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
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: [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.
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}