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
Last year, we implemented a process of admin elections. However, there was little discussion on if we should include bureaucrat elections, which I personally think that we should. I am implementing this RfC to ask the community what they think of implementing these kinds of elections, maybe like every year or 2. Should we implement bureaucrat elections the same way we do with admin elections? Interstellarity (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in WP:HATGPT after further discussion at WT:TPG. Recently, an editor started a requested move using LLM generated content. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.
Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?
I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing WP:PAG that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —Locke Cole • t • c00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
There's been an ongoing debate on pages for elections in the US about what kind of sourcing you need to move a candidate from the "Filed paperwork" or "Potential" section to "Declared." A lot of editors seem to agree that an FEC filing is not enough, because it is very common for people to file with the FEC without ever actually campaigning. Ideally, we want to cite a news article that says the candidate is running. However, it's easy to find candidates who've filed with the FEC and launched a campaign website but who haven't been mentioned in any news articles. Moreover, some news articles say that a candidate is running purely because they've filed with the FEC, even though the candidate has no online campaign presence and the author of the news article doesn't seem to have reached out to them to confirm they're actually running. In my eyes, there are three proposals for how to deal with this:
1. Maintain the current system. A candidate can only be moved to "Declared" if there is an article from a reliable news source that says they're running.
2. Allow someone to be listed in "Declared" if they have filed with the FEC or the relevant state/local elections agency.
3. Allow someone to be listed in "Declared" with two citations: first, a filing with the FEC or the relevant state/local elections agency, and second, a self-published source from the candidate that says they're running--e.g. a campaign website, campaign social media account, or fundraising page where the candidate explicitly says they're running (so "I'm exploring a candidacy" or something like that wouldn't be good enough).
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.
