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]| Should this BLP use the word persecution when describing Trump's policies towards transgender people? Riposte97 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC) |
| What photograph should we use for the subject? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Albert Cashier's page be changed from 'no pronouns' to male pronouns? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Which image should be used as the main image?
Well, here we are. I've included the three images that have gotten support for use on the page. Please discuss civilly and follow Wikipedia policy in deciding which image to use. |
| There is an ongoing dispute regarding the appropriate scope and emphasis of the "Legacy" section of this article.
A proposed revision (described in detail above in this section) replaces the current Legacy text with material supported by reliable secondary sources discussing the substantial reassessment of Bassnectar’s reputation and career following the 2020 allegations and subsequent developments. The current version (restored after reverts) focuses primarily on descriptions of live performance style and technical aspects of shows, with less emphasis on the documented post-2020 reputational impact. The question for community input is: Should the Legacy section be revised to incorporate the proposed sourced material regarding the post-2020 reassessment of Bassnectar’s legacy and public perception, and if so, how should due weight be balanced between pre-2020 artistic impact and subsequent controversy per Wikipedia policies (e.g., WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:RS)? For reference:
The rationale and sources supporting the proposed revision are outlined in the discussion above. Editors are invited to comment on which approach best reflects Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, sourcing, and due weight. OctaviusBCS (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC) |
| I propose the change of current lead image again, after this recent and several previous discussions (Rfc on Infobox Image (2023), New infobox image proposal) before. Absolutiva 04:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
The biographies of living persons policy, section "Restoration", says:When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Should the word "deleted" be replaced by "removed" (removed by any user) or by "administratively deleted" (deleted with admin tools such as revision deletion and page deletion)? 09:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC) |
| I am proposing a brief mention in the lead regarding the DOJ EFTA releases to summarize a new "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" section. I have used neutral language ("past associations" and "public scrutiny") to comply with WP:NPOV and linked it directly to the factual section below.
Following the 2026 release of Department of Justice records, Wolfram's past associations with Jeffrey Epstein received public scrutiny. Thumberwartz (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Please provide opinion on whether it is appropriate and/or permissible to include a brief selection of film production company's major projects within the lead paragraph, in order to help summarize the article's contents. This has been disputed here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
Shall we use the term in the WP:LEAD that Polymarket (a Prediction market) users:
Distinguished in this diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Points Guy (TPG) as a source?
— Newslinger talk 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) |
History and geography
[edit]| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Reactions to the September 11 attacks
| The section on Palestinian reactions has a significant portion of the sourcing from Fox News. Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, "there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News [for pre-November 2020 politics] is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use."
I have marked the Fox sources in that section with the "unreliable source?" template. But should we remove the sourced material entirely as unreliable or keep it in with attribution? Evaporation123 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community. Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
| Previous discussion back in 2021 (discussion link) resulted in calling the Second Cold War a "term" instead of an "event". Changes made within two hours before starting this discussion have been attempted. The whole discussion about such attempted changes (see §It's time section) have led me into thinking: shall we continue calling this article topic a "term" (i.e. literal term, maybe?), or shall this topic be called a "series" instead? Either way, what do you think shall come after whichever of the two you vote for, i.e. "term <referring to whatever>" or "series of <whatever it is>? (I'd prefer the discussion to choose between just the two, but I welcome other alternatives you'd like to share.) George Ho (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Operation Wheeler/Wallowa
| Edit: User is gatekeeping my contributions and reverting every edit I am making.
Requesting comment on this article, since this user has a history of edit warring me for some reason. The results section stating Operational Success, and these are original research evaluations that are neither stated or supported in the actual cited articles and seemingly openly contradicted in the aftermath discussion. I am requesting comments on whether the result section of the template box should be modified, and whether my contributions should be kept. I wrote a longer form discussion here, since this is a pattern across many articles describing US military operations in the Vietnam War:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history Summerhall fire (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Edit: User is reverting my edits to campaign box, I am RFCing this edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Cedar_Falls&diff=1339950814&oldid=1339730550 The formatting of this campaign battle template is irregular and inconsistent compared to the standard format of other types of wars. I noticed most edits are being reverted and blocked by a user. Several articles in this conflict seem to have similar issues with having a consistent format or following template conventions. A second issue is wounded figures are missing despite being found in the article itself. I would suggest this campaign box be edited to follow the format of Siege of Mariupol. In particular the casualties section and figures for non-combatants, including internal relocations. Summerhall fire (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
| I propose the change of current lead image again, after this recent and several previous discussions (Rfc on Infobox Image (2023), New infobox image proposal) before. Absolutiva 04:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests
| Should Reza Pahlavi be removed from the "Lead figures" section in the page's infobox?
Context: A prior RfC established consensus that he should not be described as "the leader" of the protests and found no consensus on alternatives. Editors now disagree on whether listing him under "Lead figures" in the infobox is consistent with WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:INFOBOX. Tasasiki (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the lede describe the Volkskammer as "The Volkskammer was the parliament of East Germany" (in line with German-language scholarship) or "The Volkskammer was the supreme organ of state power of East Germany" (in line with the East German constitution and legislation)? Glide08 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
| Should WP:CANSTYLE be updated to recommend that local Indigenous place names (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) be included in the lead sentence of Canadian geographical articles, based on usage in significant reliable sources? Poketama (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
Should this line in paragraph 3 of the lead say:
A) B) Axiom Theory (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC) |
Which set of images should be included in the article?
Axiom Theory (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Seeking consensus view on including the proposed content in the ethnic groups section. I think North Africa as a heterogeneous region should feature a range of groups, Berbers, Haratins and Nubians. This is especially pertinent considering the fact that the region has in some geographical definitions included Mauritania and the Sudan.
All groups exist across countries historically recognised as North African and surrounding regions recognised by United Nations[3] and some other definitions which encompass the northern Sahalian regions. The African Union recognises Mauritania, whilst not recognising Sudan. According to this source, there is "no singular definition" [4] for North African classifications. Nonetheless, all of the groups exist across countries historically recognised as North Africa (Aswan Governante, Eastern desert regions of Egypt along with the southwestern Maghreb). UPDATE: Aware that the protection status has been lifted for "North Africa" page and the last user vote was from last week on the 12 February. I will keep this RfC open for another week (until 26 February) (3 weeks from 5 February) and then look to reach a constructive position which will be amenable to both sides. Result: At the end of the RfC deadline. There has been no further responses so far since 12 February. In totality, it is 6 in favour of the proposed inclusion and 2 in opposition. Mindful of some constructive points, so will look to amend the language to reflect the shared consensus. Please see the proposals below. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]Shall we use the term in the WP:LEAD that Polymarket (a Prediction market) users:
Distinguished in this diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Talk:List of engineering societies
| There is a disagreement about recent edits to the United Kingdom section of this list.
I updated the UK entries using the Engineering Council’s published lists of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliated bodies. These edits were intended to correct outdated information and ensure the list reflects the current recognised organisations. Some of these institutions do not yet have their own Wikipedia articles. In a follow-up edit I deliberately avoided creating red links while still including the organisations. These edits were reverted by User:Randykitty, who noted that lists like this attract spam and stated that entries should only be included if they already have a Wikipedia article (citing WP:WTAF). I raised the issue on this talk page and on the editor’s talk page but the underlying disagreement remains. For clarity, this RFC is not about whether every listed body is automatically entitled to a standalone Wikipedia article. It is about whether this list should accurately reflect verifiable engineering institutions, including where some entries are currently unlinked. The Engineering Council is the statutory regulatory body for the UK engineering profession and publishes the authoritative list of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliate bodies. This makes it quite unique compared to other list pages as for the UK at least there is a definitive list. As context: I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but I am a Fellow of multiple UK engineering institutions andtherefore familiar with how these organisations are recognised and regulated in the UK. I am also working to create orimprove Wikipedia coverage of some of these institutions. The questions for community input are:
The aim is to ensure the article remains accurate and verifiable while also maintaining appropriate quality control forlist entries. |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
| When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Act III: This City Made Us
| A dispute exists regarding the inclusion and level of detail for describing a hidden pregap track on the album Act III: This City Made Us. The untitled track, approximately 5:14 long, contains a spoken-word "numbers station" broadcast that matches a coded message in the album's included written story booklet, the libretto. |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
When an article title includes the name of a band (or other musical act) in parentheses, how should definite titles ("the") before the name be treated?
Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia
There is presently a dispute about whether or not media coverage of a Manhattan Institute study authored by David Rozado in which he undertakes sentiment analysis of Wikipedia in an attempt to identify its bias is due inclusion in this article. This RfC seeks to ascertain the extent to which this study should be addressed in this page.
Should the Manhattan Institute study by David Rozado be included:
|
| The following will be a survey only and we only need you to state something along the line of Support Option (Letter). No long wall of text is necessary, though comments, sources and discussions of process is encouraged.
Brett Ratner fled Hollywood for Israel and lost work following several documented allegations of rape, sexually misconduct and harassment by several woman, and mention in the Epstein files. There is a debate on whether mention of this should be included in the WP:LEAD, which according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is Forbes ( |
| There is an ongoing dispute among editors regarding whether the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Deji event should be included in the "List of events" table for this article.
Some editors argued the event should be excluded because Misfits Boxing was not a primary promoter of the event, which was promoted by Global Titans and Mayweather Promotions, and that the use of the "MF & DAZN: X Series Presents" branding alone may not satisfy WP:DEFINING for inclusion. Other editors contend the event should be included because the event was marketed in association with the Misfits Boxing brand, including use of the "MF & DAZN: X Series Presents" branding in certain promotional material. Sources cited in the discussion include coverage from DAZN's YouTube playlist, Dexerto, Misfits Boxing's website, as well as event listings and databases identifying the promoters involved. Here is the question: Should the Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji event be included in the Misfits Boxing event table? GhaziTwaissi (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Points Guy (TPG) as a source?
— Newslinger talk 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community. Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
| Previous discussion back in 2021 (discussion link) resulted in calling the Second Cold War a "term" instead of an "event". Changes made within two hours before starting this discussion have been attempted. The whole discussion about such attempted changes (see §It's time section) have led me into thinking: shall we continue calling this article topic a "term" (i.e. literal term, maybe?), or shall this topic be called a "series" instead? Either way, what do you think shall come after whichever of the two you vote for, i.e. "term <referring to whatever>" or "series of <whatever it is>? (I'd prefer the discussion to choose between just the two, but I welcome other alternatives you'd like to share.) George Ho (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should this BLP use the word persecution when describing Trump's policies towards transgender people? Riposte97 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia
There is presently a dispute about whether or not media coverage of a Manhattan Institute study authored by David Rozado in which he undertakes sentiment analysis of Wikipedia in an attempt to identify its bias is due inclusion in this article. This RfC seeks to ascertain the extent to which this study should be addressed in this page.
Should the Manhattan Institute study by David Rozado be included:
|
| The following will be a survey only and we only need you to state something along the line of Support Option (Letter). No long wall of text is necessary, though comments, sources and discussions of process is encouraged.
Brett Ratner fled Hollywood for Israel and lost work following several documented allegations of rape, sexually misconduct and harassment by several woman, and mention in the Epstein files. There is a debate on whether mention of this should be included in the WP:LEAD, which according to Wikipedia the WP:LEAD..."should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
|
| Should commentary from Kayseh Magan (a Somali-American former fraud investigator for the Minnesota attorney-general's office) and Hamse Warfa (a Somali-American former government official and businessman) be included in this article?
19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as:
|
| I propose the change of current lead image again, after this recent and several previous discussions (Rfc on Infobox Image (2023), New infobox image proposal) before. Absolutiva 04:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests
| Should Reza Pahlavi be removed from the "Lead figures" section in the page's infobox?
Context: A prior RfC established consensus that he should not be described as "the leader" of the protests and found no consensus on alternatives. Editors now disagree on whether listing him under "Lead figures" in the infobox is consistent with WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:INFOBOX. Tasasiki (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the lede describe the Volkskammer as "The Volkskammer was the parliament of East Germany" (in line with German-language scholarship) or "The Volkskammer was the supreme organ of state power of East Germany" (in line with the East German constitution and legislation)? Glide08 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the words "legal fiction" be used to describe copyright? Aim551551551 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election
How should we classify the non-aligned parties (Joint List, B&W, Reservists) in the polling table?
1. Move Gantz to the Unaligned Grouping:
2. Gantz and Hendel as part of the opposition:
3. An Arab Grouping separate from the Unaligned Grouping (Hendel+Gantz):
4. Status quo:
5. On @User:Rxtreme's request: only government, no opposition & arab camps
For all or Gantz/Hendel:
For Arab parties:
For Opposition (w. Gantz/Hendel):
|
| I am proposing a brief mention in the lead regarding the DOJ EFTA releases to summarize a new "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" section. I have used neutral language ("past associations" and "public scrutiny") to comply with WP:NPOV and linked it directly to the factual section below.
Following the 2026 release of Department of Justice records, Wolfram's past associations with Jeffrey Epstein received public scrutiny. Thumberwartz (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community. Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting
Current use in the first few words of the page (see above):
Should the word "Islamic" be used to describe the attack? Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]| Should the infobox "Place of origin" field be changed from "Ottoman Empire" to "Morocco" or "Morocco/Maghreb"? Bohosquare1 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
| When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Albert Cashier's page be changed from 'no pronouns' to male pronouns? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Should commentary from Kayseh Magan (a Somali-American former fraud investigator for the Minnesota attorney-general's office) and Hamse Warfa (a Somali-American former government official and businessman) be included in this article?
19:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
| Should we deprecate the use of "Foreign players" tables in football season articles? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
| Should the events names as "European championship" and "World Championship" be considered "major" for the purpose of WP:BASICSPORT? --Altenmann >talk 16:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing dispute among editors regarding whether the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Deji event should be included in the "List of events" table for this article.
Some editors argued the event should be excluded because Misfits Boxing was not a primary promoter of the event, which was promoted by Global Titans and Mayweather Promotions, and that the use of the "MF & DAZN: X Series Presents" branding alone may not satisfy WP:DEFINING for inclusion. Other editors contend the event should be included because the event was marketed in association with the Misfits Boxing brand, including use of the "MF & DAZN: X Series Presents" branding in certain promotional material. Sources cited in the discussion include coverage from DAZN's YouTube playlist, Dexerto, Misfits Boxing's website, as well as event listings and databases identifying the promoters involved. Here is the question: Should the Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji event be included in the Misfits Boxing event table? GhaziTwaissi (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC) |
Shall we use the term in the WP:LEAD that Polymarket (a Prediction market) users:
Distinguished in this diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Should the gallery include kink, polyamory, and fetish flags? DarknessGoth777 (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Sexual and gender minorities
| Should the definition for sexual and gender minorities provided in the article include people with paraphilias, polyamorous people, kinksters and people in age gap relationships? Cognsci (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong
| This RfC is intended to discuss whether the sovereign state should be included when Hong Kong is mentioned in templates. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
When an article title includes the name of a band (or other musical act) in parentheses, how should definite titles ("the") before the name be treated?
Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
| Should we remove WP:SOVEREIGN's point #5 or amend it to sanction the format Henry II of Champagne instead of Henry II, Count of Champagne, etc? 22:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Edit: User is reverting my edits to campaign box, I am RFCing this edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Cedar_Falls&diff=1339950814&oldid=1339730550 The formatting of this campaign battle template is irregular and inconsistent compared to the standard format of other types of wars. I noticed most edits are being reverted and blocked by a user. Several articles in this conflict seem to have similar issues with having a consistent format or following template conventions. A second issue is wounded figures are missing despite being found in the article itself. I would suggest this campaign box be edited to follow the format of Siege of Mariupol. In particular the casualties section and figures for non-combatants, including internal relocations. Summerhall fire (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
| What level of coverage and what structure are appropriate in the main article for welfare, lifecycle, and regulatory oversight, consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE? JasonGen (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
| Should WP:CANSTYLE be updated to recommend that local Indigenous place names (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) be included in the lead sentence of Canadian geographical articles, based on usage in significant reliable sources? Poketama (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Talk:List of engineering societies
| There is a disagreement about recent edits to the United Kingdom section of this list.
I updated the UK entries using the Engineering Council’s published lists of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliated bodies. These edits were intended to correct outdated information and ensure the list reflects the current recognised organisations. Some of these institutions do not yet have their own Wikipedia articles. In a follow-up edit I deliberately avoided creating red links while still including the organisations. These edits were reverted by User:Randykitty, who noted that lists like this attract spam and stated that entries should only be included if they already have a Wikipedia article (citing WP:WTAF). I raised the issue on this talk page and on the editor’s talk page but the underlying disagreement remains. For clarity, this RFC is not about whether every listed body is automatically entitled to a standalone Wikipedia article. It is about whether this list should accurately reflect verifiable engineering institutions, including where some entries are currently unlinked. The Engineering Council is the statutory regulatory body for the UK engineering profession and publishes the authoritative list of licensed Professional Engineering Institutions and affiliate bodies. This makes it quite unique compared to other list pages as for the UK at least there is a definitive list. As context: I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but I am a Fellow of multiple UK engineering institutions andtherefore familiar with how these organisations are recognised and regulated in the UK. I am also working to create orimprove Wikipedia coverage of some of these institutions. The questions for community input are:
The aim is to ensure the article remains accurate and verifiable while also maintaining appropriate quality control forlist entries. |
Talk:Reactions to the September 11 attacks
| The section on Palestinian reactions has a significant portion of the sourcing from Fox News. Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, "there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News [for pre-November 2020 politics] is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use."
I have marked the Fox sources in that section with the "unreliable source?" template. But should we remove the sourced material entirely as unreliable or keep it in with attribution? Evaporation123 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer
| WP:DISCLAIMER now redirects to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. There are currently six disclaimer pages ("Before"). Should they be replaced with one page, as proposed in the "After" section, and any redirects to the category or these pages go to the "After" version?
Before:
After: I asked editors at the idea lab to comment about the change, and posted an additional invitation to the talk page of the General disclaimer, but I didn't get much feedback. ETA: Restarted because there was little comment on the proposal. 21:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
| R3 is quite specific, designed for recent redirects that are not an obvious typo. In addition, interpretation of R3 doesn't seem to be quite crystal clear; I see only redirects with {{R from typo}} deleted under this criterion, and sometimes random other redirects are tagged for deletion as an "implausible typo" even when they are not trying to typo-correct. I suggest Redirects for discussion be used for questionable redirects instead.
Should R3 be retired, as RFD can be reasonably be used instead? TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC) |
| What level of coverage and what structure are appropriate in the main article for welfare, lifecycle, and regulatory oversight, consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE? JasonGen (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
The biographies of living persons policy, section "Restoration", says:When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Should the word "deleted" be replaced by "removed" (removed by any user) or by "administratively deleted" (deleted with admin tools such as revision deletion and page deletion)? 09:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests
| Should Reza Pahlavi be removed from the "Lead figures" section in the page's infobox?
Context: A prior RfC established consensus that he should not be described as "the leader" of the protests and found no consensus on alternatives. Editors now disagree on whether listing him under "Lead figures" in the infobox is consistent with WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:INFOBOX. Tasasiki (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
| Should WP:CANSTYLE be updated to recommend that local Indigenous place names (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) be included in the lead sentence of Canadian geographical articles, based on usage in significant reliable sources? Poketama (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
| Should the events names as "European championship" and "World Championship" be considered "major" for the purpose of WP:BASICSPORT? --Altenmann >talk 16:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer
| WP:DISCLAIMER now redirects to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. There are currently six disclaimer pages ("Before"). Should they be replaced with one page, as proposed in the "After" section, and any redirects to the category or these pages go to the "After" version?
Before:
After: I asked editors at the idea lab to comment about the change, and posted an additional invitation to the talk page of the General disclaimer, but I didn't get much feedback. ETA: Restarted because there was little comment on the proposal. 21:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is Forbes ( |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of The Points Guy (TPG) as a source?
— Newslinger talk 17:51, 4 February 2026 (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.
- ^ Heuman, Johannes (2022-01-27). "The silent disappearance of Jews from Algeria: French anti-racism in the face of antisemitism in Algeria during the decolonization". Journal of Modern Jewish Studies. 22 (2): 149–168. doi:10.1080/14725886.2022.2027211. ISSN 1472-5886. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19.
- ^ Perrin, Delphine (2013-03-14), "Citizenship struggles in the Maghreb", Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780203102015.ch19, ISBN 978-0-203-10201-5, retrieved 2026-03-05
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link) - ^ "UNSD — Methodology". unstats.un.org.
- ^ "North Africa | Africa Commons". africacommons.net.
- ^ Heuman, Johannes (2022-01-27). "The silent disappearance of Jews from Algeria: French anti-racism in the face of antisemitism in Algeria during the decolonization". Journal of Modern Jewish Studies. 22 (2): 149–168. doi:10.1080/14725886.2022.2027211. ISSN 1472-5886. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19.
- ^ Perrin, Delphine (2013-03-14), "Citizenship struggles in the Maghreb", Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780203102015.ch19, ISBN 978-0-203-10201-5, retrieved 2026-03-05
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link) - ^ Heuman, Johannes (2022-01-27). "The silent disappearance of Jews from Algeria: French anti-racism in the face of antisemitism in Algeria during the decolonization". Journal of Modern Jewish Studies. 22 (2): 149–168. doi:10.1080/14725886.2022.2027211. ISSN 1472-5886. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19.
- ^ Perrin, Delphine (2013-03-14), "Citizenship struggles in the Maghreb", Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780203102015.ch19, ISBN 978-0-203-10201-5, retrieved 2026-03-05
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)