I work to revertvandalism and also on NFL and sometimes other sports related topics. Recently, I have been helping to fix typos and other small mistakes.
Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists from 2 per week to 3 or 4 per week, either on a trial basis, with the option to expand further if sustainable, or without a trial at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I am proposing that we add a new thing Wikipedia:Pages being discussed for undeletion. This will be the place to discuss undeleting pages, though it shouldn't be used for stuff such as drafts deleted per G13 or other stuff. Not the same as deletion review either. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."
Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"
English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process.
Support 1 or more of the following:
Process is working well, no changes needed
There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
There should be fewer signatures needed
There should be more signatures needed
30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
Recall should be abolished
Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall
When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.
Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)
Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:
Even though mission statements are verifiable, they are written by the company itself, which makes them a primary source.
Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?
In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.
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.
This request for comment proposes deprecating the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. The current guideline ties certain U.S. city article titles to whether the AP Stylebook lists them as not requiring a state name, a practice that dates back to Wikipedia’s early years. However, this external dependency conflicts with Wikipedia’s self-governed policy hierarchy and with the way other countries’ naming conventions are structured. No other national convention relies on an outside publication to determine article titles. This discussion invites editors to consider whether Wikipedia should instead base U.S. city naming solely on internal principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, supported by verifiable usage data such as pageviews and clickstreams.
Proposal
Deprecate the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. Future decisions about the inclusion or omission of state names in U.S. city article titles should be based solely on Wikipedia’s internal policies and verifiable usage evidence.
Replace the existing paragraph:
"Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named 'City' unless they are not the primary topic for that name."
with:
"Cities are titled by the most common and unambiguous name used by readers and reliable sources, in accordance with WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The inclusion or omission of a state name is determined by actual disambiguation need, not by external style guides.""
Add an explanatory note:
"References to the AP Stylebook in earlier versions of this guideline are deprecated. Wikipedia naming conventions should rely on internal policy and verifiable data, such as reader behavior or reliable source usage, rather than on external editorial manuals."
Background
The current wording of WP:USPLACE incorporates the Associated Press Stylebook as part of its reasoning for which United States cities are exempt from the “Placename, State” format. This reliance on an external publication is unusual within Wikipedia’s system of self-contained policies and guidelines. Other country-specific naming conventions (for example WP:UKPLACE, WP:CANPLACE, WP:NCAUST, WP:NCIND) rely only on internal policy principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Rationale
The AP Stylebook was created for journalistic brevity, not encyclopedic clarity. Wikipedia’s naming standards are designed for reliability and reader intent, not for newspaper copy.
No other country’s naming convention cites an external editorial manual as authority. The United States should not be an exception.
The AP list of cities without state modifiers is dated and arbitrary, reflecting mid-20th-century newspaper familiarity rather than modern global recognition.
Wikimedia’s pageview and clickstream data provide transparent, empirical evidence of what readers mean when they search for a city name.
This change aligns WP:USPLACE with WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, ensuring that the same principles apply worldwide.
Intended outcome
Consensus to remove or deprecate references to the Associated Press Stylebook from WP:USPLACE and clarify that U.S. city naming follows the same internally governed, data-based principles used for other countries. TrueCRaysball💬|✏️ 18:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Marked historical as unneeded, unenforced or lacking consensus?
If C or D are adopted, the following guidance at WP:NCPLACE#Belgium would be removed: The Brussels naming conventions should be used for articles related to Brussels.
If C or D are adopted, a discussion would be opened to determine the status of the Brusselsname talk page template.
Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
It has been over a year since the temporary criterion WP:X3 was enacted. At present, it looks as though the backlog of titles which this criterion applies have now been deleted. (Further details in the following comment.) At this point, should we make this criterion "Obsolete", promote this criterion to a permanent criterion (would be "R5"), do nothing to the criterion at the present time, or take some other action? Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This page was tagged as a sitewide {{guideline}} after an RFC in 2013. The RFC was not a WP:PROPOSAL for guideline status; instead, it was about a dispute over a CFD. A couple of participants in the RFC casually referred to this page as a "guideline", and on the basis of their comments, the page was later tagged as a {{Guideline}} instead of as a {{WikiProject advice page}}.
The WP:PROJPAGE guideline says: Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines. Such pages move out from under their original "Wikipedia:WikiProject Something/" path.
I therefore propose that editors choose one of two options:
Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."
Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"
Should this proposal be accepted as a guideline? (Please consider reading the FAQ above before commenting.) Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
For the record and for full disclosure, I initially went ahead and removed it as I felt that the 2 RFCs made it clear that this change was to be made. That removal was objected to fiercely by another editor who felt I had overstepped. I have reverted my change and here we are.
A few arguments
Per MOS:IBXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance
The "residence" is almost never sourced and is not really relevant to the player's biography
To quote one editor at the previous RFC, "Completely non-educational unless you're some sort of celebrity stalker".
Should the community harmonize the rules that govern community-designated contentious topics (which are general sanctions authorized by the community) with WP:CTOP? If so, how? 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
With the implementation of Module:Person date, all |birth_date= and |death_date= values in Infoboxes (except for deities and fictional characters) are now parsed and age automatically calculated when possible.
With this implementation, it was found that there are a large number of cases (currently 4534) where the birth/death date is set to Unk, Unknown, ? or ##?? (such as 19??). Full disclosure, Module:Person date was created by me and because of an issue early on I added a number of instances of |death_date=Unknown in articles a few weeks ago. (I had not yet been informed about the MOS I link to below, that's my bad).
Per MOS:INFOBOX: If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined..
There is also the essay WP:UNKNOWN which says, in short, Don't say something is unknown just because you don't know.
So the question is what to do about these values? Currently Module:Person date is simply tracking them and placing those pages in Category:Pages with invalid birth or death dates (4,534). It has been growing by the minute since I added that tracking. Now I am NOT proposing that this sort of tracking be done for every parameter in every infobox... There are plenty of cases of |some_param=Unknown, but with this module we have a unique opportunity to address one of them.
I tried to find a good case where the |death_date= truly is Unknown, but all the cases I could think of use |disappeared_date= instead. (See Amelia Earhart for example).
The way I see it there are a few options
Option A - Essentially do nothing. Keep the tracking category but make no actual changes to the pages.
Option B - Implement a {{preview warning}} that would say This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. (Obviously open to suggestions on better language).
Option C - Take B one step further and actually suppress the value. Display a preview warning that says This value "VALUE" is invalid per MOS:INFOBOX & WP:UNKNOWN. It will not be displayed when saved. then display nothing on the page. In other words treat |death_date=Unknown the same as |death_date=. (Again open to suggestions on better language for the preview warning).
English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process.
Support 1 or more of the following:
Process is working well, no changes needed
There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
There should be fewer signatures needed
There should be more signatures needed
30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
Recall should be abolished
Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall
When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.
Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)
Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:
Even though mission statements are verifiable, they are written by the company itself, which makes them a primary source.
Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?
In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.
The WP:GEOLAND guideline states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable".
Do you agree or disagree with the statement: "the "Populated, legally recognized places" standard is not fit for purpose"? FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Should a "Wait and See" option be added to the Articles for Deletion guidelines, to be used as needed for breaking news? -- Beland (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
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 a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
-6.jpg)
