Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Wikipedia prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, disputes sometimes arise that could be resolved with additional input from a larger segment of the community.
To request comment on a dispute, link to the page where the discussion should take place. Please add a brief, neutral statement of the issue involved. Don't list arguments for or against any position, or try to assign blame for the dispute. Don't sign entries, just link to the appropriate page.
Place the link in the appropriate section below. Disputes over article content should link to the talk page for the article in question. (If you simply want peer review of an article, then list it at Wikipedia:Peer review instead.) If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.
Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first. For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, please wait until at least two people have contacted the user on his or her talk page (or the talk pages involved in the dispute) and failed to resolve the problem. Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Items listed on this page may be removed if you fail to try basic methods of dispute resolution.
Article content disputes
Please only list links to talk pages where two or more participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article.
- List newer entries on top — do not sign entries.
- talk:Hate group - what elements for a hate group have should be mentioned? Is it okay to use elements that are unreferenced?
- Talk:Exxon Mobil - Should verified, factually correct information be deleted from this article, when that information is insignficent and makes the article unnetural by lack of counter-point
- Talk:GFDL - GFDL stands for both GNU Free Documentation License and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Should the page be a disambiguation page or a redirect?
- Talk:Call for help - is the definition of a "call for help" a tautology?
- Talk:Khmer Rouge - NPOV dispute regarding U.S. involvement/support and number killed
- Talk:Jehovah -- neutrality dispute over specific religious POV vs generic interpretation of term
- Talk:Malaysia - neutrality dispute over phrasing and mentioning of certain facts
- Talk:Malaysian New Economic Policy - neutrality dispute over phrasing and mentioning of certain facts
- Talk:Bumiputra - neutrality dispute over phrasing and mentioning of certain facts
- Talk:Global warming - One editor is insisting on using the old "sulphur" spelling of sulfur. It is disputed whether the IUPAC spelling "sulfur" is acceptable for this article.
- Talk:MP3 - An anonymous user insists on removing criticism of MP3 on the basis that he is an "expert" and is the only one qualified to comment on the subject. Says his edits are "100% fact (not up for discussion)" and calls other edits "stubborn nonsense."
- Talk:Islam - Repeated attempts by Salafis to replace external links in Islam article with links to Salafi sites. No communication from the Salafis.
- Talk:Eroticism in film - Should the section "Partial list of films showing nude or underwear scenes" be included?
- Talk:Frenulum - Dispute over external link.
- Talk:List of unrecognized countries Do Sealand and Seborga belong on this list?
- Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#"Crackpot" theories Debate over how much space to devote to quotes from various critics and/or opponents of LaRouche, which has lead once again to page protection
- Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology#Peacock words, vanity, POV - Are the statements "MIT is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the world... It is also a world leader in many other fields, including management, economics, linguistics, political science, and philosophy," and the general content and tone of the first three paragraphs of the article, reasonably neutral and objective?
- Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#NPOV_September-October_2004 - Multiple editors and POV
- Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Article_protected - Please come and help lift protection imposed after an edit war.
- Talk:1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens - Dispute over positioning of a large image.
- Talk:Nguyen Dynasty and Talk:Bao Dai - Edit wars over material with questionable factual basis.
- Talk:Enclave - Contention over the territorial status of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
- Talk:Traumatic masturbatory syndrome Should the page be linked to from impotence, masturbation and anorgasmia as though it were an established diagnosis?
- Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark: is it "non-neutral" to refer to Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark as Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark?
- Talk:San Francisco 49ers Should a fan be allowed to post a link to an "unofficial site"? It may be helpful to read the discussion taking place, and visit the link to decide on the validity of it on Wikipedia
- Talk:Cat Stevens — Should Cat Stevens contain detailed coverage of the recent denial of entry into the U.S.?
- Talk:Phil Gingrey Editor(s) keep(s) inserting POV material despite requests to discuss and explanations. Page is now protected.
- Talk:Accountancy - Which is the more common usage: "accountancy" or "accounting"?
- Talk:Potato chips - Contention over flavor/flavour spelling.
- Talk:Project for the New American Century - Accuracy and POV between two versions, see this diff: [1]
- Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses Talk:Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus: it's a dispute that Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christianity group or not.
- Talk:Surrealism - page has been undergoing constant reverts for a long, long time.
Comment about individual users
This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comment about a user, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in the Article content disputes section above.
General user conduct
Discussions about user conduct should be listed in this section unless the complaint is specifically about the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):
- /Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts; do not sign entry.}
Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.
Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top
Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top
- /IZAK Allegations: Accused several users of anti-Semitism without any evidence.
- /Gzornenplatz Allegations: many revert wars, violations of 3 revert rule - validity of certification is disputed
Use of administrator privileges
This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and blocking or unblocking users. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:
- /Example admin - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts; do not sign entry.}
As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.
Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top
Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top
Choice of username
If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the user should be forced to change usernames. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.
New listings here, please
General convention and policy issues
Some proposed conventions and policies can be found at Category:Policy thinktank.
- List newer entries on top
- A new categorzation bot, Pearle, to be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Bots.
- User_talk:Rednblu#Good_Faith_policy_(adjourned): Dispute about whether good faith policy would allow a theist to operate an atheistic Wikipedia personality.
- Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases: content created by User:132.205.15.42, as a jump-start to a discussion (this goes hand in hand with a rewrite of the content of the {{cfd}} template).
- Wikipedia_talk:Possibly_unfree_images#UN_images - are UN images free?
- Proposed new VfD rule: No repeat submission of articles that have already passed the VfD process (w/ consensus to keep) within the next three months.
- Wikipedia:Categorization of people - 2nd version of integrated content.
- Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion - Non-Wikipedia categorization systems
- Wikipedia:Importance - what subjects are suitable for Wikipedia? This proposed policy clarifies existing policies such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Check your fiction. Integrates Wikipedia:Trivia (see below) - see also wikipedia talk:importance.
- Template talk:Move to Wiktionary - Formatting of the "move to" templates. See Template:Move to Wiktionary, Template:Move to Wikiquote, Template:Move to Wikibooks
- Wikipedia_talk:Series_templates - This is a proposed policy on series boxes in the Template namespace. Please add comments about which format is suitable for these boxes, to gain some form of consensus, and make the policy enforceable.
- (Wikipedia:Trivia) -> question moved to wikipedia talk:importance: need a consensus on the definition of trivia and whether it should be included in Wikipedia.
- /Naming conventions of programming languages Should articles on programming languages always be named per "Python programming language", or should they omit "programming language" if they are unambiguous?
- Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAwards: Should the Wikipedia conduct polls to grant awards for "best explorer," "most important war," et cetera? Please comment here.
- Should we change the deletion policy for dicdefs to use soft redirects instead? Please comment here.
- Should categories and articles for deletion be dealt with on one project page rather than separately, as they are now? please vote here.
- Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion - Are policies being followed in the deletion of categories?
- User:Brettz9/videoscript - proposed tutorial videos for Wikipedia
- Wikipedia talk:Check your fiction - what kind of fiction articles should be included in Wikipedia?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) - Should Wikipedia adopt the proposed convention, which details the primary disambiguator as (TV showtype)?
- Talk:Agustin_Stahl - should article titles include accents?
- Template talk:Substub - Should we have a template message for substubs?
- Wikipedia talk:Substub - Should we have a separate category of stubs for really short stubs (which are called substubs)?
- Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
- Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Category:Propaganda - How should we choose which articles to include in categories when a dispute arises?
- MediaWiki talk:Europe — Which dependencies should be in the box? Should dependencies be linked to dependent areas? Which countries should be included? Should there be a flag?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and Lists of pieces — Lists of pieces has a format borrowed from Lists of solo piano pieces, which lists pages by composer, style or period, and nationality or culture. Now a list of pages itself and every alphabetical page clearly violates the "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" convention, example: List of solo piano pieces by composer: G. Do we add lists such as this as an exception to that convention or make the "lists" one list instead of many?
- I can't seem to find the page for this discussion; can someone help? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
- I copy-paste this topic to Category talk:Musical compositions, and propose to continue this discussion there. I also linked from several related (Category/Talk) pages to that same location. --Francis Schonken 11:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Footer dispute — dispute over enforcing/developing standard features of a specific WikiProject.
- Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace — What format to use for custom messages.
- Wikipedia talk:Page footers — Use of MediaWiki namespace to create page footers for various purposes.
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football Clubs/page name — A discussion, not a dispute. Grimsby Town F.C. or Grimsby Town Football Club
- Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion has 3 new polls on how to reach closure on controversial categories, what to do with controversial categories after closure, and what to do with empty categories with potential to be non-empty.