The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:
|
Should he be called a conspiracy theorist in the lead? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:F5E7:6D91:BE2:85B7 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC) |
There is ongoing disagreement over whether the article should include the newly-added section titled "Relationship with the military" as it currently does. Both the relevance of the content and the appropriateness of presenting it in a standalone section under "Public image" are being contested. This issue was previously discussed above and could not be resolved at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and it has now been directed here for broader input.
Should the article include a section on "Relationship with the military"? Titan2456 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC) |
The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to include or exclude his name. Eight months later, at least a dozen new sources have used his full name.
Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? --03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
Should the provision MOS:POSTNOM (under WP:MOSBIO) that allows post-nominal letters only outside the LEAD SENTENCE be overturned, maintained, or modified? Specifically, the guideline currently reads: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post‐nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence."Obviously, this RfC would also invite alternative solutions, etc. I will add options if so-requested. As such;
AGAIN, THIS PERTAINS TO THE LEAD SENTENCE OF AN ARTICLE. EDIT: the order of precedence stuff can probably be ignored. This RfC invites discussion on whether excluding post‐nominals from the lead remains justified, or if a revision is warranted given concerns about clarity, consistency, and the conveyance of useful information. The original discussion was not an RfC proper, and as such, I have taken it upon myself to start one. The discussion was productive enough that I feel it warranted an RfC. This is my first RfC, so, I apologize in advance for any mistakes. |
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.
Current version
Proposed version
Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format
Hi there, I've created this RfC as the equivalent discussion(s) on the talk page have gotten completely-out-of-hand. I'm pretty neutral on the matter but leaning towards DMY as his role as pope transcends beyond the MDY format of America to the DMY format of the Church, Vatican, and arguably the world. However, I will add a summary below of some of the main arguments that were popping up on the talk page. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC) |
Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?
See diff and text: On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.[6][7] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC) |
How should Jared Taylor's views on Trump's racial beliefs be reflected in the article:
Please indicate which option you support.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC) |
Should this article include information about Zsa Zsa Gabor's possible relationship with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk?
This statement was added after the RfC began to satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC) |
namerfc
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
see at about 26:18
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search