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
| Following the discussion at Talk:Mar Elias Church attack#Interim president, which led to some disagreement, I’d like to ask for your opinion: should we change the title to "interim president" or keep it as "President of Syria"? Most sources refer to him as 'Interim' [1], [2], [3], [4], while others use 'President' [5],[6],[7],[8], [9], [10]
To clarify, some media call him "interim president" for leading the transitional government, while others use "president" to reflect his current leadership. The draft constitution affirms that he holds executive power and serves as Commander-in-Chief. HurricaneEdgar 21:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:List of gangs in Australia
| Sorry I'm not really sure what the correct procedure is for this. I tried just asking above but nobody replied for over a week. This page worries me somewhat and I'm trying to find some people who might be able to help improve it.
It seems inappropriate to group everything into a bikie gang or an ethnic group. There are a few criminal gangs or violent political groups that are centred on a particular culture or ethnic group, but whoever started this page seems to have tried to sort everything that way. A lot of the labels, and even the groups themselves, aren't locally relevant. Australians don't tend to group Spanish and Portuguese speakers from opposite sides of the Atlantic as a group, other than possibly "immigrants", the "Hispanic" concept is an American thing. I'm not sure if everything in the white supremacist group is actually a white supremacist gang, some might be all white just by chance or locality, since that's the largest demographic in Australia. 2405:6E00:62C:4A60:148D:B7C:243C:CA13 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics
| Currently, most articles use {{Australian party style|Independent}} to refer to teal candidates in election articles. I propose changing it to {{Australian party style|Teal Independent}} and {{Australian politics/name|Teal Independent}} (Display as Independent ("Teal") ) since they operate differently from other independents, and most reliable sources categorise them as such anyway, rather than just "independent" [11][12][13][14][15]. The difference between the two groups should be noted. AINH (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
| Should the RSS be termed far-right instead of right-wing in the article? EarthDude (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute
Hello! This I am made this post an RFC due to the lack of consensus on whether or not the second paragraph of the lead should remain or not.
I do not believe I have any right to repeatedly revert edits rejecting the current lead when there is no clear consensus on this talk page on what to do regarding it, and that this is a fairly niche article so a talk page trying to solve this issue wouldn't probably wouldn't have much luck compared to the last few times. Thanks for reading! AssanEcho (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which image should be used for the infobox of the article? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following images should serve as the lead image for Andrei Gromyko? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators
| Should the name of the suspect of these shootings be included in the article? wizzito | say hello! 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC) |
Should the sentence: be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
|
Template talk:Infobox government cabinet
| During late 2024 to early 2025, there has been a tendency from multiple users (mostly IP and/or recently-created accounts) to add composition bars to the "Status in legislature" field in the infoboxes of cabinet/government-related articles. This situation has resulted in a number of issues that need to be addressed. Researching on this matter, I have found hardly any discussion or substantial input on this issue, meaning there is no explicit consensus for this (in fact, composition bars seem to have been added either unilaterally or in good faith by people who actually thought this was a widely-accepted formatting). Due to this affecting a wide range of articles, I believe a RfC is the most straightforward way to proceed. Thus, the question put forward is: should we include composition bars on legislature status in the infoboxes of cabinet articles, Yes or No? If Yes, how should it be formatted? Impru20talk 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC) |