Revision as of 22:09, 21 March 2020 editSharabSalam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,462 edits Reverted to revision 946689873 by Legobot (talk): RfC was improper and was removed (TW)Tag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:01, 22 March 2020 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,300 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy).Next edit → | ||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
{{rfcquote|text= | {{rfcquote|text= | ||
Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - ]] 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)}} | Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - ]] 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)}} | ||
''']''' | |||
{{rfcquote|text= | |||
'''Question''': What should the general rule/principle/guideline be for categorizing ''current'' localities by ''historical'' administrative subdivision <u>in Central and Eastern Europe</u>? There are quite a few articles of cities and towns that have been categorized not only in which administrative subdivision they currently are in, but also by the former subdivisions. | |||
'''Typical example''': ], a small town in Lithuania, is in these categories: ], ], ], ], ], ]. The first 3 categories reflect the current administrative subdivision. ] was a subdivision in 1413–1795. ] was a 2nd-level subdivision sometime between 1795–1915. ] was an inter-war subdivision. | |||
'''General options''': | |||
*'''A''': categorization should be limited - by what? Whether it is referenced in the article? How long the subdivision lasted? How large the subdivision was? To the 1st-level former subdivision? To how recent subdivision was? Etc? | |||
*'''B''': categorization should not be allowed (i.e. current localities should be removed from the former subdivision categories; historical information could be preserved in a different venue like a separate list or an addition to the locality article or something similar to the "historical affiliation" box as in ) | |||
*'''C''': ''status quo''; no general rules; specific issues with individual categories should be addressed at ] | |||
22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)}} | |||
{{RFC list footer|pol|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | {{RFC list footer|pol|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
Revision as of 02:01, 22 March 2020
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Talk:National Endowment for Democracy
Should these newly proposed additions/edits be included in the article? --Neutrality 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data
This is an ongoing issue, thus I am re-proposing this RfC. We need to settle the countries/territories/dependencies issue settled once for all. Are territories and dependencies (full list from List of countries and dependencies by population: Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Macau, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, Curaçao, Aruba, Jersey, U.S. Virgin Islands, Isle of Man, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Guernsey, American Samoa, Greenland, Northern Mariana Islands, Faroe Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Sint Maarten, Saint Martin, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, Åland Islands, Cook Islands, Anguilla, Wallis and Futuna, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Montserrat, Falkland Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Niue, Tokelau, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Pitcairn Islands) as well as scarcely or not universally recognised countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia) to be included in their respective countries' counts or not? |
Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump
Which of the following texts should be added to the article? Neutrality 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data
I have understood that - de facto - the figures presented for Netherlands are an aggregate for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of the a) country of the Netherlands, b) Aruba, c) Curaçao, and d) Sint Maarten. Since, however, the sole name Netherlands is ambiguous, I plead for at least adding - and keeping added - as a note that Netherlands as mentioned in the table is to be understood the whole kingdom consisting of the four countries each with their own responsible authority. I think this is essential for a good understanding of the nature of the figures. This is a matter of both geography (one country lies in Europe, one in the southeastern Caribbean, two in the northeastern Caribbean) and politics (since it concerns the political division of one kingdom into four countries). Notes to this end have been added and removed several times. Why and by whom they have been removed, I cannot seem to retrace in the edit history, either because the rate of edits is rather high or because no comment was added from which I succeeded to understand that it concerned a change with respect to Netherlands. Those who like to have such a note removed, please provide arguments.Redav (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
There are a number statements in the article from former members of the MEK:
Should these be removed from the article? Ypatch (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Is the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) a reliable source for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations? — Newslinger talk 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should allegations of an affair be included in Ilhan Omar's biography? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC) |
There is a discussion about due weight in the lede, which contains this paragraph WikiLeaks' role in the 2016 US Presidential election:
Should the bolded sentence be removed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
This RfC may also apply to the pages of other political parties with similar issues. When a political party mostly adheres to a certain variant of a particular ideology, should the more general ideology be listed in addition to the specific variant in the "ideology" section of the infobox? In this case, Progressive Slovakia is a liberal party mostly adhering to social liberalism. Ezhao02 (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Are geonotices such as this one (requested by EllenCT, added by Deryck Chan, full request here) appropriate? It requests users to "Please send email asking the US government to require open access to federally supported research." My opinion is that no, it is not okay to use Misplaced Pages for political activism, regardless of how noble the cause. I've asked for removal, but I doubt the geonotice request page gets much traffic, so in the mean time, I think this is probably worth bringing up here to get some wider input. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries
I see there has been some back-and-forth with the infobox. This is an RfC exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. There is currently a similar RfC for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.
The question is: The options are: |
Should the lede and infobox say that this institution is "public" or "state-related?" ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
RfC question: Should United States presidential election results tables be displayed in standard chronological order or reverse chronological order? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Democratic Progressive Party
In articles about Taiwanese political parties, should left–right position be replaced with cross-Strait position? Ythlev (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the subject of this article be capitalized (Antifa) or not (antifa)? feminist (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography
As seen above on this page, MOS:JOBTITLES has been disputed numerous times due to strong disagreements in whether the names of political offices should be capitalised in the lead sentences of political office articles and elsewhere following the article/modifier. A retrospective analysis of 19 of these discussions dating back to 2011 (above) showed that the overall view is against the guideline as it reads now by approximately 2:1, but no discussion has ever been able to come to a reasonable solution.
Should the Manual of Style section be removed entirely as a guideline that does not have "general" support? (A substitute can be added later if it does have general support.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Should the lead section of Ronald Reagan include the following?
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was affirmed by an RfC in October). Sdkb (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
Which description is more suitable here?
A) She is a climate change denialist. B) She is a climate change skeptic. C) She is a climate change denier. |
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
This is an Rfc exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages, and this does not affect that result. The question is: The options are: Thanks all! Smith0124 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gender studies
This is related to an earlier proposal to rename/reformat {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} that failed to reach consensus. To wit, should these templates be reformatted to reflect their focus on the men's movement instead of masculism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
Should we mention that Ocasio-Cortez described the report from the Politico magazine as anti-semitic?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:Legality of bestiality by country or territory
The purpose of this RFC is to determine what the article should state is the legal status of bestiality in Germany.
Shall the table show, for Germany: A. |
Germany | Illegal
Or B. |
Germany | Legal, unless forced, in which case Illegal
? Answer A or B in the Survey. Conduct back-and-forth discussion in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
This is a two part RfC.
A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com? B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest? - MrX 🖋 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC) |
Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? KyleJoan 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 in the United Kingdom
There is a disagreement about the link label to provide for the incumbent parliament, given in the "Incumbents" section near the top of the page. Should it be labelled as:
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Talk:2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses
Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - MrX 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC) |
Requests for comment (All) | |
---|---|
Articles (All) |
|
Non-articles (All) | |
Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. |