Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• A. Descriptive titles (like "The Princess Royal" or "The Dowager Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg" or "The Countess of Carladès"
• B. Article titles (like "Anne, Princess Royal" or "Princess Benedikte of Denmark" or "Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès")

Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Background: Airport destination lists have been a reasonably heavy point of contention in recent months, due to the poor (in many cases) sourcing of these lists, and the constant churn of content being added and removed, often without reliable sources. It got to the stage at one point where editors in this ANI thread were so tired that comments like Not a month goes by that we don't get a report here of some cosmic struggle over lists of destinations reachable from various airports. were left. As a result, a discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists.

As a result of that discussion, the following options were developed as ways forward for airport destinations lists. Note that in every instance, WP:V still applies, and routes must be sourced with reliable sources. Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates.

1. Airport articles should contain comprehensive lists of routes flown from that airport (No change)
2. Split very large destination tables into separate articles, and retain smaller destination tables in airport articles. For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would become a List of Heathrow Airport destinations, with a {{Main}} hatnote and a brief summary in the article about the airport. Such lists would normally be considered notable provided that the airport destinations are discussed as a set in independent reliable sources; any that weren't would be merged and redirected back into the airport article to WP:PRESERVE the information.
3. Replace large destination tables with a summary in prose that does not mention most individual destinations by name. Smaller destination tables may be retained (or not, as editors of that article choose). For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would be replaced by a paragraph saying that it has dozens of airlines and hundreds of destinations in dozens of countries; Wikipedia would no longer contain information about the individual destinations. However, Eastern Iowa Airport#Airlines and destinations, which lists less than 20 destinations, would be left alone (unless editors of that article preferred a different approach).
4. Replace every destination table with a summary in prose. For example, Durango–La Plata County Airport#Airlines and destinations has a small table listing two airlines and four destinations, and that would be replaced by two sentences naming the two airlines and four destinations, and larger airports would have longer, potentially multi-paragraph summaries.
5. Remove destination lists - all information about destinations reachable from an airport should be excluded. For example, Kearney Regional Airport has exactly one airline (United Express) flying to only one destination (Denver, Colorado), and editors should be prohibited from mentioning the airline, the lone destination, the number of airlines, and the number of destinations anywhere in the article.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No, or the equivalent, with a brief explanation in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• A [1]
• B [2]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state

B: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state under a totalitarian military dictatorship

I would like to gain a consensus on referring to the Somali Democratic Republic as a totalitarian military dictatorship in the government infobox. I believe that it should be added due to the significance of it as an important part of the government and a standout feature when compared to other Marxist-Leninist states. I would also argue that totalitarianism, which is referred to as a form of government on its page, should be added as well. These claims are well sourced and displayed in this previous edit here. I would also like to add more sources for it being a Marxist-Leninist state and cutting down on some the quotes as they seem too long. I apologize if there is anything wrong with my formatting. This is my first RfC and if there is anything wrong with it, please let me know. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• A [3]
• B [4]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Should left or right pointer alignment be applied here (which is C/C++ code)? Should casts for malloc() be used?

Pinging previously involved parties: @Vincent Lefèvre @Taylor Riastradh Campbell ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Should left or right pointer alignment be applied here? Should the example for a "birthday" be capitalised (i.e. struct Birthday or struct birthday)?

This is NOT an RfC about "standardising style across Wikipedia".

Pinging previously involved parties: @Vincent Lefèvre @Taylor Riastradh Campbell ~2025-36699-87 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: ... is that of an established subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS.
• Option 2: ... is not that of an established subject-matter expert as described by SPS.

Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

For example, the current Timeline of ITN [Independent Television News, British company] has many sections lacking information, and the gaps are filled with: "1956 No events. 1957 No events. 1958 No events.", etc. This has been done on hundreds of timelines about UK TV and UK radio, but on few other history timelines on Wikipedia, and it isn't common practice in sources on media history, e.g. [5], [6]. Editor guides like WP:TIMEL don't seem to go into this. - Thanks, Responsible? (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes
• No

Q2: If No, who should be listed?

• A: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs
• B: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs and whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• C: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs or whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• D: "X#" (e.g. 5, 10, etc.) of the most central cast members as determined by subsequent discussion
• E: Other

Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The man who fell from the ladder was a prominent former football hooligan who had written two books on his involvement in football hooliganism.

Should his involvement in football hooliganism be mentioned in the article, by adding a sentence after the one quoted above? — 22:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

A: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state

B: Unitary Marxist-Leninist state under a totalitarian military dictatorship

I would like to gain a consensus on referring to the Somali Democratic Republic as a totalitarian military dictatorship in the government infobox. I believe that it should be added due to the significance of it as an important part of the government and a standout feature when compared to other Marxist-Leninist states. I would also argue that totalitarianism, which is referred to as a form of government on its page, should be added as well. These claims are well sourced and displayed in this previous edit here. I would also like to add more sources for it being a Marxist-Leninist state and cutting down on some the quotes as they seem too long. I apologize if there is anything wrong with my formatting. This is my first RfC and if there is anything wrong with it, please let me know. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging all extended confirmed editors who have edited the article in the past 18 months: StairySky, SeoR, Guliolopez, MemicznyJanusz, Sumanuil, Financefactz, Fearadach, Dewritech —Green Montanan (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• A [7]
• B [8]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Are the below sources sufficient to say in Wikivoice there is consensus among genocide scholars there is genocide?
2. If so, is it WP:DUE to say this in the final sentence of the lead paragraph like proposed?

If 1. is voted true, we will be able to say there is scholarly consensus in Wikivoice with sourcing but without attribution across Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL (this will be considered the global consensus). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

• This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
• The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
• Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

• The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
• Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
• There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The man who fell from the ladder was a prominent former football hooligan who had written two books on his involvement in football hooliganism.

Should his involvement in football hooliganism be mentioned in the article, by adding a sentence after the one quoted above? — 22:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

• This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
• The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
• Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

• The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
• Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
• There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No, or the equivalent, with a brief explanation in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters.

There is no evidence that Category:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing. On the French side, there is no evidence that Category:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid) – because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added.

Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections: Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present but Category:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any reader with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (see Turks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical, either those should be restored or these other 'survivors' merged too.

PS I'm not certain if the RfC type I have selected is the most suitable, please change it if not. Crowsus (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• A [9]
• B [10]

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

• This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
• The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
• Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

• The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
• Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
• There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Background: Airport destination lists have been a reasonably heavy point of contention in recent months, due to the poor (in many cases) sourcing of these lists, and the constant churn of content being added and removed, often without reliable sources. It got to the stage at one point where editors in this ANI thread were so tired that comments like Not a month goes by that we don't get a report here of some cosmic struggle over lists of destinations reachable from various airports. were left. As a result, a discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists.

As a result of that discussion, the following options were developed as ways forward for airport destinations lists. Note that in every instance, WP:V still applies, and routes must be sourced with reliable sources. Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates.

1. Airport articles should contain comprehensive lists of routes flown from that airport (No change)
2. Split very large destination tables into separate articles, and retain smaller destination tables in airport articles. For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would become a List of Heathrow Airport destinations, with a {{Main}} hatnote and a brief summary in the article about the airport. Such lists would normally be considered notable provided that the airport destinations are discussed as a set in independent reliable sources; any that weren't would be merged and redirected back into the airport article to WP:PRESERVE the information.
3. Replace large destination tables with a summary in prose that does not mention most individual destinations by name. Smaller destination tables may be retained (or not, as editors of that article choose). For example, the large table in Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations would be replaced by a paragraph saying that it has dozens of airlines and hundreds of destinations in dozens of countries; Wikipedia would no longer contain information about the individual destinations. However, Eastern Iowa Airport#Airlines and destinations, which lists less than 20 destinations, would be left alone (unless editors of that article preferred a different approach).
4. Replace every destination table with a summary in prose. For example, Durango–La Plata County Airport#Airlines and destinations has a small table listing two airlines and four destinations, and that would be replaced by two sentences naming the two airlines and four destinations, and larger airports would have longer, potentially multi-paragraph summaries.
5. Remove destination lists - all information about destinations reachable from an airport should be excluded. For example, Kearney Regional Airport has exactly one airline (United Express) flying to only one destination (Denver, Colorado), and editors should be prohibited from mentioning the airline, the lone destination, the number of airlines, and the number of destinations anywhere in the article.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"See also" sections are purely for navigation; the titles of target articles should be unobscured, so readers know if they have already visited them.

• Do not link to redirects; use the exact name of the destination article instead, disambiguation parentheticals included.
• Do not use piped links. Links to a specific section should use {{section link}}.

(I would propose adding this above the {{annotated link}} paragraph, unless someone has strong feelings it should go elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• A. Descriptive titles (like "The Princess Royal" or "The Dowager Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg" or "The Countess of Carladès"
• B. Article titles (like "Anne, Princess Royal" or "Princess Benedikte of Denmark" or "Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès")

Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Some editors argue that inclusion is inappropriate because documented university-level teaching begins only in the 1820s. Others argue that, consistent with existing table precedent (founding versus charter versus formal university status, e.g., Harvard, which is included based on founding and charter despite later formal university status), UNB may be included with a clarifying Note reflecting charter authority and documentation limits, without asserting undocumented instruction.

For clarity, multiple draft phrasings of the proposed Note have been discussed above; the RfC concerns whether UNB should be included at all with a clarifying Note of this type, not endorsement of a specific final wording.

Input is sought on how WP:V, WP:BURDEN, and table precedent should be applied.Tinterest (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The new draft guideline defines an LLM, strongly advises editors not to use LLMs to add content to Wikipedia, and describes how to handle LLM-generated content that is already present.

This follows on from the RFCBEFORE discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#Further amendment proposal #2: qcne, where several alternative drafts were discussed. qcne (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The RfC closer for WP:NEWLLM stated that a community consensus on identifying AI-generated text would be necessary in order for that guideline to be properly enforced.

The question for this RfC is thus: should this proposal be accepted as a supplementary essay to WP:NEWLLM (and future AI-restricting guidelines) to serve as a consensus standard for how to identify AI-generated text? Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)