FropFrop (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

There are two freely licensed photographs of the statue:

• A wider, uncropped version: [1]
• A more tightly cropped version: [2]

Both are images of a modern public monument commemorating Kusaila, and have been proposed as alternatives to a previously used fictional drawing: [3], which was removed due to sourcing concerns. This RfC seeks input on whether either image should be used, and if so, which version is more appropriate.

(For additional context, see: Talk:Kusaila#c-ElijahUHC-20250602183300-Image_Change:_Statue_of_Kusaila_from_Bouhmama)

ElijahUHC (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.

I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan alleged that the Pahalgam attack was a "false flag operation" orchestrated by India.^[1][2] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".

In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

FropFrop (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are two freely licensed photographs of the statue:

• A wider, uncropped version: [4]
• A more tightly cropped version: [5]

Both are images of a modern public monument commemorating Kusaila, and have been proposed as alternatives to a previously used fictional drawing: [6], which was removed due to sourcing concerns. This RfC seeks input on whether either image should be used, and if so, which version is more appropriate.

(For additional context, see: Talk:Kusaila#c-ElijahUHC-20250602183300-Image_Change:_Statue_of_Kusaila_from_Bouhmama)

ElijahUHC (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The disagreement comes in with which one should be used. The side I am on argues the tables give the most complete view of the variants while providing a quick reference lookup for data within the article. The side for the guidelines in the style argues that the tables violate Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE due to being too information dense, and that the singular variant model is more readable and better for reader understanding.

My request for comment is whether We should follow the style guide, or We should use the existing data tables. Bimmons (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.^[3] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spy fiction
• Television comedy,
• action television,
• Action-adventure,
• Period drama.
• Science fiction,
• Superhero

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• The opposition to the current lead have stated that it is inaccurate and/or is from bad faith primary sources (Mona Baker is the main example given) and thus should be removed for giving WP:UNDUE weight to bad faith interpretations (at least in the lead).
• Editors who are positive of or neutral the current lead do not believe it is biased or that regardless of the quality of the sources of the criticism, that having a criticism in the lead is preferable since it is a notable aspect of organisation (my argument).

I do not believe I have any right to repeatedly revert edits rejecting the current lead when there is no clear consensus on this talk page on what to do regarding it, and that this is a fairly niche article so a talk page trying to solve this issue wouldn't probably wouldn't have much luck compared to the last few times. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".

In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.

I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".

In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The goal of this RfC is to determine whether spaceflight articles should make an exception to MOS:TIMEZONE (if such a exception is needed) by standardizing on UTC first formatting, given the global and technical nature of these events.

Examples of formatting options:

• UTC first and local time in parentheses: June 4, 2022, 13:25:02 UTC (9:25:02 am EDT)
• Local time first and UTC in parentheses: June 4, 2022, 9:25:02 am EDT (13:25:02 UTC)

Please share your thoughts and rationale below. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google N-grams and 'consistent' answers

Should Google Ngram be deprecated in rename/move discussions?

• Yes
• No

@Cinderella157, Dicklyon, Sammy D III, Myceteae, Gawaon, Andy Dingley, Intothatdarkness, SchreiberBike, Hawkeye7, Blueboar, Rally Wonk, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, FactOrOpinion, NatGertler, Yesterday, all my dreams..., Randy Kryn, Chicdat, AjaxSmack, SMcCandlish, and Kowal2701: Pinging participants in the MOS:CAPS discussion, the RSN discussion, and those who might be interested in this RfC. I also left an rfc notice at Village Pump (policy), WikiProject English Language, WP:NCCAPS. If I forgot someone, I am terribly sorry. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google N-grams and 'consistent' answers

Should Google Ngram be deprecated in rename/move discussions?

• Yes
• No

@Cinderella157, Dicklyon, Sammy D III, Myceteae, Gawaon, Andy Dingley, Intothatdarkness, SchreiberBike, Hawkeye7, Blueboar, Rally Wonk, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, FactOrOpinion, NatGertler, Yesterday, all my dreams..., Randy Kryn, Chicdat, AjaxSmack, SMcCandlish, and Kowal2701: Pinging participants in the MOS:CAPS discussion, the RSN discussion, and those who might be interested in this RfC. I also left an rfc notice at Village Pump (policy), WikiProject English Language, WP:NCCAPS. If I forgot someone, I am terribly sorry. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

1. It should be added to the well-written criterion as
   1. well-written: its prose is engaging, understandable to a broad audience, and of a professional standard;
   2. well-written: its prose is engaging, understandable to its audience, and of a professional standard;
2. It should be a separate criterion: 1g. Understandable to its audience.
3. Status quo: no explicit mention

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Keep: Keep the series sidebars unchanged.
2. Remove images: Remove the presidential seal and signature found on the bottom of series sidebars.
3. Convert to navbox: Convert to a navbox for the bottom of related articles.

Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 20:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to visit for an example of this implementation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

1. It should be added to the well-written criterion as
   1. well-written: its prose is engaging, understandable to a broad audience, and of a professional standard;
   2. well-written: its prose is engaging, understandable to its audience, and of a professional standard;
2. It should be a separate criterion: 1g. Understandable to its audience.
3. Status quo: no explicit mention

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a statement-and-agreement-style RfC. 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to group everything into a bikie gang or an ethnic group. There are a few criminal gangs or violent political groups that are centred on a particular culture or ethnic group, but whoever started this page seems to have tried to sort everything that way.

A lot of the labels, and even the groups themselves, aren't locally relevant. Australians don't tend to group Spanish and Portuguese speakers from opposite sides of the Atlantic as a group, other than possibly "immigrants", the "Hispanic" concept is an American thing.

I'm not sure if everything in the white supremacist group is actually a white supremacist gang, some might be all white just by chance or locality, since that's the largest demographic in Australia.

2405:6E00:62C:4A60:148D:B7C:243C:CA13 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)