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.
Should Toby Fox's foam shower image be kept in, or removed from, the "Personal life" section? Are primary sources due enough to be cited in the image's caption?
Should the efforts to get Mahmoud Khalil deported be described as a “campaign”? The present edit says Khalil was: “targeted in an online campaign to have him deported.”
Supporters argue that “campaign” is a reasonable paraphrase of the documented efforts, which involved individuals and organizations publicly advocating for Khalil's deportation using social media and other means.
Opposers argue that describing these activities as a “campaign” goes beyond what the sources establish, because the sources do not establish that the participants were acting as part of a planned or coordinated effort.
Should the lead of this article continue to state that Choerry “is a member of Loona”, or should that present-tense wording be revised based on the sources currently cited in the article and discussed above?
This RfC concerns whether the sources cited in this article support the present-tense wording in the lead. Wider uninvolved input is requested. APDuck (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Should the Legacy and artistic depictions section include the proposed one-sentence summary below of international protests against Gandhi statues, with detailed coverage remaining in the standalone controversies article? Akyeame.kwame (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Several sections containing information about faculties, departments,
and residential facilities have recently been removed.
Some of this information was supported by independent reliable sources.
The concern raised was that Wikipedia is not a directory or that the
information has insufficient encyclopedic value.
Question: What level of independently sourced information about
the university's faculties, departments, and residential facilities
is appropriate for this article?
I am seeking input from uninvolved editors on whether concise,
encyclopedic information should be retained while directory-like
details are removed.
Please consider relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and focus
on the content rather than the editors involved.0ximjub43r (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Should the lead and Origins section state that xiaolongbao originated in Changzhou, or should they separately present the Changzhou and Nanxiang/Shanghai origin accounts while distinguishing them from earlier Kaifeng soup-filled buns? Kento.B (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
For the historical Albanian royal coats of arms of 1929–1939 and 1939–1943, should this article use the archival-based PNG illustrations, the modern SVG heraldic reconstructions, or both with appropriate identification? Jilligate (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
It's been almost three weeks since I raised these concerns, and I still haven't received any further responses. I understand that editors are busy but I would appreciate some input on the points I mentioned above, especially the historical background, the description of the Greek occupation of İzmir, and the use of collective ethnic terminology.
I'm not suggesting that the entire article needs to be rewritten, but I do think these issues deserve some debate especially about regarding neutrality and so on. I want to hear what other editors think and whether we can reach a decision on possible changes rather than leaving the discussion unresolved far more longer...
Oswald Quinsley (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
The maximum extent of the Portuguese Empire is always reverted by a specific user, but it should be based on , reliable published sources, which can vary in their estimates.
Taagepera gives5.5 million km² as the Empire's maximum extent.
However, there are other published sources, giving substantially larger figures:
Bouda Etemad, Possessing the World: Taking the Measurements of Colonisation from the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Century (Berghahn Books, 2007), gives Portugal an area of 8.5 million km² in 1760. Etemad's work is specifically concerned with quantitatively comparing colonial areas.
Walter Scheidel's chapter "The Scale of Empire" in The Oxford World History of Empire states that its modern colonial-empire figures incorporate corrections drawn from Etemad (2007).
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Strategic Vision (2012), gives the Portuguese Empire an area of 10.4 million km² in 1815, although the relevance and weight of this source under WP has previously been disputed.
Specialist histories of Portuguese America also describe a territorial extent substantially beyond coastal Brazil, including Roderick J. Barman, A.J.R. Russell-Wood, Leslie Bethell, Mark Harris and others. These sources do not necessarily use the same definition of "effective control" and should not be synthesised by editors into a new numerical figure.
A more recent work by Rein Taagepera and Miroslav Nemčok (2024) again gives 5.5 million km², but marks the early Portuguese Empire estimate as uncertain and explains that it counts only areas judged to be under effective control.
The question should not be which editors personally believe is the historically "correct" figure, but how Wikipedia should represent the disagreement between reliable sources and differing scopes, under WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
I propose including the different reliable sources.
Should the Legacy and artistic depictions section include the proposed one-sentence summary below of international protests against Gandhi statues, with detailed coverage remaining in the standalone controversies article? Akyeame.kwame (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I suggest that this sentence is added to the end of the very first paragraph: "The followers of Uthman were victorious and proceeded to establish the Umayyad Caliphate in 661."
The current version of the first paragraph does not say which side won. That would be good information to include there.
Do people support this? Sobelone96 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Note: The point of this discussion is to determine which car should represent the page based on its relevance (not based on the ammout of "good images" it has, nor to choose the specific image). Gigman (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Do reliable sources support treating the systems and features currently described in this article as a single coherent concept called "selection-based search"? Hashbrownie123 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Should tables be used on this page for timelines of AI discoveries in math (like in the 2026#Q3 subsection), or not (like elsewhere on the page)? Matarisvan (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
A section of this article - Lander (spacecraft)#Impactors, does not seem related to this article about spacecraft landers; the main objective of an Impactor is to crash into an entity, and not land on it. Would it be more appropriate to remove that section from this article, since there already exists a main article on probe Impactors Deliberate crash landings on extraterrestrial bodies? Riverskysun (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
For the historical Albanian royal coats of arms of 1929–1939 and 1939–1943, should this article use the archival-based PNG illustrations, the modern SVG heraldic reconstructions, or both with appropriate identification? Jilligate (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Should the Provo Canyon School article describe and/or be categorized as a ‘therapeutic boarding school’ or ‘boarding school’ in addition to the existing description as a ‘residential treatment center’? RfC restarted 04:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above about the heading picture has gotten nowhere, but I do think there is grounds for the picture to be changed, so I'm starting the RfC to get a larger discussion.
Question: Which picture should be used as the main image for the infobox of the article Neil Peart?
Should the lead of this article continue to state that Choerry “is a member of Loona”, or should that present-tense wording be revised based on the sources currently cited in the article and discussed above?
This RfC concerns whether the sources cited in this article support the present-tense wording in the lead. Wider uninvolved input is requested. APDuck (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to be more direct, in MOS:LEAD by clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography? This matter also concerns shotacon. Discussions elsewhere have spawned from this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Is the American Law Institute "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" for the purposes of WP:NACADEMIC #3? 21:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Should the party's political position be changed in the infobox and lead from "right-wing to far-right" to "centre-right to far-right"? Pachu1 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to be more direct, in MOS:LEAD by clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography? This matter also concerns shotacon. Discussions elsewhere have spawned from this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Should the lead and Origins section state that xiaolongbao originated in Changzhou, or should they separately present the Changzhou and Nanxiang/Shanghai origin accounts while distinguishing them from earlier Kaifeng soup-filled buns? Kento.B (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Should the Provo Canyon School article describe and/or be categorized as a ‘therapeutic boarding school’ or ‘boarding school’ in addition to the existing description as a ‘residential treatment center’? RfC restarted 04:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Several sections containing information about faculties, departments,
and residential facilities have recently been removed.
Some of this information was supported by independent reliable sources.
The concern raised was that Wikipedia is not a directory or that the
information has insufficient encyclopedic value.
Question: What level of independently sourced information about
the university's faculties, departments, and residential facilities
is appropriate for this article?
I am seeking input from uninvolved editors on whether concise,
encyclopedic information should be retained while directory-like
details are removed.
Please consider relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and focus
on the content rather than the editors involved.0ximjub43r (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Birth_name is a standard parameter across biography templates on the encyclopedia. Template:Infobox gridiron football biography currently lacks that parameter. There are sports biographies where the article title is not their real name which leads to confusion, miscommunication, and lack of precision in the infobox templates for these individuals when the birth_name parameter is not available for use. This issue was raised in an earlier thread last year on this talk page by Zackmann08, but failed to gain much attention. An RFC is needed to attract input from a wider range of editors.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Capitalization of internet#Requested move 15 September 2026 has been closed with a consensus to lowercase internet/Internet (as in the internet/Internet, not in the generic internetworking sense) in the title of Capitalization of internet. The RM was closed as only applying to the title, with a broader discussion needed to establish broader advice. This was naturally recommended as the best place to do that.
So, should the internet/Internet be capitalized or uncapitalized? –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 15:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: The point of this discussion is to determine which car should represent the page based on its relevance (not based on the ammout of "good images" it has, nor to choose the specific image). Gigman (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to be more direct, in MOS:LEAD by clearly stating that lolicon refers to simulated child pornography? This matter also concerns shotacon. Discussions elsewhere have spawned from this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Is the American Law Institute "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" for the purposes of WP:NACADEMIC #3? 21:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Can the MfD guidelines be changed to allow autoconfirmed users (or above) to archive non-controversial discussions? 🐴🌀[citation needed] 04:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Since I clarified that the original discussion was not an RfC and was also getting off-topic (sorry, Gurkubondinn), here we are. The discussion yielded an unclear result, so I figured I would just move ahead with a clearer RfC. Hopefully consensus will be clearer. Courtesy-tagging original discussion participants: @Gnomingstuff @SuperPianoMan9167 @Katzrockso @NicheSports @LWG @Fermiboson @Thryduulf @InfernoHues @Chipmunkdavis
Should WP:NOLLM be updated to explicitly permit or explicitly prohibit the use of AI/LLMs to create/format Wikitext (hereafter referred to as "WT")?
Option 1 — No change to NOLLM.
Option 2 - Add some form of explicit exception to PERMIT the use of AI to format WT, with the caveat that the user is responsible for ensuring it is non-disruptive and publishes without error.Option 3 — Add some form of explicit prohibition to PREVENT the use of AI to format WT.This RfC also invites discussion as to the wording of an exception or prohibition—MWFwiki (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Should a new move protection level be created, which only allows page movers and administrators to move pages affected by it? 05:31, 29 September 2026 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: username changed. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Appears to be representing a team. Also another anon editor / or the same editor logged-out, has been duplicating the same messages on multiple talk pages. I suggested change of username in July because of the shared username concern. There was no response to that, but the user has continued commenting on other talk pages. Jay 18:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC).
Hi Jay,
Thank you for raising this.
What happened is that I posted a comment while I was not logged in. Later, after logging in, I posted the same comment again from my account. That is why it appeared as a duplicate from an anonymous editor and my username.
I am a single individual and not a shared or team account. I understand the concern about the username “Team meraseo” looking like a group account. I am happy to change it if needed.
Do you have any relation to the company MeraSEO? As this may be more than just a username issue. QTC 13:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
First, please tell us a new username to rename this account to, one that represents you as an individual. Your real name is not required. You may format a username as "JohnDoe of MeraSEO" if desired. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
In the future clear violations like this may be reported to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
I went with 5. Discuss less-serious violations with the user on their talk page so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith. Are you saying this qualified as ..an egregious name violation? Jay 03:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The only reference to "egregious" is in the case of usernames that have never edited(i.e. particularly vulgar or offensive usernames). We don't generally block usernames that have never edited unless the username is so bad that we don't want it appearing in edit histories/logs. This username indicates a business or group("Team Mera") and while we don't usually block without warning merely for shared use, they have "SEO" in their name and were editing about people who typically make use of SEO/PR/marketing services(actors) meaning they haven't disclosed paid editing(a TOU requirement); this is a clear violation. This board is for discussing usernames that are unclear/uncertain violations.
If you wish to attempt discussion with a user instead of immediately reporting a clear violation, that may be done on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I had notified at the user talk in July, as mentioned, but it didn't lead to a discussion. Are you saying that this qualifies for UAA under 5 3. Promotional names, and by that I assume usernames that promote themselves (not others)? But it also says 5 3. Promotional names require evidence to be blocked. Do not report a username merely because it "appears" promotional. Jay 08:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
If for example you see the username "XYZ Corporation" editing about anything but XYZ Corporation or its field, that does not have any evidence they are editing promotionally and does not need to be no-warning blocked for a promotional username. If you see "XYZ Corporation" editing about their company or its field, that is evidence of promotional editing and they can be blocked for a promotional username. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, we are on the same page on that. What I'm not yet clear is whether you are still advocating this should have been reported to UAA, or you agree this is not a case for UAA. Because you said "clear violations like this", and by quoting different numbered points, I have been trying to figure out which numbered point or instruction of UAA you are trying to indicate. Jay 10:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The bullet points at UAA are not necessarily meant as hard criteria, and are not the sole consideration. As it says there, "Reports will be assessed in accordance with the username policy, the UAA instructions, and the following bullet points." How clearly a username violates the policy is the main consideration; this one clearly does as I explained above. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi Jay,
I have changed my username to my correct name as requested. Thank you for the guidance. Pragnesh Tavadia (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
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){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
