The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention:
You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service (refresh)
I am creating this RFC in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's previous RFC that ended with the result that he was far right. This thread and many others like it warrant another RFC as there is a clear sizeable minority that does not believe the far right label is correct. 135.180.128.228 (talk) 04:47, 27 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)
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 Wolfe in 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.
Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:
Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.
I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The article has categorised the RSS as right-wing. Some months ago, I changed it to far-right due to the sources presented in the article which call the organisation far-right. That was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus. Aside from me, a lot of other editors have also made the change before being reverted. This is why I am opening this discussion to settle the issue. Should the RSS be termed far-right instead of right-wing? EarthDude (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Should a new section titled "Aftermath" be added to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article to cover developments that occurred after the end of the conflict but are related to it, as reported by reliable sources? Currently, some of these developments—such as the promotions of Indian and Pakistani military officers and Pakistan's announcement of a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Donald Trump—are included in the final paragraphs of the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Impact section. If consensus supports the creation of an "Aftermath" section, these items could be moved there for more appropriate contextual placement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 25 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 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?
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
Should the spirit and intent of usually capitalized in sources at 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.
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)
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)
What title should be used for the article on Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld? Or should they be split to separate articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I am creating this RFC in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's previous RFC that ended with the result that he was far right. This thread and many others like it warrant another RFC as there is a clear sizeable minority that does not believe the far right label is correct. 135.180.128.228 (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The article has categorised the RSS as right-wing. Some months ago, I changed it to far-right due to the sources presented in the article which call the organisation far-right. That was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus. Aside from me, a lot of other editors have also made the change before being reverted. This is why I am opening this discussion to settle the issue. Should the RSS be termed far-right instead of right-wing? EarthDude (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello! This I am made this post an RFC due to the lack of consensus on whether or not the second paragraph of the lead should remain or not.
The opposition to the current lead have stated that it is inaccurate and/or is from bad faith primary sources (Mona Baker is the main example given) and thus should be removed for giving WP:UNDUE weight to bad faith interpretations (at least in the lead).
Editors who are positive of or neutral the current lead do not believe it is biased or that regardless of the quality of the sources of the criticism, that having a criticism in the lead is preferable since it is a notable aspect of organisation (my argument).
I do not believe I have any right to repeatedly revert edits rejecting the current lead when there is no clear consensus on this talk page on what to do regarding it, and that this is a fairly niche article so a talk page trying to solve this issue wouldn't probably wouldn't have much luck compared to the last few times. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:06, 26 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)
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
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? Impru20talk09:08, 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)
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:
Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.
I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
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)
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
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)
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 Wolfe in 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)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
_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}
![[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}