Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 5 July 2025 (Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Voorts

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer

What should the minimum criteria for granting the TAIV user right right be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talkcontribs) 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

RFCBEFORE: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#It is time we talked about Google Ngram

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)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

Should understandability be added to the featured article criteria? And if so, which wording should be used?
  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)

Talk:Birbhum district

This RfC seeks to establish clear inclusion criteria for the "Notable People" list, following a dispute over recent large-scale additions of individuals with primarily local careers. Murkut23 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)