Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
[edit]What should be present in the first sentence of the article?
|
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we add a "Personal life" section to reference her relationships, health struggles, activism, and religion? natemup (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the lead include claims of Indian interference in the lead? Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
| From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
 — Caption may be added to tie graphic to narrative text such as User Space4Time3Continuum2x's recently added narrative. The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
| This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the inclusion of the following two sentences regarding a widely covered hoax that went viral during the 2024 Donald Trump campaign with regard to JD Vance. The hoax (as evidenced by usage of the word "hoax") is clearly false, however, coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography. The text below (as was used prior to removal without any consensus) very clearly states in Wikivoice it is a hoax, and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article. 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the images below should appear on the infobox? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Talk:Nashville International Airport
| Should BNA have maps showing domestic and international destinations? King airaglub (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
| Should the word "pseudoscientific" be in the first sentence of the lead? Vells (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Should this article be:
|
History and geography
[edit]| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which map should be used? Map 1 or Map 2? (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
.png){kind=link}
| Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? |
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Should the section on Demographics and historical research be
|
Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight
Should Benny Morris' research on the evacuation orders from Haifa be included in 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Haifa:
|
| Should all British National rail stations be presumed notable as an exception to WP:NTRAINSTATION? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - |
Language and linguistics
[edit]| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
| There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]| Should the infobox template for countries be expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions? |
| There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak! 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
Should this article be:
|
Wikipedia talk:Find your source
| How should Bypass Paywalls Clean (a browser extension that circumvents paywalls on news websites) be listed in Wikipedia:Find your source § Newspaper articles? — Newslinger talk 06:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the article include Wendy Freedman's [1] measurements of the Hubble constant? Banedon (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]| Should the article contain the flag-reenactment and Japanese reaction sections added in this and this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we add a "Personal life" section to reference her relationships, health struggles, activism, and religion? natemup (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we refer to season numbers, primarily, as their networks' season number instead of overall season number? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 17:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:
RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]| Should the subject in the article (the Islamic Action Front) be classified as Right-wing or Far-right? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture |
| Which map should be used? Map 1 or Map 2? (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following photos should serve as the lede image for Edward Heath? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the short description for the page include the label "white-supremacist"?
A review of the term as used by reliable sources cited on the page can be seen here. ClifV (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:
RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Eurocommunism be placed in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
| During the close request for a the previous RFC I suggested that a consensus could be found if the options were narrowed. The two remaining options received the most support.
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as: |
— Caption may be added to tie graphic to narrative text such as User Space4Time3Continuum2x's recently added narrative. The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
| This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the inclusion of the following two sentences regarding a widely covered hoax that went viral during the 2024 Donald Trump campaign with regard to JD Vance. The hoax (as evidenced by usage of the word "hoax") is clearly false, however, coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography. The text below (as was used prior to removal without any consensus) very clearly states in Wikivoice it is a hoax, and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article. 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]| The purpose of this Request for Comment is to seek community consensus on whether the term the Christian Era should be included as an alternative full form of the abbreviation CE in the first sentence of the article Common Era.
Currently, the abbreviation CE is commonly understood to stand for "Common Era", which is widely accepted in both academic and secular contexts as a non-religious alternative to Anno Domini (AD). However, there is historical evidence that the Christian Era was used as a term synonymous with "Common Era" in earlier periods. Some editors argue that acknowledging the Christian Era as an alternative interpretation of CE would provide a fuller representation of the history and context of the term, particularly for readers interested in its religious or historical origins. Opponents of this inclusion may argue that the Christian Era has fallen out of contemporary usage and may cause confusion, as CE is primarily used today in a secular context. Additionally, they may express concern that such inclusion could give undue weight to a religious interpretation that is no longer relevant to the modern usage of the term. The community is invited to discuss the following question: Should the Christian Era and Before the Christian Era be included as an alternative full forms of CE and BCE in the first sentence of the article? Please provide your reasoning and any supporting sources or guidelines that may assist in reaching a consensus. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
| Should the word "pseudoscientific" be in the first sentence of the lead? Vells (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:International Churches of Christ
| Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading: |
| From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Morris (2004), pp. 195-201