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:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting
Should the names of the perpetrator and victims be in boldface? 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
Should we omit
|instrument=Vocals if we include "singer" in |occupations=, and the subject is not primarily known for any other instrument (e.g. use
{{Infobox musical artist
|occupations=Singer
}}
instead of
{{Infobox musical artist
|occupations=Singer
|instrument=Vocals
}}
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
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 • c 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, Adriana Kugler's infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, Todd Blanche does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.
The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to the RfC over the religion parameter. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations
Should the historical proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) be replaced with a short updated naming convention guideline that links to the established more detailed region-specific station naming conventions and describes their points of commonality? Tomiĉo (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
This question is about the terminology to be used when a draft is not accepted but may be reworked or improved and resubmitted. This action is currently referred to in the AFC Helper script and at the messages provided to the author as being Declined. There has been discussion at the Village Pump at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Declined_vs_rejected_at_AfC. Should the terminology for the three possible actions by a reviewer be:
- A - Accepted, Declined, and Rejected? (The present options)
- B - Accepted, Not Accepted, and Rejected? (The rough consensus at VPM)
- C - Something else, please specify.
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
Should the following criterion be added to G15? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)