From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussions related to project-wide 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 )

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)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) be further modified to only require "(UK Parliament constituency)" or "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" when there are multiple constituencies such as North East Fife (UK Parliament constituency) and North East Fife (Scottish Parliament constituency) and otherwise use Clacton (constituency) instead of Clacton (UK Parliament constituency) and Orkney (constituency) instead of Orkney (Scottish Parliament constituency). At #RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles there was consensus to move unambiguous articles to the base name such as Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (UK Parliament constituency) to Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket but this RFC deals with removing extra disambiguation when the topic does need disambiguation because of a different use such as a settlement or district.

• Pinging people who participated in the previous RfC and have recently been involved @162 etc., Amakuru, Andrew Gray, DankJae, DimensionalFusion, Doktorbuk, Elli, Extraordinary Writ, JHunterJ, GothicGolem29, Graham11, Mdewman6, ModernDayTrilobite, PamD, Surtsicna, Thryduulf, and Yoblyblob: as well as significantly involved in the 2014 discussion.
• Support it makes no sense to have a title like Clacton (UK Parliament constituency) or Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency). While it could be argued that Leeds North West (constituency) would be helpful as it shows its not about the north west part of Leeds the RFC was clearly against that (of which I agree) but I can see no reason why "UK Parliament" is helpful and at least in England few are ambiguous (as opposed to in Scotland) so few would actually need the longer title anyway so consistency doesn't seem a problem here anyway so Georgia (U.S. state) would be the exception while New York (state) and Washington (state) would be more common. In terms of common usage apart from people saying "MP for Clacton" people do refer to "my constituency" by not "my UK Parliament constituency" of which the latter only seems to get 2 results while the former gets lots of results so I don't see how this is even commonly used extra disambiguation when people need to specify them in real life. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name?

• American Airlines Flight 5342 (IATA name)
  • Consistency with sources including the NTSB, NY Times, and Washington Post
  • Brand recognition of American
• American Eagle Flight 5342 (Branded name)
  • Ticketing and passenger experience
• PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (ICAO name)
  • Operational and legal accuracy

The same question applies to the recent Delta accident:

• Delta Air Lines Flight 4819
• Delta Connection Flight 4819
• Endeavor Air Flight 4819

All follow the style of <airline> Flight <flight-number> as described in the [conventions section]

Should the title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name? Zaptain United (talk) 02:34, 1 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:

1. 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.
2. 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"
3. 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)
4. Status quo, but use the name of the overall body where applicable, 1984 Soviet of Nations election.
5. 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)

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;

1. Panevėžys, Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union
2. Panevėžys, Lithuania
3. Panevėžys, Soviet Union
4. or propose another variation

Please briefly explain your decision. Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

How should the names of tornado articles be handled going forward, especially around the use of the year and the existing convention WP:NCWWW? Departure– (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) be revised with regard to the naming conventions for state routes in Kansas and Michigan so that the parenthetical disambiguators "(Kansas highway)" and "(Michigan highway)" are only used when disambiguation is necessary, or another format entirely is used instead? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

This request for comment proposes deprecating the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. The current guideline ties certain U.S. city article titles to whether the AP Stylebook lists them as not requiring a state name, a practice that dates back to Wikipedia’s early years. However, this external dependency conflicts with Wikipedia’s self-governed policy hierarchy and with the way other countries’ naming conventions are structured. No other national convention relies on an outside publication to determine article titles. This discussion invites editors to consider whether Wikipedia should instead base U.S. city naming solely on internal principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, supported by verifiable usage data such as pageviews and clickstreams.

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)

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.

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

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions be:

1. Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and confirmed as a community-wide naming convention guideline?
2. Moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) and made a supplemental information page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), commonly known as 'NCPLACE'?
3. Kept at its current title and marked as a Wikiproject advice page?
4. Marked historical as unneeded, unenforced or lacking consensus?

• If C or D are adopted, the following guidance at WP:NCPLACE#Belgium would be removed: The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels.
• If C or D are adopted, a discussion would be opened to determine the status of the Brusselsname talk page template.

Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

It has been over a year since the temporary criterion WP:X3 was enacted. At present, it looks as though the backlog of titles which this criterion applies have now been deleted. (Further details in the following comment.) At this point, should we make this criterion "Obsolete", promote this criterion to a permanent criterion (would be "R5"), do nothing to the criterion at the present time, or take some other action? Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms

This page was tagged as a sitewide {{guideline }} after an RFC in 2013. The RFC was not a WP:PROPOSAL for guideline status; instead, it was about a dispute over a CFD. A couple of participants in the RFC casually referred to this page as a "guideline", and on the basis of their comments, the page was later tagged as a {{Guideline }} instead of as a {{WikiProject advice page }}.

The WP:PROJPAGE guideline says: Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines. Such pages move out from under their original "Wikipedia:WikiProject Something/" path.

I therefore propose that editors choose one of two options:

1. Mark this page as a {{WikiProject advice page }}, and leave it at the present page title, or
2. Leave this page marked as a {{guideline }}, and move the page to a title that does not refer to WikiProject Ireland.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 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)

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 talk:Speedy deletion

Should T5 be updated to include the following language:

• This applies to any and all unused subtemplates of a template that has been merged as a result of WP:TFD

Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the community harmonize the rules that govern community-designated contentious topics (which are general sanctions authorized by the community) with WP:CTOP? If so, how? 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

The introductory language of Deletion Review includes DRV Purpose point 3, which states:

Deletion Review may be used ... if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

Should DRV Purpose point 3 be:

• A. Deleted as not necessary or inconsistent with current practice?
• B. Retained as is?
• C Rewritten with alternate language? Please provide the proposed language.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 22 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 4536) 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=Unknown in 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 (4,536). 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=Unknown the 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

1. Process is working well, no changes needed
2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
3. There should be fewer signatures needed
4. There should be more signatures needed
5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
10. Recall should be abolished
11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company }}, {{Infobox airline }} and the widely used {{Infobox company }} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

• Even though mission statements are verifiable, they are written by the company itself, which makes them a primary source.
• They contain boastful words and puffed-up, flowery language.
• They contain vague unsubstantiated claims such as We are the industry leaders in commitment to <insert industry here> excellence.
• They focus on the speculation about the future of the company: becoming the industry leader, or the top producer, or the most reliable manufacturer.
• They are promotional in both tone and purpose.
• They are not usually verifiable in third party sources.

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory }} or {{Infobox ambulance company }}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week, either on a trial basis, with the option to expand further if sustainable, or without a trial at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

An edit filter can perform certain actions when triggered, such as warning the user, disallowing the edit, or applying a change tag to the revision. However, there are lesser known actions that aren't currently used in the English Wikipedia, such as blocking the user for a specified amount of time, desysopping them, and something called "revoke autoconfirmed". Contrary to its name, this action doesn't actually revoke anything; it instead prevents them from being "autopromoted", or automatically becoming auto- or extended-confirmed. This restriction can be undone by any EFM at any time, and automatically expires in five days provided the user doesn't trigger that action again. Unlike block and desysop (called "degroup" in the code), this option is enabled for use on enwiki, but has seemingly never been used at all.

Fast forward to today, and we have multiple abusers and vandalbots gaming extended confirmed in order to vandalize or edit contentious topics. One abuser in particular has caused an edit filter to be created for them, which is reasonably effective in slowing them down, but it still lets them succeed if left unchecked. As far as I'm aware, the only false positive for this filter was triggered by PaulHSAndrews , who has since been community-banned. In theory, setting this filter to "revoke autoconfirmed" should effectively stop them from being able to become extended confirmed. Some technical changes were recently made to allow non-admin EFMs to use this action, but since it has never been used, I was told to request community consensus here.

So, should edit filter managers be allowed to use the "revoke autoconfirmed" action in edit filters? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:04, 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 talk:Speedy deletion

Should T5 be updated to include the following language:

• This applies to any and all unused subtemplates of a template that has been merged as a result of WP:TFD

Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 00:26, 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 4536) 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=Unknown in 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 (4,536). 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=Unknown the 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)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

I would like to propose the addition of a feedback link on new GA and FAC review pages.

The objective is to provide nominators with a simple means of offering constructive comments to reviewers, particularly newer or less experienced ones who may still be developing their reviewing skills. I have myself benefited from valuable suggestions left to me by nominators and experienced reviewers.

A sample prototype of the proposed feedback page can be found here, where nominators can leave brief suggestions or comments at their convenience once a review is closed. This would not alter any existing review procedures, nor would it be mandatory for nominators or reviewers.

I welcome any thoughts on whether this might be a useful addition to the process. MSincccc (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week, either on a trial basis, with the option to expand further if sustainable, or without a trial at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

I am proposing that we add a new thing Wikipedia:Pages being discussed for undeletion. This will be the place to discuss undeleting pages, though it shouldn't be used for stuff such as drafts deleted per G13 or other stuff. Not the same as deletion review either. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the following be added to the 'Immediate failures' section of the good article criteria?

6. It contains obvious evidence of LLM use, such as AI-generated references or remnants of AI prompt.

Proposed after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#AI. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

1. Process is working well, no changes needed
2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
3. There should be fewer signatures needed
4. There should be more signatures needed
5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
10. Recall should be abolished
11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company }}, {{Infobox airline }} and the widely used {{Infobox company }} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

• Even though mission statements are verifiable, they are written by the company itself, which makes them a primary source.
• They contain boastful words and puffed-up, flowery language.
• They contain vague unsubstantiated claims such as We are the industry leaders in commitment to <insert industry here> excellence.
• They focus on the speculation about the future of the company: becoming the industry leader, or the top producer, or the most reliable manufacturer.
• They are promotional in both tone and purpose.
• They are not usually verifiable in third party sources.

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory }} or {{Infobox ambulance company }}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Project-wide_topics&oldid=1157450078"

Categories:

• Wikipedia dispute resolution
• Wikipedia requests for comment