Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
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
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 These edits were intended to correct outdated information and ensure the list reflects the current recognised organisations.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) |