Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions 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
 | This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Biographies
[edit]Talk:List of African-American United States representatives
| RfC on if Adriano Espaillat should be included on this list of African-American United States representatives? - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the introduction use a comma or a semi-colon between the birth name and the birth date? 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article, after previous multiple discussions at Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 5#Infobox image, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 7#Lead image replacement and Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 8#Time for a wikibox image change?. Absolutiva (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the article have an infobox? Started because of a slow-burning thread at the top that was going nowhere Dronebogus (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following images should serve as the lead image for Andrei Gromyko? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
_reading_a_book,_painted_circa_1605-1615_in_India_(British_Museum_1921,1011,0.3)_Cropped.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
_Babur_detail.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
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) 16:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) |
![[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 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 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]
History and geography
[edit]| Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
| Should the following statement, reflecting a Pakistani claim, be added to the Background section of this article, which currently describes the 2025 Pahalgam attack as a key event in the lead-up to the conflict?
|
| Which of the following images should serve as the lead image for Andrei Gromyko? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
Should the sentence: be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
|
| 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) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
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. |
| 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) |
There are two related issues here:
|
| Per [7], should Poland be included in belligerents within this crusade? Setergh (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]| Should James Barry be referred to with male pronouns? Tanline666 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 09:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]| Should the article circumcision mention in the section on sexual effects that there is a scientific controversy over the question of whether circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure and function, and that studies exist that report such negative effects? Chaptagai (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) |
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) 04:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following proposed edits be implemented? PeteskiPete (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
| 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.[3] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article, after previous multiple discussions at Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 5#Infobox image, Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 7#Lead image replacement and Talk:Marilyn Monroe/Archive 8#Time for a wikibox image change?. Absolutiva (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following genres should be listed in the infobox for Agent Carter (TV series)? The genres in question are: |
| Should we include details regarding the South Korean leak on April 2025, now that we know that Pauline is a confirmed character? Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the article have an infobox? Started because of a slow-burning thread at the top that was going nowhere Dronebogus (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of Pinkvilla?
(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC) |
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) 14:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]| Is the idea that a martyr is promised 72 virgins in heaven Sunni Islamic doctrine or a myth? Closetside (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of African-American United States representatives
| RfC on if Adriano Espaillat should be included on this list of African-American United States representatives? - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Next Danish general election
| Wish to make usage of last election results on page for next Danish general election instead of current seats |
| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following images should serve as the lead image for Andrei Gromyko? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators
| Should the name of the suspect of these shootings be included in the article? wizzito | say hello! 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
Should the sentence: be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
|
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 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
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) 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
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 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]| Should the name of the sole survivor be included in the article? WWGB (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Finger pinching conspiracy theory
| The article's background section has references that mention South Korea's gender equality issues. Is their coverage pertinent or substantial enough to be included here? 00:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) |
Should the sentence: be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
|
| 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) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Considering the usual approach to Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes, what should the scope of the article Muffin be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC) |
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) 16:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should this article include an an external link to the website? 117.194.201.67 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC) |
| 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) 20:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Should estimates on the Romani population other than the official 2022 Serbian census be included in the demographics section? --TylerBurden (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
| RFCBEFORE: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#It is time we talked about Google Ngram Discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google N-grams and 'consistent' answers Should Google Ngram be deprecated in rename/move discussions?
@Cinderella157, Dicklyon, Sammy D III, Myceteae, Gawaon, Andy Dingley, Intothatdarkness, SchreiberBike, Hawkeye7, Blueboar, Rally Wonk, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, FactOrOpinion, NatGertler, Yesterday, all my dreams..., Randy Kryn, Chicdat, AjaxSmack, SMcCandlish, and Kowal2701: Pinging participants in the MOS:CAPS discussion, the RSN discussion, and those who might be interested in this RfC. I also left an rfc notice at Village Pump (policy), WikiProject English Language, WP:NCCAPS. If I forgot someone, I am terribly sorry. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |
| This RfC seeks to establish clear inclusion criteria for the "Notable People" list, following a dispute over recent large-scale additions of individuals with primarily local careers. Murkut23 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
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. |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
| RFCBEFORE: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#It is time we talked about Google Ngram Discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google N-grams and 'consistent' answers Should Google Ngram be deprecated in rename/move discussions?
@Cinderella157, Dicklyon, Sammy D III, Myceteae, Gawaon, Andy Dingley, Intothatdarkness, SchreiberBike, Hawkeye7, Blueboar, Rally Wonk, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, FactOrOpinion, NatGertler, Yesterday, all my dreams..., Randy Kryn, Chicdat, AjaxSmack, SMcCandlish, and Kowal2701: Pinging participants in the MOS:CAPS discussion, the RSN discussion, and those who might be interested in this RfC. I also left an rfc notice at Village Pump (policy), WikiProject English Language, WP:NCCAPS. If I forgot someone, I am terribly sorry. TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria
Should understandability be added to the featured article criteria? And if so, which wording should be used?
|
| This RfC seeks to establish clear inclusion criteria for the "Notable People" list, following a dispute over recent large-scale additions of individuals with primarily local careers. Murkut23 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
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. |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history
| In relation to current discussions on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21, should WP:CAMPAIGN be changed to allow such campaign boxes such as Template:Campaignbox Portuguese colonial campaigns as opposed to being restricted to "battles in a particular campaign, front, theater or war"? Setergh (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history
| Should the result parameter allow bullet points as opposed to simply "X victory" or "Inconclusive"? Setergh (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Template talk:Lee Jae-myung series
I'm starting this RfC after a dispute came to the suggestion to start an RfC on whether to convert Lee Jae-myung's and other former South Korean presidents' series sidebars to navboxes for the bottom of articles. This is primarily dealing with interpretation of MOS:SANDWICH, which says that one should avoid sandwiching text horizontally between two images, or between an image and an infobox, navigation template, etc. For the dispute of concern, see Template talk:Lee Jae-myung series#Convert to navbox for bottom, which also got a third opinion. As of this RfC being started, the presidential seal and signature have been removed from the template, and an attempt to restore them was reverted.
|
| On behalf of Minilammas in the above discussion I'd like to propose an RFC on removing the main page's restriction on interlanguage links. This would permit readers to use the language dropdown menu's search box to find Wikipedias in any language. Note that this proposal does not affect the links advertised in the Wikipedia languages section of the main page, which will continue to be handled by {{Wikipedia languages}}.
Editors are encouraged to visit for an example of this implementation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer
| The WMF is removing public access to IP addresses and replacing them with temporary accounts. (This will not affect visibility of IP addresses or edits from before implementation.) Temporary accounts are tied to browser cookies, which are set to expire three months from the first edit. This means that they will be different across web browsers and devices. The WMF has determined that temporary accounts are necessary to protect user privacy and comply with legal requirements, while maintaining the ability to edit Wikimedia sites anonymously.
The WMF has also created a new user right for access to temporary account IP addresses, which has come to be known as temporary account IP-viewer (TAIV). The minimum criteria for editors (other than functionaries, 'crats, and admins) seeking the user right are:
Activation and use of the right will be logged. Users who are site-blocked will lose the user right. Stewards may revoke the right upon request at meta:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access "if the user is determined to have misused the temporary account IP addresses or local community consensus dictates removal." What should the criteria for granting this right be? 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the introduction use a comma or a semi-colon between the birth name and the birth date? 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria
Should understandability be added to the featured article criteria? And if so, which wording should be used?
|
| Should the English Wikipedia community adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and affiliates?
This is a statement-and-agreement-style RfC. 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
Unsorted
[edit]
User names
[edit]
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
[edit]Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
- ^ Kestler‑D'Amours, Jillian (24 April 2025). "Kashmir updates: Pakistan claims Pahalgam attack 'false flag operation'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ "Shehbaz hails Trump as 'man of peace'". The Express Tribune. 5 June 2025. Retrieved 12 June 2025.
- ^ 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.