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.
"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."
be replaced with:
"Wikipedia remains neutral on whether an accused person is guilty of a crime until a conviction by a reliable court, or guilty plea or public confession (unless reliable sources report coercion or recanting or other reason for credible doubt)."
For the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME, should the amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources be a valid consideration (among others) in determining whether to include or exclude information about an otherwise low-profile individual who has not been convicted of a crime? 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I propose renaming the section header from “Pornography” to “Adult media”. This terminology is more neutral and accurately reflects the scope of the section, which covers adult publications and adult television channels—not just pornography.
For context, in reviewing a broad range of reliable sources, including The Guardian, The Independent, Reuters, and City A.M., I found that the majority of coverage refers to Desmond’s former businesses as either “adult” or a combination of “adult” and “pornography.” Only one article published post-2010 uses “porn” exclusively. In at least three cases, “porn” appears only in the headline, while the body of the article consistently uses “adult” terminology, which I interpret as editorial choices for attention rather than strict categorisation.
Based on this research, I believe that “adult” is a commonly accepted and broader descriptor in mainstream reporting, not merely a euphemism.
The current term “Pornography” carries negative connotations and may inadvertently frame the subject in a pejorative way, which risks violating WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Using “Adult media” avoids these implications and provides a broader, more balanced descriptor that reflects the actual content.
Additionally, framing the section under “Pornography” could be seen as giving undue weight to a single aspect of adult entertainment, raising WP:DUE concerns. It also risks falling afoul of WP:CSECTION, since labeling a section with a term that implies criticism rather than neutrally describing its contents may constitute a non-neutral section title.
“Adult media” is therefore preferable to both “Pornography” and “Adult content,” as it is descriptive, inclusive of the different types of adult-oriented material covered in the section, and consistent with Wikipedia’s policy requirements for neutrality and due representation.
Should the section heading “Pornography” in this article be changed to “Adult content,” reflecting the terminology used in the majority of reliable sources (which often alternate between “pornography” and “adult”), while retaining “pornography” in the article text where supported?
Please indicate clearly whether you support or oppose the change. MacFleet76 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Sources disagree other Vanessa Kirby's age/dob. The dominant dob in secondary reliable sources is April 18, 1988. There are other sources, however, that give 1987 as a date and articles where her given age is consistent with the 1987 date rather than the 1988 date. Primary source information such as the government registration of her company also favor the 1987 date. The crux of the debate is the tension between WP:BLPPRIMARY (which favors 1988) and WP:TRUTHMATTERS (which favours 1987).
We have existing consensus to change the lead image; however, the previous discussion on what the new image should be was scuppered by copyright concerns.
Should File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg (below right) be used as the lead image, or something else? If you have an alternate suggestion of a good-quality image without copyright concerns, please add it to the bulleted list below.
Brief background: Infobox images are an often-debated topic for weather articles, sometimes leading to edit wars. In fact, tropical cyclones has an extremely detailed ordering of what image should take precedent (WP:WPTC/IMG), due to how many edit wars have occurred. Very few weather articles currently contain infobox collages; four examples include 2020 California wildfires, Joplin tornado, Tornadoes of 2024, and the very recent July 2025 Central Texas floods. I am able to locate less than 20 weather articles with infobox collages. Some of the most notable weather disasters only display a single image in their infobox including these five examples: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, Tornadoes of 2025 and Hurricane Helene (along with Effects in North Carolina subpage). According to WP:COLLAGETIPS, "The great benefit of collages is that they allow an article to present multiple visuals for the topic. This makes them particularly useful for leads of broad subjects such as many cities, where using a single image could never be representative enough to suffice by itself."
Just in September 2025, Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and Hurricane Maria have both had infobox image debates and edit wars. To reduce edit wars, should infobox collages be more widely encouraged for all weather articles, should they be discouraged, or should be encouraged for certain types and discouraged for certain types? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The page Hrvatska should be redirected to Croatia because most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies?
Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli(🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?
Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[1][2][3]
Hello. Me and another user had another conflict of interest, so I created this topic to reach a consensus. My position is to place a lead image in the article, which will be the main one in the article and, for example, will be visible in the preview, as in other articles (such as articles about Maoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism and others) - he opposed this idea, stating that there was no consensus about placing my photo. What is the position of the rest of the discussion members, except for me and "another user"?
No image
Add image (variant 1, that was already there)
Add image (but another from deleted image in variant 2, topic for another discussion)
A previous RfC excluded two leaders from the infobox. Should their factions, the Jonima family and the Principality of Muzaka, continue to be included? Azor (talk). 20:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Since my proposed image has been reverted multiple times now without explanation, I figured I should start this section on the talk page to discuss it.
The image I propose, a contemporary one mentioned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
Alternative one from the 1870s similar to the contemporary one
18th century illustration currently in use. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
We have existing consensus to change the lead image; however, the previous discussion on what the new image should be was scuppered by copyright concerns.
Should File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg (below right) be used as the lead image, or something else? If you have an alternate suggestion of a good-quality image without copyright concerns, please add it to the bulleted list below.
The page Hrvatska should be redirected to Croatia because most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Brief background: Infobox images are an often-debated topic for weather articles, sometimes leading to edit wars. In fact, tropical cyclones has an extremely detailed ordering of what image should take precedent (WP:WPTC/IMG), due to how many edit wars have occurred. Very few weather articles currently contain infobox collages; four examples include 2020 California wildfires, Joplin tornado, Tornadoes of 2024, and the very recent July 2025 Central Texas floods. I am able to locate less than 20 weather articles with infobox collages. Some of the most notable weather disasters only display a single image in their infobox including these five examples: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, Tornadoes of 2025 and Hurricane Helene (along with Effects in North Carolina subpage). According to WP:COLLAGETIPS, "The great benefit of collages is that they allow an article to present multiple visuals for the topic. This makes them particularly useful for leads of broad subjects such as many cities, where using a single image could never be representative enough to suffice by itself."
Just in September 2025, Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and Hurricane Maria have both had infobox image debates and edit wars. To reduce edit wars, should infobox collages be more widely encouraged for all weather articles, should they be discouraged, or should be encouraged for certain types and discouraged for certain types? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:
A: List of Cars characters
B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
C: List of characters in the Cars franchise
Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
An unresolvable discussion on whether Yamato, a fictional character who identifies as and uses male pronouns, should use male pronouns in his section in this article, despite MOS:GIDINFO specifying that the most recent self expressed use of pronouns to have priority over what is used in reliable sources depicting the character. Go D. Usopp(talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?
Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[4][5][6]
Hello. Me and another user had another conflict of interest, so I created this topic to reach a consensus. My position is to place a lead image in the article, which will be the main one in the article and, for example, will be visible in the preview, as in other articles (such as articles about Maoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism and others) - he opposed this idea, stating that there was no consensus about placing my photo. What is the position of the rest of the discussion members, except for me and "another user"?
No image
Add image (variant 1, that was already there)
Add image (but another from deleted image in variant 2, topic for another discussion)
The infobox of the article previously stated the political position to be "center to center-left". The word "center" was removed following a discussion in June 2024, with four in support and three in opposition. However, as it stands, there are currently eight separate discussions in the talk page seeking a change to the political position section of the infobox. I am creating this RfC to consolidate the discussions.
Should center be added to the political position section in the infobox? EarthDude (wannatalk?) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
How should the Czech Republic and Mexico be displayed on these maps? Please read the above discussion "Removal of maps". Helper201 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
On May 6, 2025, Salt Lake City Council adopted three new flags, alongside its previous flag, to circumvent Utah state law prohibiting non-federal, state or municipal flags being flown by government authorities, available to view in Flags of Salt Lake City. Should they also be included in the infobox? Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
There have been conflicting RfCs in recent years that have thrown up different results. Let's drill down and discuss a workable solution, especially considering the potential to show changes over time. Quinby (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
We have existing consensus to change the lead image; however, the previous discussion on what the new image should be was scuppered by copyright concerns.
Should File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg (below right) be used as the lead image, or something else? If you have an alternate suggestion of a good-quality image without copyright concerns, please add it to the bulleted list below.
According to the Olympstats blog, one possible estimate for the total number of people to have participated in the Olympics as of 2015 was 128,420, though as it notes other estimates could be created. It has been proposed to create a complete alphabetical listing of all participants of the Olympics, spread across a number of articles. An example of one of these lists can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
On May 6, 2025, Salt Lake City Council adopted three new flags, alongside its previous flag, to circumvent Utah state law prohibiting non-federal, state or municipal flags being flown by government authorities, available to view in Flags of Salt Lake City. Should they also be included in the infobox? Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:
A: List of Cars characters
B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
C: List of characters in the Cars franchise
Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Should WP:NCAUST be changed to say the state or territory name "may" be in an article title for a place name, to say that these should only be used if needed for disambiguation? (Other changes are also included in the proposed text.) -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies?
Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli(🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Me and another user had another conflict of interest, so I created this topic to reach a consensus. My position is to place a lead image in the article, which will be the main one in the article and, for example, will be visible in the preview, as in other articles (such as articles about Maoism, Hoxhaism, Stalinism and others) - he opposed this idea, stating that there was no consensus about placing my photo. What is the position of the rest of the discussion members, except for me and "another user"?
No image
Add image (variant 1, that was already there)
Add image (but another from deleted image in variant 2, topic for another discussion)
I've noticed some pages, such as 2025 in Wales, 2024 in Wales, 2023 in Wales etc have each and every date individually linked within them e.g. 1 January, 2 January, 3 January etc. Does this fall under MOS:OVERLINK? I've tried to remove these links before but have received opposition. I'm opening this up for an RFC because there seems to be a lack of any responses to posts on this talk page. I would post it on the talk page of an article if it were relevant to a single article but as you can see this is present across multiple articles, so I wasn't sure where else to post this. Helper201 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The WP:G14 criterion for Redirects that end in "(disambiguation)" but target neither disambiguation pages nor pages that perform disambiguation-like functions (such as set index articles or lists), could apply where the term in the redirect title is not the ambiguous term disambiguated at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed some pages, such as 2025 in Wales, 2024 in Wales, 2023 in Wales etc have each and every date individually linked within them e.g. 1 January, 2 January, 3 January etc. Does this fall under MOS:OVERLINK? I've tried to remove these links before but have received opposition. I'm opening this up for an RFC because there seems to be a lack of any responses to posts on this talk page. I would post it on the talk page of an article if it were relevant to a single article but as you can see this is present across multiple articles, so I wasn't sure where else to post this. Helper201 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that while some parts of MOS are the result of consensus with significant participation, there may be other parts that are indeed consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time.
Also of note are the proposals by L235 that did not make principles for that case. Specifically,
Policies and guidelines have a combination of prescriptive and descriptive characteristics. Policies and guidelines document community consensus as to "standards [that] all users should normally follow" (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines), giving them some degree of prescriptive force. Simultaneously, policies and guidelines seek to describe "behaviors practiced by most editors" (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines), and change with community practice, giving them a descriptive quality. Naturally, disagreements regarding the extent of a policy's consensus or prescriptive effect arise from this combination, and the text of a policy can sometimes diverge from or lag behind community consensus. These disagreements, like all disputes on Wikipedia, should be resolved by discussion and consensus.
Does MOS necessarily indicate community consensus on a wider scale? In other words, should closers examine the specific text for level of consensus before using it to overrule a (potentially larger) group of editors? Good day—RetroCosmostalk 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion for a while, and seeing how someone was reported to ANI for not notifying page creators, I think it's time for an RfC
Option 1: Page creators must be notified when their article gets tagged for speedy deletion.
Option 2: Page creators must be notified when their article gets tagged for speedy deletion, excepting obvious vandalism, attack pages, or pages otherwise created in bad faith.
Option 3: Page creators should be notified at the discretion of the nominator.
(this is my first RfC so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong.) ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Which of the following tooltips should be used on the small list of archives in the {{talk header}} template? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
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:
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 ~~~~}}.
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.
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.
.jpg/250px-01_04_2020_Anti-War_Protest_(49532968042).jpg)
The image I propose, a contemporary one mentioned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
Alternative one from the 1870s similar to the contemporary one
18th century illustration currently in use. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
