Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
| Should MOS:LEADIMAGE include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―Howard • 🌽33 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we add "as well as his support of Donald Trump in the 2024 Election." after ""known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc "? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following should be Liam Payne's infobox photo? Please rank in order of preference: --- 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
History and geography
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography
| Should Gaza genocide be added as a Level 5 Wikipedia:Vital article? This was originally a topic here, but I am changing it to a RfC to get more community input Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing editoral dispute (including on the talk page above) on whether Australia's actions against Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be described in the article as genocidal or simply the product of disease and mutual conflicts. A consensus could not be reached so I am asking for non-involved editors to comment. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
Should Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians added as colonial/settler colonial genocide examples into the second paragraph in History section?
|
Talk:1796 United States presidential election
| Should we mention in the infobox, that Jefferson was elected vice president? GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
| Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion
Should the following sentence be added to the lede?
04:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Should the text in bold below be kept in the introduction?
and
This has been discussed above at Talk:Modern Hebrew#WP:OR in lede. إيان (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the lead section of 1948 Arab-Israeli War mention the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world? Andre🚐 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
| Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge
| Should the content in this article [1] that details the murder of Giulio Regeni be truncated to a single sentence summary with a wikilink to the main article (Murder of Giulio Regeni)? Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? Herostratus (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Comments would be appreciated to achieve an accurate and supportable consensus regarding references to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut - an unincorporated village which is sometimes referred to as Storrs. The community is notably home to the main campus of the University of Connecticut, and, naturally reflects cultural differences both as a New England fixture but also due to some misplaced or incorrect historical usage.
The request would be to alter the lead section of the article to read as follows:
Several points of discussion, including the preference and differences between census-designated place boundaries and postal town boundaries are included on the article talk page. It is not appropriate to immediately dismiss the need for a new consensus, due to the substantial official and community usage of both names. Thank you, Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Should the text in bold below be kept in the introduction?
and
This has been discussed above at Talk:Modern Hebrew#WP:OR in lede. إيان (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)
Criterion #2 states that notability is satisfied if The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.Does this mean that papers in the journal tend to be cited frequently? Or does it mean that the journal itself must be cited frequently? In other words, is it talking about citations that say "According to Smith (1979)..." or ones that say "According to The Journal of Underwater Basket Weaving..."? Just to be clear, I am asking for comment about what the current text means. I understand that there is disagreement about what it should say, but that would be a different RfC. Botterweg (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
How should the current status of the 15.ai web site be listed in the infobox?
|
| Should the article contain a gallery of images (as shown below) illustrating the history of radio tuners? |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which of the following should be Liam Payne's infobox photo? Please rank in order of preference: --- 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Based on the discussion above, should the band be counted as 'active' in the infobox when the digital avatars begin performances, or should they not to avoid confusion with readers? HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography
| Should Gaza genocide be added as a Level 5 Wikipedia:Vital article? This was originally a topic here, but I am changing it to a RfC to get more community input Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
There are three questions:
This is a revised version of a previous RfC. |
| Should we add "as well as his support of Donald Trump in the 2024 Election." after ""known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc "? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
As the previous discussions didn't solve the dispute, I'm starting Rfc now to let more users comment on this and trying to reach a consensus. This Rfc is about the lead images in this article.
I prefer '1)' as it ensures NPOV with continential representation (NA 2, SA 1, EU 3, AF 1, AS 1, OC 1) and women representation (3 leaders). JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing editoral dispute (including on the talk page above) on whether Australia's actions against Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be described in the article as genocidal or simply the product of disease and mutual conflicts. A consensus could not be reached so I am asking for non-involved editors to comment. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
Should Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians added as colonial/settler colonial genocide examples into the second paragraph in History section?
|
Talk:1796 United States presidential election
| Should we mention in the infobox, that Jefferson was elected vice president? GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox
Should the US and UK be added as allies in other theaters to Israel in the infobox?
|
Talk:Central university (India)
Should this article include an image of Aligarh Muslim University with the caption second central university? -- User4edits (T) 11:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
| Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The Lede currently describes socdem as an ideology within socialism. 5 sources are cited for this sentence clause. Three book sources from 1999, 2005, and 2007 respectively, and two online sources from 2018 and 2019 respectively. Only 2 of them are accessible, the two online sources. Neither of the two online sources (this and this) make the claim that Social democracy is a movement within Socialism.
The question for the RFC is: should the lede describe the ideology as Socialist? There will be 6 options; please write the option you support along with your reasoning in the survey section, and then discuss in the discussion section. Also please write the extent to which you support the other proposals. Please don't reply to others in the survey section. Please don't just write an option without any reasoning for it. Option 1: It should should describe it as 'a Liberal poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 2: It should should omit the 'is a movement within' part in favour of the lede sentence, instead describing it as 'a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 3: It should describe it as a socialist political ideology, as it does now [status quo]. Option 4: It should should describe it as 'a democratic poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 5: It should should describe it as 'a capitalist poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 6: Other, it should [insert thing]. Option 7: Comment. |
| The maps of time zones in Wikipedia (SVG, PNG) show the time actually observed in each area, de facto, regardless of legality. For example, the maps show certain parts of Australia, Canada and the United States in the time that they actually observe even though it's different from what the law specifies there. Similarly, the maps show the occupied regions of Ukraine and the separatist regions of Georgia in UTC+3, which is the time enforced by the Russian or separatist authorities there. Previous discussions about this topic resulted in keeping the map de facto, including the occupied or separatist regions in UTC+3, but many users continue to complain about it, so I'm restarting the discussion here. How should the maps show the time zones of the occupied regions of Ukraine and separatist regions of Georgia? You may answer differently for each region.
Please note that the maps still show these regions as part of Ukraine and Georgia, with the international borders as generally recognized. The question here is only regarding the time zones. For reference, the IANA time zone database includes Crimea in UTC+3, but it doesn't mention the other occupied regions of Ukraine or the separatist regions of Georgia. Heitordp (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Jordan a constitutional monarchy or semi-constitutional monarchy? See discussions above and in other sections. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the lead of the article, the infobox of the article, or both? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Comments would be appreciated to achieve an accurate and supportable consensus regarding references to Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut - an unincorporated village which is sometimes referred to as Storrs. The community is notably home to the main campus of the University of Connecticut, and, naturally reflects cultural differences both as a New England fixture but also due to some misplaced or incorrect historical usage.
The request would be to alter the lead section of the article to read as follows:
Several points of discussion, including the preference and differences between census-designated place boundaries and postal town boundaries are included on the article talk page. It is not appropriate to immediately dismiss the need for a new consensus, due to the substantial official and community usage of both names. Thank you, Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Which map should be used? (Listed below) (the main issue is the map's sources) Zabezt (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy
[edit]Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Request for Comment: Does the section on Josephology give undue weight to this article?
I am seeking community input regarding the current description of the Josephology in this "Catholic theology" article. I believe that Josephology is central to Catholic theology as major doctrinal topics like Christology, Triadology, or Mariology, which are more widely recognized as pillars of Catholic theology. I propose that the description of Josephology should be there to ensure that the article maintains a balanced and proportionate representation of Catholic theology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography
| Should Gaza genocide be added as a Level 5 Wikipedia:Vital article? This was originally a topic here, but I am changing it to a RfC to get more community input Bogazicili (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing editoral dispute (including on the talk page above) on whether Australia's actions against Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be described in the article as genocidal or simply the product of disease and mutual conflicts. A consensus could not be reached so I am asking for non-involved editors to comment. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
Should Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians added as colonial/settler colonial genocide examples into the second paragraph in History section?
|
Template talk:Football squad start
| What flag should we use for players born in territories that are not fifa members? Currently guidance says regardless of nationality of birth or citizenship, or non-FIFA sporting nationalities the player may use in other contexts. However some editors have suggested this is outdated and there should be exceptions.
This creates a problem particularly for the Crown Dependencies as they are not members of FIFA or UEFA in their own right but part of the English FA. The Crown Dependencies are not part of England in the political sense though. In FIFA terms they are part of England however this could be considered controversial. There are other instances where this is the case such as players from Åland, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey all of which have football teams that appear at the island games on the same basis as the crown dependencies but in FIFA terms they are part of Finland, England and Wales respectively. Players from these territories would normally have their respective FIFA national team flag on this template. C. 22468 Talk to me 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Undue Weight being given to the issue of "Cult accusations" in the light of the references cited in support of these claims? DaveApter (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada
| Should all team nicknames be listed, instead of just the most recent?
The article states "For brevity, only the most recent names for teams that have had multiple nicknames in their current media market are listed." While "New Jersey Nets" and "Washington Bullets" are listed, although they have stayed in the same media market respectively, "San Francisco Warriors" is not listed as a previous name for the Golden State Warriors, who have also stayed in the same media market. So, for the sake of completeness, should all of a team's previous names be listed? One drawback to this option would be the number of names that would have to be listed for some teams. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers had multiple names during their early years, including a couple during WWII when their players combined with another team's. Alielmi1207 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Hazaras people be included in this template, a navbox? This RfC was malformatted, so I'm assuming this is what @Joseph—the guy who opened this RfC—meant to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
| Should MOS:LEADIMAGE include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―Howard • 🌽33 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?
The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row. |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
| Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
There are two common ways to link to a place name with an "A, B, C" format where the article is titled [[A, B]]. Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to "link only the first unit".
Which style(s) is/are acceptable? If both, is one preferable to the other? Note: See previous discussion above and above. This is not a question about whether "New York" should be linked to New York (state) in this example; basically everyone agrees that it should not be. 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]In Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last usedfor restoration of adminship apply to:
|
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature
| Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS? Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [2][3]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall
Should the following text -- or text to the same basic effect -- be added to Petition section, at the end of the main text, right before the field to start a new page (or elsewhere):
Yes or no? Suggestions of changes to the text are of course invited. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:
|
Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly
WP:PANDORA has become a hotpoint of contention in RfD. Should it be removed, or rewritten? If it should be rewritten, what changes should be made, and what can be salvaged?
|
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
| WP:TPO details several instances of comments that are appropriate to remove from talk pages, such as vandalism, spam, gibberish, and test edits. Does this apply to archived talk pages as well? I will post a more detailed statement and further context in the replies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?
The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row. |
Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Can the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should a new pending changes protection level - extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP) - be added to Wikipedia? Awesome Aasim 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Can the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (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.
Willow and nacho
[edit]