on any post-season rosters as the Dodgers went on to win the World Series.
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)
How should the date of death of Ricky Hatton be shown in the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Since this is a nonstop discussion the last weeks I'm hoping this RFC finally clears it up. Should the dog collar controversy be included in this article? FMSky (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I propose that there are now sufficient sources under WP:RS and WP:V to merit a short sentence following the reference to Perry and Bloom breaking up along the lines of: "Perry began dating former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau later in 2025." Wellington Bay (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox tennis biography
At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove
|residence=from {{Infobox person }} and from {{Infobox sportsperson }}.In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.
Given that {{Infobox person }} and {{Infobox sportsperson }} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography }} do the same.
For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.
- A few arguments
- Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE:
The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance- The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
- To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "
Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
With the implementation of Module:Person date, all
|birth_date=and|death_date=values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4537) where the birth/death date is set to
Unk,Unknown,?or##??(such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of|death_date=Unknownin articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).Per MOS:INFOBOX:
If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short,
Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,537). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of
|some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.I tried to find a good case where the
|death_date=truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use|disappeared_date=instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).
- The way I see it there are a few options
- Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
- Option B - Implement a {{preview warning }} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
- Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat
|death_date=Unknownthe same as|death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).- Option D - Some other solution, please explain.
Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 23:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Dear editors,
I'm hoping to get some fresh eyes on a content dispute here. The core issue is whether two major, long-running court cases against Premji, which were ultimately dismissed, should be included in the article.
- My position is that they must be included for the article to be neutral and balanced. These cases were not minor; they were covered for years in major newspapers and one went to the Supreme Court. Omitting them entirely feels like a case of bias by omission.
On Wikipedia, even serving prime ministers like Narendra Modi have their articles cover quashed legal cases in detail because they were significant public events. I believe the same standard should apply here. The proposal is to put them in a neutral "Legal affairs" section, clearly stating the final outcomes.
- The counter-argument has been that since the cases were dismissed, they are "fringe" issues that lack due weight for a biography. It was the same editor who brought up the Modi rhetoric.
The content (the legal cases on Premji and criticisms) was removed from the article while the talk page discussion was ongoing, and that discussion has now stalled. It would be great to get a clear community consensus on this.
Multiple attempts were made to make this BLP promotional, removing anything that's negative. Need some neutral eyes on this please.
Thanks,
Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The extent to which the Zizians should be described or categorized as a transgender group has been the subject of considerable edit warring. This RFC is an attempt at finding something approaching consensus on the following two specific questions:
- Should the Zizians be described as "predominantly transgender or nonbinary"?
- Should the article be categorized under Category:Transgender history in the United States?
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit ]Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
WP:NCORP presently states that it is to help
"determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article"
Do you agree or disagree that this includes lists of goods and services? FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Should research products of Primerica be included on the page?
The following language is under discussion:
Primerica conducts quarterly surveys that monitor the financial health of Americans.[1] earning between 30,000ドル and 130,000ドル 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)
Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Was the previous WP:DESTNOT consensus (1) broad in scope or (2) specific to the two articles questioned? 11WB (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Starting this because of ongoing disputes about neutrality, especially regarding the lead. Should the following lead paragraph be changed, kept or be removed?
PragerU's videos have contained misleading or factually incorrect information on slavery and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.
2A00:FBC:EE34:6EDF:39E5:3460:445B:4D5E (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether the article contains promotional language and merits a warning template. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
History and geography
[edit ]Should the lead section also mention Hebron's Arabic name? (Al-Khalīl) NotJamestack (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
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.[1] [2]
After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide
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)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;
- Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
- Panevėžys, Lithuania
- Panevėžys, Soviet Union
- or propose another variation
Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What should be the scope of the article "Crusades"?
- Option A: The article should focus on the papally sanctioned anti-Muslim military campaigns launched for the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291, and only briefly discuss the connections between these "numbered Crusades" and other papally endorsed campaigns that formed part of the wider crusading movement.
- Option B: The article should cover all papally sanctioned military campaigns, including those treated in separate articles, such as the Albigensian Crusades, the Iberian Crusades, and the Northern Crusades.
- Option C: The article should cover both the Crusades for the Holy Land and, in brief, other campaigns authorised by papal indulgence, but as distinct topics.
I did a rough read of the talk page discussion above and believe we have consensus to say that 1) matcha can trace its root ultimately to
(削除) China (削除ここまで)(追記) Chinese powdered tea (追記ここまで), and 2) the current form of matcha, which is the primary subject of this article, originated in Japan. I propose we use the following phrasing in the second paragraph(削除) as suggested by User:薔薇騎士団:Matcha traces its origins to China but was developed into its current form in Japan.(削除ここまで)Matcha originated from Chinese powdered tea and evolved into its current form in Japan.Northern Moonlight 03:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Language and linguistics
[edit ]Template talk:IPA pulmonic consonants
1. Should the creaky-voiced glottal approximant (currently listed as ⟨ʔ̞⟩) be removed from this chart template?
- a. If yes, should glottal approximants be greyed out in the chart?
- b. If no, how should it be transcribed in the chart?
2. How should the consonant be transcribed in articles (outside of this template)?
(This RfC pertains to the discussion above, #Template-protected edit request on 31 October 2025, which appears to have reached a stalemate.) ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable
Should we adopt the text of Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop as the new text for this guideline (compare)?
- Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
- Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
- Option C keep the existing guideline as is.
Maths, science, and technology
[edit ]Should the "Scientists" section state that the NASA UAP Panel studied classified evidence? ~2025-33471-28 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the statement "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy" appear in wikivoice?
- Keep the current wikivoice statement that "GET is a form of conversion therapy".
- Revise to in-text attribution with conditional phrasing (example: "GET has been described by major medical organizations and scholars as tantamount to conversion therapy when used to delay or deny indicated gender-affirming care").
- Revise to balanced attribution, summarizing both main viewpoints (example: "Some professional and academic sources describe GET as a form of conversion therapy, while others caution against conflating neutral exploration with conversion practices").
- Other (please propose alternative wording).
Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable
Should we adopt the text of Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop as the new text for this guideline (compare)?
- Option A adopt the new guideline in its entirety
- Option B adopt specific subsections (please specify)
- Option C keep the existing guideline as is.
I feel like we need to gather broad consensus for what we should talk about under this topic. Over the years, this talk page has had loads of topics saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" to which people reply "yes it is, because sources says so". Therefore, let me state very clearly that my intention of this RFC is not to discuss the article's sourcing, be it what they say nor which are reliable. Instead, I want to create consensus for what the article should be about – in other words, what text and topic should be discussed inside a Wikipedia article titled "Dead Internet theory"?
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.
Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
There is ongoing disagreement about how to phrase the following sentence in the article:
- Current version: "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics, in 1950."
- Alternative proposal: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."
The core issue is whether Wikipedia should state in its own voice that Hubbard promoted "his pseudoscientific ideas", or whether the pseudoscience characterization should be attributed to reliable sources in a separate clause. The earlier discussion is at Talk:Scientology § Wikivoice.
Input from uninvolved editors is welcome to help determine the most neutral and policy-compliant phrasing.
- Option 1: Keep the current version.
- Option 1b: Text should continue to describe as pseudoscience in wikivoice but may revise to clarify whether Hubbard intended to deceive.
- Option 2: Change it to the alternative proposal.
- Option 3 (please specify): There is some other consideration, and how that consideration may be satisfied.
14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
What should the Dingo be listed as in the taxobox?
- A. As a member of the dog species Canis familiaris, Linnaeus 1758 (example [3])
- B. As the species Canis dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [4])
- C. As the subspecies Canis lupus dingo Meyer, 1793 (example [5])
- D. As the subspecies Canis familiaris dingo Meyer, 1793
- E. As the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (treating the dog as a subspecies of the grey wolf).
- F. Omit a taxobox entirely
Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models
Should this proposal be accepted as a guideline? (Please consider reading the FAQ above before commenting.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Should VSCode be described as a source-code editor, or should it be described as an IDE? Nasssa Nser 04:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit ]Should there be an infobox on this page? G-13114 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Should the following be included in this article's "Sales" section?: "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)
Why is article about a video game set in America, made by an American game studio, which in turn is owned by yet another American company written in British English? Shouldn't we be using American English for this article? I see in the archives that Rockstar North itself is UK-based. But the rest of the facts still remain. Rockstar is American. Take Two is American. Vice City is based on Miami, an American city. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 22:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Which of the following film posters should be used in the infobox for Gol Maal?
- Poster 1: [6]
- Poster 2: [7]
- Poster 3: File:Gol Maal poster.jpg
Please indicate your first choice and second choice in the Survey with an optional brief statement. The Discussion section is provided for discussion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Video game reviews
Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What should be the lead image in the infobox? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Politics, government, and law
[edit ]Talk:Democratic Socialists of America
Which version of the lead section should be implemented as the basis for future edits?
- Version A: Special:PermanentLink/1322170148
- Version B: Special:PermanentLink/1322011566
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
Should the statement "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy" appear in wikivoice?
- Keep the current wikivoice statement that "GET is a form of conversion therapy".
- Revise to in-text attribution with conditional phrasing (example: "GET has been described by major medical organizations and scholars as tantamount to conversion therapy when used to delay or deny indicated gender-affirming care").
- Revise to balanced attribution, summarizing both main viewpoints (example: "Some professional and academic sources describe GET as a form of conversion therapy, while others caution against conflating neutral exploration with conversion practices").
- Other (please propose alternative wording).
Talk:2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election
The current content in background section is lengthy and have promotional tone. I have summarised the content, particularly removed the statements made by the government instead of other unbiased sources, to ensure WP:NPOV and gave equal weight on both sides. My edit above is just a suggestion. I request you all to contribute for improving the content. Anbarasan1523 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
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.[8] [9]
Does WP:LIBEL prevent alleging involvement in Wikivoice of companies that are documented (by WP:RS and WP:V sources), but not convicted of, facilitating a genocide? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Talk:List of states with limited recognition
The fact that Japan does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea does not mean that it does not recognize North Korea as a sovereign state. If Japan is to be added as a state that does not recognize Norh Korea, a source must be added to support that claim. Notably, both states have signed the Japan–North Korea Pyongyang Declaration, which includes language such as "issues between the two countries," "among the countries concerned," etc. that demonstrates that both Japan and North Korea recognize each other as sovereign states. – Zntrip 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide
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)
Should the lead sentence of the article include text stating that the country is also still known by its former official name? 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 Advance Uk be described as far-right or right-wing to far-right in the infobox and lead? GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
We need to change the naming convention for elections in communist states. The naming convention, in many ways, does not make sense: the elections, in North Korea, for example, are called 1959 North Korean parliamentary by-election. Does North Korea have a parliamentary system? No, it has a supreme state organ of power that holds the unified powers of the state. And North Korea is not the exception, but the norm. The communist state election model was formed in opposition to parliamentary, the fusion of powers, and the separation of powers. In the communist bloc, and in present-day China and North Korea, the term traditionally used is "Election of deputies to the" organ in question, that is, "election of deputies to the National People's Congress" and the "election of deputies to the Supreme People's Assembly". However, in the case of China, this title is problematic: the election process begins at the grassroots and ends with the provincial and other provincial-level people's congresses electing members to the National People's Congress. The entire election process begins at the bottom and goes from each level until it reaches the supreme state organ of power, that is, the National People's Congress.
A more correct, and less controversial title often used is legislative election, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election. But again, that might make it seem like the election process was identical in the US as in the Soviet Union: it was not. I, here, also propose using the formal term used by the communist states themselves: 1984 Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union or 1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet.
I have several proposals:
- At the very least, we need to STOP describing communist state elections as parliamentary. The communist states had supreme state organs of power that held the unified powers of the state and monopolised legislative power; that is, let's use the term' legislative' in the article title, as in the 1984 Soviet Union legislative election.
- Take the most radical and correct route. Make clear that communist state elections were different from once in liberal democracies and used different terminology. Follow the WP naming convention, but use terminology used by these states themselves: "1984 Soviet Election of Deputies to the Supreme Soviet" or, for example, "2018-19 Chinese Election of Deputies"
- Be exceptionally bold, and create a new naming convention for communist state elections: "Election of Deputies to the 11th Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union" (instead of "1984 Soviet Union legislative election"), "Election of Deputies to the 1st People's Chamber of East Germany (instead of 1950 East German general election), and "Election of Deputies to the 14th Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea" (instead of 2019 North Korean parliamentary election)
- Status quo, but use the name of the overall body where applicable, 1984 Soviet of Nations election.
- 2019 North Korean supreme state organ of power election, 1984 Soviet supreme state organ of power election, 1950 East German supreme state organ of power election. This is logical as well: they are supreme state organs of power, and keeps the structure intact without making it too complicated.
What should be transparent for everybody is the lack of consistency when describing communist state elections, which I hope we can all agree is a bad thing... Since they all practised the same electoral system based on electing lower-level state organs of power and a supreme state organ of power. @The Account 2, Nikkimaria, JArthur1984, Chipmunkdavis, Jack Upland, Abo Yemen, and Easternsahara: --TheUzbek (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
How the biographic infobox birthplace of people born on the territory of Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia during 1940–1941 and 1944–1991 annexation by the Soviet Union should be displayed? e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;
- Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
- Panevėžys, Lithuania
- Panevėžys, Soviet Union
- or propose another variation
Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the following text be restored to the article? Fidjeri (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Religion and philosophy
[edit ]After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide
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)
There is ongoing disagreement about how to phrase the following sentence in the article:
- Current version: "Hubbard established an organization to promote his pseudoscientific ideas about the mind, which he called Dianetics, in 1950."
- Alternative proposal: "Hubbard established an organization to promote Dianetics in 1950, a system widely described by scholars as pseudoscientific."
The core issue is whether Wikipedia should state in its own voice that Hubbard promoted "his pseudoscientific ideas", or whether the pseudoscience characterization should be attributed to reliable sources in a separate clause. The earlier discussion is at Talk:Scientology § Wikivoice.
Input from uninvolved editors is welcome to help determine the most neutral and policy-compliant phrasing.
- Option 1: Keep the current version.
- Option 1b: Text should continue to describe as pseudoscience in wikivoice but may revise to clarify whether Hubbard intended to deceive.
- Option 2: Change it to the alternative proposal.
- Option 3 (please specify): There is some other consideration, and how that consideration may be satisfied.
14:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Society, sports, and culture
[edit ]Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Shall we add a one word summary of the controversy/dispute in the WP:LEAD of the WP:BLP of Max Verstappen?
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)
Clayton Kershaw pitched in the 2020 and 2025 World Series. In 2024 he pitched in the regular season, but was put on the injured list at the end of August and did not appear on any post-season rosters as the Dodgers went on to win the World Series.
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)
How should the date of death of Ricky Hatton be shown in the infobox? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I feel like we need to gather broad consensus for what we should talk about under this topic. Over the years, this talk page has had loads of topics saying "it's not a conspiracy theory" to which people reply "yes it is, because sources says so". Therefore, let me state very clearly that my intention of this RFC is not to discuss the article's sourcing, be it what they say nor which are reliable. Instead, I want to create consensus for what the article should be about – in other words, what text and topic should be discussed inside a Wikipedia article titled "Dead Internet theory"?
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.
Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide
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)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Is Times Now ...
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Should the first sentence of this article continue to describe the practice of Sati as having declined, but not disappeared, through a descriptor such as "a largely historical practice", or not? Please see the discussion above for additional context. 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Video game reviews
Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Richard Dolan ...
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
- Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?
- Option 1: An independent entry for Richard Dolan.
- Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
- Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
- Option 4: Other
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Nick Pope ...
- Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
- Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged at WP:RSP?
- Option 1: An independent entry for Nick Pope.
- Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
- Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
- Option 4: Other
Template talk:Infobox tennis biography
At an RFC in 2019, there was overwhelming support to remove
|residence=from {{Infobox person }} and from {{Infobox sportsperson }}.In 2024, at a second RFC that decision was affirmed and overwhelming agreed to for a second time.
Given that {{Infobox person }} and {{Infobox sportsperson }} both had this parameter removed, should {{Infobox tennis biography }} do the same.
For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.
- A few arguments
- Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE:
The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance- The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
- To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "
Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".Zackmann (Talk to me /What I been doing ) 06:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- ^ Menton, Jessica (9 Apr 2021). "A year after COVID, personal finances are not so grim for millions of Americans". USA Today. Retrieved 23 December 2024.
- ^ Dumas, Breck (13 October 2024). "Middle-income households with negative views of their personal finances surges to new high". Fox Business. Retrieved 27 January 2025.
- ^ a b Kanell, Michael E. (22 August 2023). "New Primerica index shows household finances improving, still burdened". The Atlanta Journal Consitution. Retrieved 23 December 2024.
- ^ Lee, Medora (25 October 2024). "Inflation-shocked low- and middle-income Americans may not spend normally for years". USA Today. Retrieved 23 December 2024.