Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

Talk:Neurodiversity {{rfcquote|text= Does the community think that the following statement is relevant to the article:

Autism scholar Jason Travers asserted that many of the proposed theories on autism, while plausible, are "largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive)", and have "many hallmarks of pseudoscience", continuing that the proponents of the neurodiversity movement "aim to undermine evidence-based treatments".^[1]

I've update the proposed statement for grammar, to include "rather", and then extended the scope quote accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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?

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;
It should be a separate criterion: 1g. Understandable to its audience.
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)

^ Hupp S, Santa Maria CL (March 23, 2023), Pseudoscience in Therapy: A Skeptical Field Guide, Cambridge University Press, p. 285 and 290, ISBN 978-1-316-51922-6, That is, the notion that ASD is caused or explained by impairments or differences in brain processing seems plausible. However, this perspective is largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive), has many hallmarks of pseudoscience, and has ushered in various treatments that are unsupported by rigorous experimental evidence......Sadly, vocal opposition to evidence-based treatments has become a prominent theme of the neurodiversity movement, particularly on social media and in some academic circles (e.g., disability studies; Broderick & Roscigno, 2021). In particular, some neurodiversity proponents aim to undermine evidence-based treatments rooted in applied behavior analysis.

[1] Hupp S, Santa Maria CL (March 23, 2023), Pseudoscience in Therapy: A Skeptical Field Guide, Cambridge University Press, p. 285 and 290, ISBN 978-1-316-51922-6, That is, the notion that ASD is caused or explained by impairments or differences in brain processing seems plausible. However, this perspective is largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive), has many hallmarks of pseudoscience, and has ushered in various treatments that are unsupported by rigorous experimental evidence......Sadly, vocal opposition to evidence-based treatments has become a prominent theme of the neurodiversity movement, particularly on social media and in some academic circles (e.g., disability studies; Broderick & Roscigno, 2021). In particular, some neurodiversity proponents aim to undermine evidence-based treatments rooted in applied behavior analysis.

[1]

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: 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.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.