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

This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Template talk:Infobox person

Should color in headings be removed from Infoboxes about people and persons? —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

Should we remove the Controversy section and place its content in relevant parts of the article body? Burrobert (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

For the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME, should the amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources be a valid consideration (among others) in determining whether to include or exclude information about an otherwise low-profile individual who has not been convicted of a crime? 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Vanessa Kirby

Sources disagree other Vanessa Kirby's age/dob. The dominant dob in secondary reliable sources is April 18, 1988. There are other sources, however, that give 1987 as a date and articles where her given age is consistent with the 1987 date rather than the 1988 date. Primary source information such as the government registration of her company also favor the 1987 date. The crux of the debate is the tension between WP:BLPPRIMARY (which favors 1988) and WP:TRUTHMATTERS (which favours 1987).

There are four options:

1. 1987
2. 1988 [per [1]
3. Both dates with accompanying note (the status quo version)
4. No date

Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:AT&T Corporation

Which logo should be used in the infobox for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:AT&T Corporation

Which logo should be used in the infobox for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests

Should the Safal Committee be mentioned ?

1. In the infobox and in the text of the article?
2. In the text of the article but not in the infobox?
3. No.

Please answer A,B, or C in the Survey with a brief statement. Please discuss in the Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Parasnath

Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Coptic language

Request For Comment for the discussion Coptic Language Prohibition? on the Coptic Language talk page.

It is a VERY long 49 page discussion in full; I would start reading about half way through where the WP:3O user Squatch comes in for the sake of brevity and summary as everything said before is only either reiterated in more refined form after, dropped, or expanded upon with new sources. For max brevity you may even be able to make do with just the last reply by each of us in the discussion although I'd say the last 2 replies from each might be better. But of course read the entirety if you feel so inclined to see all the evolutions.

I definitely think Policy has something to say here, and I wasn't sure to also call on History or Language RFC but since this is dealing with the HISTORY of the language I figured that was what made sense. But arguably the more eyes on this the better to ensure prevention of WP:FALSECON.

Basically we are disagreeing on how to phrase something based on whether a claim regarding the history of the Coptic Language is exclusive to a single Coptologist or more widely held. The particular claim is the order by the Caliph Al-Hakim on the prohibition of the Coptic Language and the penalties for it. The other user wishes to rephrase it in such a way to suggest this claim is a fringe belief by a single academic. I believe should it be phrased more generally as is the status quo as it is supported by the most authoritative work on the topic and several other works with nothing opposing it in secondary sources.

At any rate this debate has gone on for a week and I'd like it resolved as it is just going in circles at this point and I've spent enough hours on it I think to warrant an escalation and I'm losing faith a resolution is possible as things stand. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Should the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article include a Polish Statehood template Template:Polish_statehood? PJK 1993 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tet Offensive

I recently changed the Outcomes Section from the "Viet Cong suffered catastrophic losses... etc."

To "Viet Cong suffered significant losses... etc"

A user reverted the change below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tet_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1312724376

A user had reverted the change, but did not attempt to reconcile the different positions in the last thread. The previous outcome description had no clear evidence or references, and clear contradictions since neither the Viet Cong nor its method of insurgency was destroyed by the Tet Offensive as these results implied. This is inserting a POV perspective which contradicts historical records.

Reference for the basis for these changes is found below:

"At the end of 1967, approximately 225,000 Viet Cong and PAVN forces were in the south. Despite casualties taken, Viet Cong and PAVN forces numbered 251,000 by the end of 1968. The Tet Offensive had little impact on troop numbers, and the Viet Cong remained a viable fighting force until the end of the war.^[1]"

Summerhall fire (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish Empire

Should this article have a diachronic map? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

Should we remove the Controversy section and place its content in relevant parts of the article body? Burrobert (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles?

Brief background: Infobox images are an often-debated topic for weather articles, sometimes leading to edit wars. In fact, tropical cyclones has an extremely detailed ordering of what image should take precedent (WP:WPTC/IMG), due to how many edit wars have occurred. Very few weather articles currently contain infobox collages; four examples include 2020 California wildfires, Joplin tornado, Tornadoes of 2024, and the very recent July 2025 Central Texas floods. I am able to locate less than 20 weather articles with infobox collages. Some of the most notable weather disasters only display a single image in their infobox including these five examples: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, Tornadoes of 2025 and Hurricane Helene (along with Effects in North Carolina subpage). According to WP:COLLAGETIPS, "The great benefit of collages is that they allow an article to present multiple visuals for the topic. This makes them particularly useful for leads of broad subjects such as many cities, where using a single image could never be representative enough to suffice by itself."

Just in September 2025, Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and Hurricane Maria have both had infobox image debates and edit wars. To reduce edit wars, should infobox collages be more widely encouraged for all weather articles, should they be discouraged, or should be encouraged for certain types and discouraged for certain types? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hrvatska

The page Hrvatska should be redirected to Croatia because most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Afsharid Iran

For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies? Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli ^(🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.^[2][3][4]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hrvatska

The page Hrvatska should be redirected to Croatia because most people who type "Hrvatska" are looking for "Croatia". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

• Option 1: Generally Reliable
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must be Deprecated

NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles?

Brief background: Infobox images are an often-debated topic for weather articles, sometimes leading to edit wars. In fact, tropical cyclones has an extremely detailed ordering of what image should take precedent (WP:WPTC/IMG), due to how many edit wars have occurred. Very few weather articles currently contain infobox collages; four examples include 2020 California wildfires, Joplin tornado, Tornadoes of 2024, and the very recent July 2025 Central Texas floods. I am able to locate less than 20 weather articles with infobox collages. Some of the most notable weather disasters only display a single image in their infobox including these five examples: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, Tornadoes of 2025 and Hurricane Helene (along with Effects in North Carolina subpage). According to WP:COLLAGETIPS, "The great benefit of collages is that they allow an article to present multiple visuals for the topic. This makes them particularly useful for leads of broad subjects such as many cities, where using a single image could never be representative enough to suffice by itself."

Just in September 2025, Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and Hurricane Maria have both had infobox image debates and edit wars. To reduce edit wars, should infobox collages be more widely encouraged for all weather articles, should they be discouraged, or should be encouraged for certain types and discouraged for certain types? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

In relation to flying saucers (sometimes also called "UFOs", "UAPs", "USOs", etc.) are online-only (versus print) articles by Popular Mechanics:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

• Option 1: Generally Reliable
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must be Deprecated

NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Bee Gees

Should we state "Redcliffe, Queensland, Australia (or maybe a different specific place in QLD) as this band's origin, since the adoption of the name taking place there per article sources? Or should we state Manchester, England per the inital founding place of The Rattlesnakes (1950s band)? My view is this was a seperate band, with the Bee Gees being formed in Queensland. Due to a history of edit warring, I feel an RfC is necessary for community input. It makes sense to leave the field blank if no consensus has been reached yet, but I hope this RfC will resolve it. Of course no individual editor is in a position at this time to fill the field, in my view. --IWI (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:

• A: List of Cars characters
• B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
• C: List of characters in the Cars franchise

Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of One Piece characters

An unresolvable discussion on whether Yamato, a fictional character who identifies as and uses male pronouns, should use male pronouns in his section in this article, despite MOS:GIDINFO specifying that the most recent self expressed use of pronouns to have priority over what is used in reliable sources depicting the character. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Gaza genocide consensus sentence

Is this template ready for use in article main spaces such as the lead paragraph of Gaza genocide, UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide, List of genocides, and General debate of the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of companies involved in the Holocaust

Hi all. On my talk page, there was a discussion about the role of WP:LIBEL related to genocide allegations in Wikivoice against companies not convicted of genocide, and it was decided the discussion be moved here. What are interpretations surrounding WP:LIBEL as it applies to companies on this list that have not been convicted of complicitly in the Holocaust? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism

Editors here have discussed findings from the academic community on fascism, which is increasingly characterizing Donald Trump's policies as fascist/proto-fascist/neo-fascist, or that they are leading the US towards fascism. Editors on pages regarding fascism continue to remove content regarding these findings, citing a lack of consensus about whether or not to include such material. Should articles regarding fascism expand their coverage of the scholarly debate about whether and to what extent Trumpism is a form of fascism? Rangooner (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Parasnath

Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu

MOS:FIRSTBIO states that the opening sentance should be "avoiding subjective or contentious terms". I furthermore states that one should "try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph." As such, calling him a "fugitive under international law" seems out of place. Nehushtani (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:AfriForum

Afriforum describes itself as a non-governmental organisation, which has the self stated purpose of "to call up Afrikaners to participate in public debate and actions outside of the sphere of party politics."[2] In 2014 Afriforum described itself as a "South African civil rights organisation focusing on minority rights (and especially Afrikaner rights).  [Afriforum] aims to activate the South African civil society to participate positively in the promotion and protection of minority rights outside the realm of party politics. " [3]

It has been argued by everday South Africans that Afriforum is a white supremacist organisation with an alternative purpose.[4] The journalist Pieter du Toit has argued that Afriforum is an Afrikaner Nationalist group (specifically he called them an "emissary of a new form of Afrikaner nationalism". The founders of Afriforum have been accused of aiming to build a "Volkstaat" (a white homeland for Afrikaners within South Africa).[5] Afriforum has been called a racist lobby group.[6] In general their description as an organization, and their purpose as an organisation is highly contestable.[7][8]

Should we define Afriforum as a non-governmental organisation with its self-stated purpose and place criticisms of this description later in the lead, or should we describe them differently (whether white supremacist, afrikaner nationalist ect), with a different purpose at the start of the lead. If we describe them differently, how? Nib2905 (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Neo-fascism

Should the article describe the MAGA movement as neo-fascist? See the contested material in Special:Diff/1312378034/1312471678 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

Should we remove the Controversy section and place its content in relevant parts of the article body? Burrobert (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Relevant WP:RFCBEFORE: The section above, Talk:Tech_for_Palestine#2025-08_Pirate_Wires, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?

What is the reliability of Pirate Wires?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecate

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.

Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.^[5][6][7]

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Parasnath

Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Congregation of Mother of Carmel

Should the lead and history section of this article be updated to consistently state that Venerable Mother Eliswa Vakayil is the foundress of the Third Order of the Discalced Carmelite (TOCD), given the new canonical recognition by the Holy See's Dicastery for the Causes of Saints? Desertstorm1000 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests

Should the Safal Committee be mentioned ?

1. In the infobox and in the text of the article?
2. In the text of the article but not in the infobox?
3. No.

Please answer A,B, or C in the Survey with a brief statement. Please discuss in the Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Parasnath

Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season

Should the results of the games be displayed :

• A - using a wikitable , ( like here) , or
• B - using {{Football box collapsible}} to do this (like here)

?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

Should we remove the Controversy section and place its content in relevant parts of the article body? Burrobert (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

May editors revert edits that add commas or remove existing commas from articles written in British English on MOS:ENGVAR grounds? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should the titles of articles about parliament constituencies (e.g. in Essex) always contain the parenthetical "(UK Parliament constituency)" or only when one is needed for disambiguation? Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)

Should WP:NCWWW be rewritten to only recommend adding a time to the article title when needed for disambiguation? See the following for an example wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists

What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:

• A: List of Cars characters
• B: List of Cars (franchise) characters
• C: List of characters in the Cars franchise

Should any of these be adopted as a standard naming convention rather than the other two? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

Should WP:NCAUST be changed to say the state or territory name "may" be in an article title for a place name, to say that these should only be used if needed for disambiguation? (Other changes are also included in the proposed text.) -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Afsharid Iran

For this article, which official name best complies with reliable sources & Wikipedia's policies? Please consider WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and focus on usage in reliable English-language sources. Krsnaquli ^(🙏) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Russian Wikipedia

@Ymblanter WP:RUS is not a Wikipedia policy, it is an essay. That has no weight on anything. Especially not when there are countless English Wikipedia articles each of varying Romanization systems for Russian topics. ja is the romanization given by Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic and has been used for decades, and /ja/ is more correct as it matches the IPA pronunciation of the letter. For transliterating «я», should "ja" be used or "ya"? (This could also be extended to other Cyrillic letters (ш as š, etc.) 2605:8D80:6C21:7EF8:E15E:B72C:BEBC:AE40 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Background, currently, we block all WP:Tor exit nodes such that any user wanting to edit through a Tor exit node would first need to contact a administrator and obtain the WP:IPBE user right before making any edits. (i.e. convince a admin that you will edit constructively and not sock, which is a much higher bar than typical autoconfirmed). However, currently MediaWiki artificially extends the period of time a user needs to edit for to be autoconfirmed to be atleast 90 day with a edit threshold of 100 edits. This is enforced by the the TorBlock extension which was added some time in 2008. Since then, our policies have shifted, in the current day, due to our No open proxies rules, editing through Tor exit nodes are typically always blocked locally (and many times globally). Due to this, the bar for editing through Tor proxies has become "request the IPBE userright" + the aformentioned extended autoconfirmed userright. Given this, I would like to propose that we remove the special extended time period to get autoconfirmed for Tor users, and instead equalize the bar for recieving the autconfirmed userright for both Tor and non-Tor users. -- 14:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should the titles of articles about parliament constituencies (e.g. in Essex) always contain the parenthetical "(UK Parliament constituency)" or only when one is needed for disambiguation? Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Parasnath

Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Should CSD U5 be 1) repealed and replaced with a combination of 2) procedural deletion of non-contributors' user subpages after six months of no edits, 3) a narrower criterion for off-topic content that has escaped deletion under (2), 4) formalizing the practice of moving drafts off of top-level userpages, and 5) allowing editors to blank userpages that would be eligible for speedy deletion under (3) if they were subpages? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Coptic language

Request For Comment for the discussion Coptic Language Prohibition? on the Coptic Language talk page.

It is a VERY long 49 page discussion in full; I would start reading about half way through where the WP:3O user Squatch comes in for the sake of brevity and summary as everything said before is only either reiterated in more refined form after, dropped, or expanded upon with new sources. For max brevity you may even be able to make do with just the last reply by each of us in the discussion although I'd say the last 2 replies from each might be better. But of course read the entirety if you feel so inclined to see all the evolutions.

I definitely think Policy has something to say here, and I wasn't sure to also call on History or Language RFC but since this is dealing with the HISTORY of the language I figured that was what made sense. But arguably the more eyes on this the better to ensure prevention of WP:FALSECON.

Basically we are disagreeing on how to phrase something based on whether a claim regarding the history of the Coptic Language is exclusive to a single Coptologist or more widely held. The particular claim is the order by the Caliph Al-Hakim on the prohibition of the Coptic Language and the penalties for it. The other user wishes to rephrase it in such a way to suggest this claim is a fringe belief by a single academic. I believe should it be phrased more generally as is the status quo as it is supported by the most authoritative work on the topic and several other works with nothing opposing it in secondary sources.

At any rate this debate has gone on for a week and I'd like it resolved as it is just going in circles at this point and I've spent enough hours on it I think to warrant an escalation and I'm losing faith a resolution is possible as things stand. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

• Option 1: Generally Reliable
• Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must be Deprecated

NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Rolie Polie Olie

Should this page be unprotected? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Background:

• The main issue with extended confirmed protection (ECP) is that it's trivial to run up edit counts to 500 edits very quickly. Even though most extreme gaming is detected relatively quickly in several different ways, just a few minutes is long enough to seriously disrupt ECP articles, and some accounts slip through even with the new measures we have in place.
• Full protection is not a good solution for this because it prevents editing to important articles and vandals gaming ECP will shift to other pages when their target is fully protected (as happened while Donald Trump was fully protected).

Revised proposal:

• Update the site configuration so the autoconfirmed group is required before an account is granted extendedconfirmed. It's a small modification to the wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit setting (see the enwiki settings).
• We allow several high accuracy edit filters to revoke autoconfirmed. This is already supported natively. The edit filter managers would also update MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped to be more general and less accusatory.
• Remove blockautopromote from wgAbuseFilterActionRestrictions so the blockautopromote action won't be disabled when the filters have a high rate of matches (which already happens because ECP gaming happens at a high rate). This will also allow non-administrator EFMs to edit these abuse filters (they can already restore autoconfirmed when a filter removes it so this is not a big deal).

This will help address the biggest problem we have right now with ECP: the 5-30 minute delay between ECP being granted and an administrator at AIV acting on an automated report from one of several edit filters. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Background, currently, we block all WP:Tor exit nodes such that any user wanting to edit through a Tor exit node would first need to contact a administrator and obtain the WP:IPBE user right before making any edits. (i.e. convince a admin that you will edit constructively and not sock, which is a much higher bar than typical autoconfirmed). However, currently MediaWiki artificially extends the period of time a user needs to edit for to be autoconfirmed to be atleast 90 day with a edit threshold of 100 edits. This is enforced by the the TorBlock extension which was added some time in 2008. Since then, our policies have shifted, in the current day, due to our No open proxies rules, editing through Tor exit nodes are typically always blocked locally (and many times globally). Due to this, the bar for editing through Tor proxies has become "request the IPBE userright" + the aformentioned extended autoconfirmed userright. Given this, I would like to propose that we remove the special extended time period to get autoconfirmed for Tor users, and instead equalize the bar for recieving the autconfirmed userright for both Tor and non-Tor users. -- 14:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person

Should color in headings be removed from Infoboxes about people and persons? —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Background:

• The main issue with extended confirmed protection (ECP) is that it's trivial to run up edit counts to 500 edits very quickly. Even though most extreme gaming is detected relatively quickly in several different ways, just a few minutes is long enough to seriously disrupt ECP articles, and some accounts slip through even with the new measures we have in place.
• Full protection is not a good solution for this because it prevents editing to important articles and vandals gaming ECP will shift to other pages when their target is fully protected (as happened while Donald Trump was fully protected).

Revised proposal:

• Update the site configuration so the autoconfirmed group is required before an account is granted extendedconfirmed. It's a small modification to the wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit setting (see the enwiki settings).
• We allow several high accuracy edit filters to revoke autoconfirmed. This is already supported natively. The edit filter managers would also update MediaWiki:Abusefilter-degrouped to be more general and less accusatory.
• Remove blockautopromote from wgAbuseFilterActionRestrictions so the blockautopromote action won't be disabled when the filters have a high rate of matches (which already happens because ECP gaming happens at a high rate). This will also allow non-administrator EFMs to edit these abuse filters (they can already restore autoconfirmed when a filter removes it so this is not a big deal).

This will help address the biggest problem we have right now with ECP: the 5-30 minute delay between ECP being granted and an administrator at AIV acting on an automated report from one of several edit filters. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Should a bot be used to fix linter errors and fix Vector 2022 dark mode on old Articles for Deletion subpages? 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this page be merged into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (Discuss) Proposed since September 2025.

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

• the user in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

---

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.

---