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 ()
Biographies
[edit]| Which of the following two sets of edits are supported by the secondary material and should therefore be used in the article? |
| Should James Barry be referred to with male pronouns? Tanline666 (talk) |
1: Babur (British Museum) 2: Babur (Smithsonian Museum) Which of these two paintings (1:British Museum, 2:Smithsonian) would be more appropriate as the lead image for the article on Babur (1483–1530), the Turco-Mongol founder of the Mughal Empire? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) |
_reading_a_book,_painted_circa_1605-1615_in_India_(British_Museum_1921,1011,0.3)_Cropped.jpg?lang=en)
_Babur_detail.jpg?lang=en)
Talk:Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist)
It's my opinion that the subject of this article should be referred to as an "Olympian" and a "member of Team USA" based on quotes from sources. Particularly, this source which refers to her as Olympian Chelsea Wolfein the title and this source which refers to her as the first out trans athlete on Team USA. Other users, Fram and Topcardi, argue that she does not qualify as an Olympian because she did not compete in the Olympics, and was only a reserve member of her team that would have competed if another teammate was unable to. My request for comment is asking if yes, the article should refer to her as an "Olympian", or if no, it should not. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) |
| Should the article on Kusaila include one of the available photographs of the modern (reinstalled) statue located in Bouhmama, Algeria, as the lead image?
There are two freely licensed photographs of the statue: Both are images of a modern public monument commemorating Kusaila, and have been proposed as alternatives to a previously used fictional drawing: [3], which was removed due to sourcing concerns. This RfC seeks input on whether either image should be used, and if so, which version is more appropriate. (For additional context, see: Talk:Kusaila#c-ElijahUHC-20250602183300-Image_Change:_Statue_of_Kusaila_from_Bouhmama) |
| The infobox in the article had always used the 1984 portrait of Rajiv Gandhi. Some months ago, a user changed it to a 1987 image of him. However, it appears the change has been reverted. Which of the following images should be used for Rajiv Gandhi in the infobox, as his portrait? EarthDude (talk) |
Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:
I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams |
| Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) |
| Should the article include the subject's former name, and if so, where?--Trystan (talk) |
Should the following sentence be included in the lead section of T. V. S. N. Prasad?
This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC) |
Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:
FortunateSons (talk) |
| Should he be called a conspiracy theorist in the lead? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) |
| There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "Relationship with the military" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it has now been directed here for broader input.
Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? Titan2456 (talk) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]
History and geography
[edit]| Which of the following two sets of edits are supported by the secondary material and should therefore be used in the article? |
| Should James Barry be referred to with male pronouns? Tanline666 (talk) |
1: Babur (British Museum) 2: Babur (Smithsonian Museum) Which of these two paintings (1:British Museum, 2:Smithsonian) would be more appropriate as the lead image for the article on Babur (1483–1530), the Turco-Mongol founder of the Mughal Empire? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Should the spirit and intent of usually capitalized in sourcesat MOS:MILTERMS be taken as consistent with the general advice on capitalisation given in the lead of MOS:CAPS or is the spirit and intent to create a substantially different and lower threshold for capitalising the types of events named. Cinderella157 (talk) |
| Should the article on Kusaila include one of the available photographs of the modern (reinstalled) statue located in Bouhmama, Algeria, as the lead image?
There are two freely licensed photographs of the statue: Both are images of a modern public monument commemorating Kusaila, and have been proposed as alternatives to a previously used fictional drawing: [6], which was removed due to sourcing concerns. This RfC seeks input on whether either image should be used, and if so, which version is more appropriate. (For additional context, see: Talk:Kusaila#c-ElijahUHC-20250602183300-Image_Change:_Statue_of_Kusaila_from_Bouhmama) |
| The infobox in the article had always used the 1984 portrait of Rajiv Gandhi. Some months ago, a user changed it to a 1987 image of him. However, it appears the change has been reverted. Which of the following images should be used for Rajiv Gandhi in the infobox, as his portrait? EarthDude (talk) |
There are two related issues here:
|
| Per [7], should Poland be included in belligerents within this crusade? Setergh (talk) |
| Should the statement that the Emirate of Bari was perhaps ruled by a Black African be included? Closetside (talk) |
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
I think this RfC is pretty much needed to decide the design of infobox. Looking at the above discussion, I have encountered reluctant opinions to go with my proposal, but if not trivially then it could be done with general consensus here. The Independent sources hold indefinite and varying values of the Indian casualties:
Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?
|
| Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]| Should James Barry be referred to with male pronouns? Tanline666 (talk) |
| Should the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lede for Donald Trump remain separate or be combined into one paragraph? See here for prior discussion of this issue (specifically the subsection entitled "Lead paragraph 3"). Please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)
| There is currently an impasse between several editors (including myself) on the topic of how to display an aircraft's specifications if there are several variants. For instance, the Boeing 737 Classic generation has 3 variants: The -300, -400, and -500. On several existing pages, these variants and their specifications (Such as range, physical dimensions, engine types, etc.) are listed in a large table which encompasses either the entire family of aircraft (See Boeing 747#Specifications) or for the specific generation (See Boeing 737 MAX#Specifications). However, under the Style guide these should be a single variant in a list (See Boeing 737 Next Generation#Specifications (Boeing 737-800 with CFM56-7B26 and winglets)) to minimize the amount of extraneous data.
The disagreement comes in with which one should be used. The side I am on argues the tables give the most complete view of the variants while providing a quick reference lookup for data within the article. The side for the guidelines in the style argues that the tables violate Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE due to being too information dense, and that the singular variant model is more readable and better for reader understanding. My request for comment is whether We should follow the style guide, or We should use the existing data tables. Bimmons (talk) |
| Should the following proposed edits be implemented? PeteskiPete (talk) |
| Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[6]
Ian Oelsner (talk) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Which image should be used as the infobox image for the crash wreckage?
|
![[1]](/wiki/File:Kusaila_Statue1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/wiki/File:Kusaila_Ibn_Malzam.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/wiki/File:Aksel_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
| Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) |
1: Babur (British Museum) 2: Babur (Smithsonian Museum) Which of these two paintings (1:British Museum, 2:Smithsonian) would be more appropriate as the lead image for the article on Babur (1483–1530), the Turco-Mongol founder of the Mughal Empire? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of Pinkvilla?
(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) |
Talk:List of Tarja Turunen concert tours
| Should we move the festivals in the venue columns into explanatory footnotes next to the dates and change the venue to the venue that the festival took place, or should we keep it as is with the festival as the venue in the venue column? HorrorLover555 (talk) |
There is an active dispute on which game is the first entry in Nintendo's long-running Mario (franchise).
|
Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard
This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.
— ImaginesTigers (talk) |
Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard
This RfC concerns subsection headings.
Breaking this off into a chunk to generate heading ideas; feel free to update above with suggestions. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this but if not, I assume we'll be able to eliminate a few options & figure out how to structure a more formal discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Template talk:Infobox government cabinet
| During late 2024 to early 2025, there has been a tendency from multiple users (mostly IP and/or recently-created accounts) to add composition bars to the "Status in legislature" field in the infoboxes of cabinet/government-related articles. This situation has resulted in a number of issues that need to be addressed. Researching on this matter, I have found hardly any discussion or substantial input on this issue, meaning there is no explicit consensus for this (in fact, composition bars seem to have been added either unilaterally or in good faith by people who actually thought this was a widely-accepted formatting). Due to this affecting a wide range of articles, I believe a RfC is the most straightforward way to proceed. Thus, the question put forward is: should we include composition bars on legislature status in the infoboxes of cabinet articles, Yes or No? If Yes, how should it be formatted? Impru20talk |
| Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) |
| The infobox in the article had always used the 1984 portrait of Rajiv Gandhi. Some months ago, a user changed it to a 1987 image of him. However, it appears the change has been reverted. Which of the following images should be used for Rajiv Gandhi in the infobox, as his portrait? EarthDude (talk) |
Talk:2025 Polish presidential election
| Edit war regarding "Grand Hotel" controversy, with a candidate for President accused of being a bodyguard for prostitutes. Is this even okay to cover considering they're accusations (with a pending lawsuit for defamation)? And if so, then how to cover it correctly, without breaking wikipedia guideliens? Polish kurd (talk) |
Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:
I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams |
Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
| Looking for further input on the above discussion titled "Preferred prime minister proposal" (from April 2025). Helper201 (talk) |
Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:
FortunateSons (talk) |
Talk:Opinion polling for the 2025 Polish presidential election
| Since there is quite heavy disagreement over this matter here, should the AtlasIntel and OGB polls be included (or maybe only one or the other) in the first round polls section? Polish kurd (talk) |
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
I think this RfC is pretty much needed to decide the design of infobox. Looking at the above discussion, I have encountered reluctant opinions to go with my proposal, but if not trivially then it could be done with general consensus here. The Independent sources hold indefinite and varying values of the Indian casualties:
Given the above explanation, what should be the statement in the infobox "Third party claim"?
|
| There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "Relationship with the military" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it has now been directed here for broader input.
Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? Titan2456 (talk) |
| Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) |
Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe
| This list has been tagged for original research cleanup for eight years now. The criteria section is completely unreferenced, seemingly encouraging original research - instead of being consistent with the lists on the rest of the encyclopedia and depending on reliable sources, it creates this sort of a hodgepodge of various claims. Its basic definition also contradicts the non-list main article on the topic (see above).
There don't seem to be any sources to the list as a whole, it's mostly newspaper articles about individual possibly qualifying items. Given how relatively easy it is to get a political claim published in a newspaper these days, this is a really shoddy basis for an encyclopedia article. There's a fairly consistent formatting about how some "people" or "ethnic group" has separatist movements, but there's no nuance to it, which may well lead the average reader to arbitrary conclusions about the notability or significance of each of these. There's a consistent stream of complaints on the Talk page that have been getting largely ignored for many years now. Nobody seems to be seriously reacting to this, so I'm bringing it up as an RFC to try to bring more attention to it. --Joy (talk) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]| Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) |
| Considering the usual approach to Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes, what should the scope of the article Muffin be? WhatamIdoing (talk) |
Talk:Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist)
It's my opinion that the subject of this article should be referred to as an "Olympian" and a "member of Team USA" based on quotes from sources. Particularly, this source which refers to her as Olympian Chelsea Wolfein the title and this source which refers to her as the first out trans athlete on Team USA. Other users, Fram and Topcardi, argue that she does not qualify as an Olympian because she did not compete in the Olympics, and was only a reserve member of her team that would have competed if another teammate was unable to. My request for comment is asking if yes, the article should refer to her as an "Olympian", or if no, it should not. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) |
| Should this article include an an external link to the website? 117.194.201.67 (talk) |
| Should the article be updated to refer to the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as the "1st edition" of a new tournament format, based on the sources and arguments presented? Football2025 (talk) |
| Should estimates on the Romani population other than the official 2022 Serbian census be included in the demographics section? --TylerBurden (talk) |
| Should we include free alternative coat of arms (File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg) to infobox in most English Wikipedia articles, after both previous discussions at Talk:Canada#Where is the coat of arms? and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 March 2#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg, it only placed the fair use file in Coat of arms of Canada article. Absolutiva (talk) |
- ^ "Adidas drops Bella Hadid from campaign referencing 1972 Munich Olympics". Al Jazeera. July 19, 2024.
- ^ Zhan, Jennifer (October 26, 2023). "Bella Hadid Says Palestine 'Cannot Afford Our Silence'". Vulture.
- ^ Fiske, Gavriel (November 21, 2023). "Hip-hop war anthem reaches number one in Israel". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on December 2, 2023.
- ^ Zitser, Joshua (December 12, 2023). "Israel's Gen Z is dancing to a war song that celebrates bombing Gaza and names Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid as enemies". Business Insider.
- ^ "Israel split by song calling for death of Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid". The Times. February 14, 2024.
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.
- ^ "Adidas drops Bella Hadid from campaign referencing 1972 Munich Olympics". Al Jazeera. July 19, 2024.
- ^ Zhan, Jennifer (October 26, 2023). "Bella Hadid Says Palestine 'Cannot Afford Our Silence'". Vulture.
- ^ Fiske, Gavriel (November 21, 2023). "Hip-hop war anthem reaches number one in Israel". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on December 2, 2023.
- ^ Zitser, Joshua (December 12, 2023). "Israel's Gen Z is dancing to a war song that celebrates bombing Gaza and names Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid as enemies". Business Insider.
- ^ "Israel split by song calling for death of Dua Lipa and Bella Hadid". The Times. February 14, 2024.