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:Killing of Austin Metcalf

The prior RfC ended in "no consensus" when the suspect was a minor and uncharged. He is now eighteen and was indicted for first-degree murder. Should their name be included in the article? FrodoMarsh (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer

What should the minimum criteria for granting the TAIV user right right be? 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)

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.