Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#A-Class article assessment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines Wikipedia proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

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"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional background: A recent recall petition and the administrator's subsequent request to be allowed to run in the next administrator election, which would start outside the 30-day window specified in the policy, led to this extensive thread at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. I see no clear consensus there as to whether the specific delay in this instance is permissible, or as to how to handle this situation in the future. Rehashing this conversation for each subsequent recall seems to me to be undesirable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC) Addendum: it has been brought to my attention that in this instance there appears to be 'crat consensus to permit an extension. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer. As I noted at BN, the community clearly intended for administrator elections to be a path for retaining adminship. However, only offering it to those admins recalled within the arbitrary window of 30 days before each call for candidates feels inequitable. Given the tendency for regular candidates for adminship to choose EFA over RFA, I suspect this matter will come up again, and we will have further lengthy discussions about how much delay is permissible, which this proposal will eliminate. It also gives recalled admins more time to choose their path and reconsider their approach before asking to retain the tools, while simultaneously restricting them from taking bad admin actions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that the emergence of 'crat consensus to allow UtherSG an extended timeframe to run in the coming admin elections only strengthens my desire to enact this, because it highlights the potential for difficulty with longer delays, and creates the possibility that an administrator's popularity will affect the community's perception of the delay. Obviating the need for an extension is the most equitable solution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I made a similar proposal in the "check-in" but it got lost in the noise. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per the maxim Justice delayed is justice denied, it seems best to act expeditiously rather than spin things out. Six months seems quite a long time and I don't like the idea that an RfA candidate would retain the right to a discount on the % required for success for so long when other candidates, who hadn't given cause for complaint, were not given this advantage. If someone is too busy to attend to an RfA then they can just resign and try a regular RfA later at a time of their choosing.

Note also that there's a procedural problem with this RfC. WP:RFC states "There is no technical limit to the number of simultaneous RfCs that may be held on a single talk page, but to avoid discussion forks, they should not overlap significantly in their subject matter." This RfC obviously overlaps significantly with the Recall check-in RfC above. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I supported reconfirmation by election to avoid the confusion of an admin that preferred WP:AELECT needing to resign to access it during their temp desysop. However, like many expressed in the initial approval of this option, we should not extend the admin's lenience at RRFA and AELECT just to ensure an election occurs within their limbo. If someone really prefers elections, they can pursue it like any other user. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Mostly support. Recall only works when it is fair to all parties, and allowing someone to wait until the next admin election is fair. Allowing crats discretion to extend is fair. Sticking to rigid arbitrary deadlines is not - why would we penalise someone for starting an RFA on the 31st day vs the 29th day due to personal circumstances? Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (prefer 3 months) I understand and don't oppose the general idea of giving an admin some additional flexibility around the timing of their RRfA. That said, 6 months is a long time; I would support a shorter window for this extension as a first preference. 2601:540:200:1850:CC47:61C6:19C6:6028 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the goal is to allow admins to use the election process to RRfA, perhaps that could be spelled out as an exemption to a 3-month limit: "The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 3 months by a Request for Adminship (RfA) or at the next regularly-scheduled Administrator Election, regardless of date: otherwise it is made permanent." 2601:540:200:1850:CC47:61C6:19C6:6028 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair concern. I chose 6 months to ensure the window would always encompass an admin election. EFAs are supposed to be held every 5 months, plus some wiggle room with scheduling. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, prefer "until the next scheduled election" to the 6-month limit.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for 2 reasons. First the community has been uniformly happy with giving administrators the option to reconfirm via election. This proposal prevents that from being an empty option 4/5th of the time. Second, it gives an admin the option to step back, address a concern, show some personal growth from the process and then reapply for adminship. The current system of a RRFA in the immediate shadow of a petition-generating controversy feels difficult to pass, and transforms 25 signatures from a statement of concern to a de facto permanent desysop. As a pleasant side effect, this should also give clarity to the crats, who would otherwise have hard decisions anytime a candidate wanted an extension for running in an election.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I agree with S Marshall that "until the next election" is probably the better way to phrase this. We should make it as painless as possible recalled admins, and this is a step towards that goal. The admin is desyopped in the interim, so there is no chance of further misconduct with the tools. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I agree with S Marshall and House that until the next election is the better wording. This is a reasonable proposal that will enact the communities will to allow ALECT for recall by giving more flexibility for Admins to stand at the next election. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Six months is a long time on the internet, and would allow whatever issues that led to the recall petition to quietly fade from memory. They of course would still be welcome to run in an election, they would just have to follow the same rules as us normal folk. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for either RRFA or AELECT, with the temp desysop. Worried that the petition makes admins do RfAs at an inconvenient time? This solves that! Worried that the petition was started by a bunch of bad faith socks? Now you've got potentially 6 more months to prove that, bring the evidence to the community, and watch some SPI blocks get dropped before they show up to RfA. Worried that your favourite vandal and sock blocking admin had gotten too jaded and wish there was an option between having them ignore community concerns and removing them permanently? Then Vanamonde's administrative leave plan may be just the thing you're looking for!
  More seriously, I do get the concerns around giving somebody desysopped for cause more time for the community to forget (lol, we're Wikipedians, we dig up books from the 1930s about abandoned settlements for fun), and I really do understand that there's an inherent unfairness in turning away a potential new recruit who hit 65% approval rating while letting somebody who was desysopped for cause 180 days ago sail through at 55%, which I really don't like, - but at the end of the day, I don't actually want to desyop admins. I want good admins. I believe that incentivizing a long period of reflection and a period of time without tools, where you have to run every single admin action past your peers instead of cutting corners, can only be a good thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for both RRFA and AELECT. This was proposed in the earlier discussion, and I wholeheartedly endorse this. This proposal retains accountability for the admins (they lose their bits) while reducing the "temperature" of RECALL. If an admin is sufficiently flawed, the voters will inevitably bring out their mistakes anyway. But this allows any good admins having a "bad time" to have a gap to improve their behaviour and prove themselves to the community. If passed, I also think this should retroactively apply to every admin who resigned instead of RRFA in the last 6 months. Soni (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• support – it'd be great to have this as an option. Also see my comment about it above. Graham87 (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support for AELECT I agree with S Marshall that it should be "until the next election." I oppose for RRfA unless it's only 2-3 months, in which case it would also be a very weak support. fanfanboy (block_talk) 05:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish Support - This feels like tinkering around the edges of a bad system, but anything is better than nothing in this case. This definitely should not preclude other changes or indeed getting rid of the whole mess of an RRFA system. FOARP (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per many others, especially GLL. I'm not sure if the "next election" wording is better than a hard limit (6 months), since the former varies with time, which is a criticism of the current system. It would also mean the time limit for an RfA and AELECT could be different, which is odd. Toadspike [Talk] 02:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Musing on your final point, does it matter if the RFA and AELECT deadlines are different (this is genuine question)? You've also got me thinking about the minimum times between petition closure and the stand/don't stand decision deadline. I'll put my comments about that in the discussion section below. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think there probably needs to be some tinkering after the fact to make it more concise and flow better with already there since it's weird to say you have 30 days and then at the end of the paragraph say that actually, it's effectively 6 months (presumably if declared within the 30 days?). I would honestly just make it opt-out instead of opt-in if the point of this is to make it easily for recalled admins to "rehabilitate" themselves to use a criminal justice term. It gives the admin time to schedule a potentially busy week for an RFA/admin election so they can put their best foot forward on how to address the inevitable questions and allows sentiments to cool off for both the admin and by the community. It also allows the admin time to continue to edit and show that they're addressing the issues raised in the recall (e.g. tagging and declining CSDs properly if overzealous CSD deleting was an issue). Maybe if memory is an issue, just make it a link to the recall petition mandatory. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support principle but not for 6 months until RRFA. It's reasonable to allow the re-appointment discount for a little longer, giving the admin time to consider what happened, whether they want the bit and how to go about it. But per S Marshall and others, only until the next election if choosing AELECT and only for 3 months, not 6, for an RRFA. We do, after all, want memories of the events, discussions and petition to be reasonably fresh and comparatively accurate (which may favour the candidate or may not). Three months also happens to be a little more than the average time from a petition passing to the next AELECT, on current timing. NebY (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comments below about "until the next election" - that could be just under 6 months away, it could be minutes, it could be anywhere in between. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'd seen those comments. That's three months on average, but I also note Vanamonde's comment above, "EFAs are supposed to be held every 5 months, plus some wiggle room with scheduling.". NebY (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "On average" is fine in the abstract but not when it comes to an individual administrator. What matters then is how long there is until the actual next election - if nominations close imminently that's very very different to the next election being 2-5 months away. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you haven't read my full support comment. I do support allowing the discount at the next AELECT. However, I don't support allowing the discount for an RRFA for up to 6 months and support up to 3 months instead, for the reasons I stated. I then noted - and it's regrettable if my noting it misled you as to the previous points - that 3 months is also (a little more than) the average discount period created by allowing the discount at the next AELECT. NebY (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read your full comment, and I still think that you're missing the point that I'm making. I cannot think how to say what I've been saying any differently though, so I'm just going to hope someone else can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I view this as largely academic (since starting with 25 opposes dooms a RRFA from the start, and I suspect that's by design); but it doesn't make sense for there to be a longer possible wait time if you choose to use the venue that, so far, has always resulted in much less scrutiny. —Cryptic 16:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tazerdadog. This gives all recalled administrators the option of running in the next WP:AELECT rather than being forced to go use WP:RFA as their reconfirmation process unless they get lucky, and it also lets both the recalled admin and the community take a step back, reflect, and approach the RRfA after some introspection, rather than being forced to do it immediately after some controversy. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Woudn't a election after recall be a REELECT rather than a RRfA? GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, to be more precise I should have written "re-election/RRfA" instead of just RRfA. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To avoid confusion regarding whether or not the admin is being elected or re-elected when their first request used the open viewpoint process, personally I suggest staying with the term re-request for adminship, which can proceed either through the open viewpoint process, or the election (or secret ballot) process. isaacl (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say the best way to avoid confusion is to have REELECTS the term for admin elections and RRFA be the term for RFA. This is because it matches each process better with RRFA referring to the process involving RFA and REELECT referring to the process with the Admin Elections. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't see a need for this. The "temperature" is primarily generated by those opposed to recall. If a recall is rubbish then the election or RRfA should pass easily. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iggy pop goes the weasel By all accounts even fairly uncontested RFAs are stressful and time consuming for the candidate Mach61 02:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that isn't a compelling reason to reduce accountability. RfA will be difficult whether it happens sooner or later. Delaying it only serves to remove it from the reasons Recall was initiated and certified and those reasons should be a key component of those processes. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  those reasons should be a key component of those processes. Yes and no. They should be a component of the processes, but only in the context of their adminship as a whole. "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship" is an oft-repeated principle at arbitration, but finding 25 signatories to a petition in the immediate aftermath of an isolated controversial decision is likely going to be very easy, so there needs to be a period to allow tempers to cool and ensure that the ReRFA is a fair reflection of the admin not just of one incident. However, it is equally likely that the cause for a petition is ongoing chronic inappropriate adminning (with or without an easily-pinpointable final straw), and in that case there shouldn't be too long a gap between petition and ReRFA. This means that the timescale needs to be a balancing act between these competing directions and also remain fair to both petitions and the admin. I don't think 30 days is long enough, but contra WAID I do think a year is too long. If admin elections were not a thing, I'd probably be suggesting 3 months, but admin elections are a thing and the community consensus was strongly in favour of both a 5-month schedule and allowing admins who are the subject of a certified recall petition to choose to stand in an election. We cannot control when petitions are certified relative to the admin election schedule, so to ensure that the community consensuses are respected without unfairly forcing admins to stand immediately after a petition closes we have to allow the election interval plus circa three weeks, which in round numbers is 6 months. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing under the current system prevents the context of their adminship as a whole being discussed or taken into account at RRfA or AElect, two processes by which all are able to identify their support or lack thereof. The discussion sections of Recalls have proven this. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's correct that nothing currently prevents that, but it does discourage that. The discussion sections of recall are irrelevant by design. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - six months is too long, and enough with coddling troublemaker admins. They can run for RFA anytime they want, and they can stand in any election. 30 days at a reduced threshold is already a lot of leeway. Nobody else whose perm gets pulled gets this kind of indulgence. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am proposing a window of up to 6 months during which the admins will no longer be admins. That's not coddling in any sense of the word. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's coddling because they get the benefit of the lower pass thresholds six months later instead of just 30 days later. I appreciate that the proposal would prohibit tool use during the six months, I think that aspect is good of course, but still, six months is too long. If an admin wants to run six months after their recall petition is certified, they can just do so, at the normal thresholds. I think it's coddling because you're giving them a six month window for a full community review of their actions while enjoying the lower threshold privilege. Nobody gets this. I didn't get to delay any of the arbcom cases where I was a party by six months to a time that was convenient for me. The last one happened over Christmas and New Years, nobody gave a crap that this was bad timing. I get having a little leeway like 30 days, but I don't see why admins should get so much leeway as six months. Imagine an ANI thread and the reported editor says "can we talk about this in six months? I promise not to edit the article in the meantime." Nobody gets this privilege on Wikipedia, no reason to give it to admins. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't accurate to say nobody gets this "privilege": I can think of at least three admins who received similar grace periods, when desysop cases were opened by ARBCOM and suspended until such a time as the admin chose to resume them. It's not accurate to say we don't extend the privilege to editors either. We have certainly closed noticeboard reports based on a voluntary commitment to stay away from a particular conflict. Now maybe you think that's coddling too, and I won't argue with that. But there's certainly precedent. And I will emphasize for anyone following along at home that the "privilege" is only the lower passing threshold, not a retention of the mop. Indeed the proposal will likely reduce the length of time that an admin can hang on to the tools after a successful recall petition, by obviating the scenario we just had and limiting that grace period to 30 days plus the length of RRFA/AELECT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If there's a six-month delay, that should be normal pass numbers, not the reduced RRFA ones. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't believe that AELECT has proven itself to be fit for the task of the recall system. It produces admins, but I don't really think the evidence is there that the marked lack of scrutiny isn't a problem. Affixing two new systems to each other isn't a good idea. Stick with 30 days for an RFA. Parabolist (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Parabolist: AELECT is already an option. But only if the 30-day window after the closure of a recall petition overlaps with the call for candidates of an AELECT or - as happened this week - the bureaucrats grant a discretionary delay. I am seeking to abolish that discretionary delay, which is primed for inequities. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but extending this window essentially guarantees the choice of AELECT. The inequity is that poorly timed (by my personal standard) recalls can allow for less scrutiny in how the tools are reconfirmed. So this solution does solve that, but by making everyone have the worse outcome. For the record, I'm against the crats allowing the extension they're allowing in this case, so I'm at least consistent! Parabolist (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Acknowledging that our data about AELECT is still limited, I genuinely do not think admins would necessarily choose to participate in AELECT over RFA. As I see it the major difference is in voter anonymity. It's an open question whether editors would be more likely to support a recalled admin if they are anonymous. I suspect it depends on the popularity of the admin and the nature of their transgressions. You're entitled to your opinion of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support mainly because if I had had the chance, I'd have chosen an administrator election instead of the classical RfA process, and because I'd prefer a re-election to a re-RfA. Whether this can be discounted as a biased vote with a conflict of interest, or given additional weight as one made with experience others lack after having experienced both RfA and ACE, I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. A desyopping is a desyopping, "temporary" or not. If an admin gets recalled, and wants to wait to "re-run" at an election instead of a RRFA, then they can do so right now under the current procedure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If they want the lower threshold for success that the community consensus says they are entitled to, then they can only do this if an admin election happens to be scheduled within about 30 days of the petition being certified. As elections only happen every 5 months, that's only a (very approximately) 20% chance. Thryduulf (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not only within 30 days as there is some discretion afforded to the Bureaucrats according to the current system(albeit there will be a limit to how far that goes.) GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hence I very explicitly said "about 30 days". Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok fair enough apologies misread that. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Though given the level of discretion hasn't been said fully as far as I know that does mean the 20% figure you gave could change a fair ammount(to the point where I would say there isn't a percent even very aproximately given the level it could change.) GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 16:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The level of discretion is not formally bounded, but given the comments at BN regarding the current case I'd be very surprised if it were extended much further. For the sake of argument, if we assume that the crats said an extra 20 days was acceptable but 21 days was not (I think this is more generous than it would be in reality) then that gives a 50-day window during which admins can nominate themselves for AELECT with the reduced threshold. The duration of the nomination window is not specified in the policy but it has been 7 days every time so far. So the 50-day and 7-day windows need to overlap, and let's generously assume that every part of the 50 days is equally useful (in reality it won't be due to real life commitments, not having prepared a nomination statement in advance, etc). The 50 day window can occur at any time, the 7-day window occurs only once every 5 months - so a maximum of three times a year.

  If my maths is correct (and I'd really like someone to double check if it is) then there are 414 possible 50-day windows with at least 1 day in a non-leap year. Only 21 of those overlap with a nomination window, which is actually very slightly over 5% - and thats with very generous assumptions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Very fair points. Though the reality given the fluidity could be beyond what you said depending on the circumstances where the crats are ruling on it which could increase the percent. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 18:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and propose instead that any admin who receives 25 signatures for RECALL is immediately desysopped, and prevented from running for admin again until 6 months has passed, after which they may run again for admin (with no reduced pass threshold).  Tewdar  15:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Levivich. The current system does not need amendment. If a former admin wants to request re-adminship after 30 days, they are welcome to do so at RfA (under the regular thresholds). Ajpolino (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If you prefer AELECT over RfA, then you can wait, just like everyone else. If not having admin rights for a few months is unacceptable for you, then you should not be an admin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thebiguglyalien Under this proposal, admins wouldn’t have rights longer than they currently do after a petition Mach61 16:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I could've been clearer. My opinion is that a desysopped admin, even "temporarily", is just a regular editor and I've yet to be convinced that special considerations need to be given. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you generally opposed to different thresholds for RRFAs? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the pluses of RfA is you can choose when it happens. RfA is one of the most stressful things I ever did (on par with taking the bar exam). This is a volunteer project afterall, and we are struggling to recruit and keep editors. Giving folks a little more leeway to choose a time that fits their life best is humane and sensible. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Levivich and The Bushranger. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Andrew and Levivich.Katzrockso (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find it a little weird that whether admins get to run in an election with the lower threshold depend solely on whether they happened to be recalled at the right time. While I'm not suggesting anyone has done so, it could easily lead to concerns an editor has chosen to start the recall precisely at a time to prevent an admin chosing election. More significantly, one of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the way recalls are currently working is that a successful recall means that the admin is going to be permanently desysoped in part because their chances are already low and in so much as they might have a chance with the reduced threshold, the stress of doing so when the former admin is effectively required to run an RRfA in an emergency rather than at a time of their choosing means the reduced threshold is basically pointless. Frankly, I'd prefer an immediate desysop upon successful recall and the admin then getting 6 months to decide whether to try to confirm their adminship than the current system (by which I mean they have to start an RfA or enter an election). While I appreciate even under the proposed change if the timing is off an admin might still have to run an election in an emergency which isn't ideal it strikes a decent balance although I wouldn't be opposed to extending it to 9 months to give an admin the chance to not have to run for an election in an emergency. Although I appreciate this does mean memories of the problems with an admin will be less fresh, I still feel it's a decent balance noting also most recalls seem to have been for longer term problems. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to avoid more time wasted in the future. FaviFake (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Allows admins an additional choice in how to proceed. If actions that led to a recall petition are very problematic, there are other options we have as a community. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having an explicit procedure in place for the extension is better than the approach used for the most recent recall petition. I prefer 30 days or the next admin election, whichever comes later per Mr. Starfleet Command below to a blanket six-month period. mdm.bla 02:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We talked about a similar idea very early on in the RfC above[1] - not just in terms of AELECT, though. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As Stifle pointed out, specific proposals got a bit lost there, as tends to happen with a general temperature-taking exercise. This proposal isn't limited to AELECT though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yep, and given that the thread had both the best argument I've seen against the proposal, and I used a different numbering scheme, that's why I linked it! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the voting section, several editors have commented about setting the next admin election as the deadline for an admin who is the subject of a certified petition to decide whether to initiate a new RFA/AELECT with the reduced passing percentage versus a fixed deadline (whether that is the current 30 days or something longer). The next election could be as long in the future as almost 6 months (nominations closed just before the petition is certified) or as short as (in theory) minutes but more realistically a few hours - all of which could be in the middle of the night in the subject's timezone or during some other period where they are unable to look at Wikipedia. This means an admin could go from being in apparent good standing to desysopped with little or even no warning at all.
Obviously in extreme cases the crats would uncontroversially use their discretion and not insist on the literal meaning of "next election" (doubly so if there was any indication of gaming the timing of the petition or its closure). However given the ongoing discussion about discretion in UtherSRG's case, if we're going down the movable deadline we need to put some guidelines in place for the minimum time before the deadline. Hopefully even those who see nothing wrong with the current system can agree that 5 days or less is unarguably not fair on the admin, but what if the close of nominations is 29 days after the petition was certified? If those choosing RFA get up to 6 months, does that mean that's the minimum someone choosing AELECT gets? With the possible exception of those opposed to any recall procedure in principle, I can't see anyone agreeing that 11 months (6 months minimum, plus up to 5 further months for the next election) is within the spirit of the process. Where in the middle of the extremes does consensus lie though? It needs to be long enough to enable the admin to make a considered decision and, if they choose to stand, to write a good nomination statement but not so long that an admin who is actually and actively causing harm to the project can be reasonably curtailed.
I should stress that this is explicitly not trying to influence consensus either way regarding this option, I'm literally just surfacing questions that need answers before it could be implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is largely to avoid these sorts of questions that I proposed an unchanging six month window that should always encompass an admin election that's more than a few hours after recall. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AELECT is too young a process to know how often it will end up running over time.

Thryduulf, I might be able to support a year-long window. It might be nice if de-sysopped folks took a little while to reflect on what went wrong and whether they want to re-commit to a community that just rejected them. A decision made while emotions are still running high might not be the best for anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small point: it might be better not to frame recall petitions as rejection by the community; formally speaking at any rate, that would come at an RFA or AELECT. Seeing a petition that way might even be making emotions run higher. Otherwise yes, taking time to take stock should be encouraged, assisted and if possible normalised. NebY (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: the deadline is 30 days or the next admin election, whichever comes later. That way, an admin is always guaranteed at least 30 days time to initiate an RRFA, but also has the option to stand for AELECT if they so choose. Desysopping would still occur after just 30 days. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind this idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this idea over the status quo, but it's still more complex wording than what I suggest, and has the effect of making the timing of an RRFA contingent on the timing of an EFA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this would accomplish: since the editor would be desysopped after 30 days, they'd be a non-admin editor entitled to run during the next AELECT like any other editor even without this change in wording. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: The difference would be that, with this wording, they would be able to run with the lower passing threshold, whereas otherwise they would be subject to the normal threshold. Whether this is desirable is a separate question, and IMO should be the main topic of discussion here. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch that subtlety, @Mr. Starfleet Command, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions be:

• 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)[reply]

This page was marked as a guideline 2009 by Oreo Priest after discussion on the talk page and a much more substantial discussion at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region. For those who are not familiar with the subject matter, Brussels is now a majority francophone city, but historically was Dutch-speaking. Place names in the city are thus the subject of controversy. As shown in the discussion, this topic area seems to have been subject to a substantial dispute on Wikipedia prior to the creation of this page. More than a decade has passed, and the dispute is mostly forgotten. Recently, two editors have removed the guideline tag, saying that it should be properly situated as a Wikiproject advice page. To come to a consensus about what we should do with this page, I have opened this RfC. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B – This page is useful, and served to quiet a long-standing dispute over place names in Brussels. However, the page itself is not suitable as a standalone guideline, because it provides no original guidance. Instead, it explains how editors came to a consensus in this topic area based on our other policies and guidelines. It is not suitable as a Wikiproject advice page either, though, because it is currently referenced at the WP:NCPLACE#Belgium guideline, which specifies that editors should follow its guidance. Therefore, I think the best option is to retain the page, break it off from the Wikiproject, and make it an explanatory supplement to NCPLACE. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• B – An INFOPAGE is reflective of both its content and its unclear level of consensus. It might be worth looking at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, which only has the main category for guidelines and a subcategory for proposals, so doesn't provide a place for supplementary pages.--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• B per RGloucester. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• B - looks like a useful page, and reasonable enough to extract it from the WikiProject and refactor it into a WP:SUPPLEMENTAL page to WP:NCPLACE. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B – sounds good to me FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B Abaciscus (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option D its a solution for a problem that isn't needed. We are already supposed to use English names or the names used in English WP:USEENGLISH so we don't need another policy that largely states the same thing but with an odd caveat that objects without Wikipedia articles should ignore that and instead use a dual name. We already have too many pointless precise guidelines when general guidelines already suffice. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was marked as a guideline 2009 by Oreo Priest after discussion on the talk page and a much more substantial discussion at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region I cannot see discussion about marking this page as a guideline on either of those talkpages; could you link to an actual discussion rather than an entire talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This was an informal process of consensus making, which is why I linked the whole talk page, though sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the most relevant. The page was drafted by a variety of editors from WikiProject Belgium in 2009. If you are asking for a specific discussion that resulted in the guideline tag being added, that would probably be the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions#In conclusion section, which was immediately followed by Oreo Priest's action. If you are looking for a discussion that meets the current expected standard, i.e. WP:PROPOSAL, there is none. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is to say, there was no discussion about marking it as a guideline. There were only comments from people who assumed that of course it was going to be a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NCPLACE#Belarus also says editors should follow a specific page, but the linked page is a dormant proposal PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) is not a Wikiproject advice page, but an information page, outside of any Wikiproject's control. It is not normal for a guideline to prescribe that editors should follow Wikiproject advice without any obvious consensus, because Wikiprojects are not rule-making organisations, per WP:PJ. Guidelines may sometimes link to Wikiproject pages as a reference, but that is different from prescribing that one should follow a given project's internal strictures.

  Keep in mind, the removal of the guideline tag in this case was premised on 'simplifying our policies and guidelines'. Think of a random editor that encounters the guidance at WP:NCPLACE, or the talk page template above, which prescribes that one should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions, but then, one arrives at the page and encounters a template that says that its contents are the mere 'opinion' of a Wikiproject that has not been vetted by consensus. This is beyond confusing, and one will be left wondering, should this guidance be followed or not? This is the opposite of simplification, it is confounding. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. I removed the {{guideline}} tag, and I did so not out of any desire to 'simplify our policies and guidelines', but solely because tagging it as a guideline was a violation of both the WP:PROPOSAL policy and the WP:PROJPAGE guideline.

  It's true that I found the list of violations over at that WikiProject's talk page, but that was only a matter of where I happened to see it; I'd have done the same thing no matter when or where I found out about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. What I would point out to you again, as I have done before, is that merely removing or changing a tag without considering the impact of that change on adjacent articles, guidelines, and policies is not very helpful, if the end result is to make our guidelines even more confusing. The point of this RfC is to tidy up what is admittedly a mess, and ensure that there is a clear consensus for any result. No matter which option is adopted, the end result will be a simplification, a clarification, and that is something I think that even you should find laudable. I long for your constructive participation here, as your many years of experience in the topic area will be of great value in reaching a well-reasoned consensus. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What I would point out to you again, as I have done before, is that changing this tag has no effect whatsoever on any guidelines or policies.

  Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content says "Policies and guidelines may contain links to any type of page, including essays and articles". Almost nobody is actually confused when they see that a guideline has linked them to an essay page, probably because almost all experienced editors have banner blindness, and those who don't are used to our practices.

  For example, the introduction to WP:V has links to two essays (both of the "supplement" variety), and its first section has links to two "information pages" that "may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting". The next section has links to four ordinary Wikipedia articles and two essays (one ordinary and one of the "supplement" variety). This happens in almost all of our policies and guidelines, and people are not confused by it. If you're genuinely confused by it, then you're confused by basically every policy we have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As for reaching consensus: I don't actually care what the page's title ends up being or what it gets tagged with – so long as it isn't a {{guideline}} that implies it's WP:OWNED by any WikiProject.

  IMO the only actual {{guideline}} that can have "WikiProject" in its name is WP:PROJGUIDE, and that's because WP:COUNCIL is a bit more like a weird meta-noticeboard for people trying to organize groups than like a real WikiProject. (Even then, if PROJGUIDE got moved to another title, that wouldn't break my heart.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you entirely that Wikiprojects should not have any control over any guidelines, and this is a position I have consistently held in any discussion on the subject. However, there is nothing to be gained from narrowly focusing on the title of the page or procedural concerns without considering the page's actual value or function. As for 'links', yes, many guidelines and policies link or reference essays, as I said above. The issue is not a link or reference, but the guidelines' current prescription that editors should follow what is now tagged as a 'Wikiproject advice' page. This is clearly irregular, as it is basically delegating rule-making authority to a Wikiproject, something that is out of line with WP:CONLEVEL. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is appropriate and helpful to take corrective action and remove the guideline template from any page which is not a guideline. Recognition must be denied to the status quo to begin with. That is because a lack of consensus to "demote" the false guideline is not an acceptable outcome. Instead, the falsehood that a given page is a guideline needs to be addressed, and then the same page may be made into a guideline, or it may not become a guideline, and both of these outcomes are acceptable—whereas maintaining the falsehood that a page that is not a guideline is a guideline because of a lack of consensus to correct the falsehood is not acceptable. —Alalch E. 13:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Alalch, and I add that it's not "clearly irregular" to recommend good advice, no matter where it's found. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles recommends advice pages from three different WikiProjects, and the absence of the exact word should in those sentences in no way lessens the recommendation about where to find the specialist advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If a guideline tag has been stable for more than ten years, that in and of itself is a form of consensus, per WP:EDITCON, though as WP:PROPOSAL says the tag itself does not grant guideline status. Whether the community wants the page to actually be a guideline or not can only properly assessed in an RfC, and that is what is being done here. This incredibly narrow focus on the tag itself is bizarre, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You say that it is not 'irregular' to recommend 'good advice', but have not bothered to consider whether this page actually is 'good' advice, never mind that the page is written as if it were a guidleine, and never mind that an actual guideline references the page not merely as a recommendation, but as almost mandatory, excluding the usual IAR exceptions, and that numerous Brussels-related pages currently have a talk page template that specifies that editors should follow this page. I understand what you are trying to do, but please consider the impact on actual articles. This is an encyclopaedia, and these sorts of pages don't exist in a vacuum. They only exist in as much as they help us build an encyclopaedia, and that is where your thoughts should go, not to some legalistic understanding of the meaning of the word 'guideline'. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word should does not mean "almost mandatory".
  • I am not particularly concerned about whether this page offers good advice. I assume that it does, but I don't really care whether it does, and I will not spend my time figuring out whether it does.
  • What I care about is whether the process for tagging the page was improper (answer: yes) in a way that misleads ordinary editors into thinking that it was actually vetted by the community (answer: yes) instead of being advice put together by a small group of editors (answer: yes). I fixed the misleading and procedurally improper parts. You may find it better to describe my focus in this process as bureaucratic rather than bizarre.
  • If you want to make a WP:PROPOSAL or otherwise pick an arrangement that is procedurally proper and results in a non-misleading status for the page, then be bold! But my chosen role doesn't extend to that point. I'm here for the "not wrongly marked as a community-wide guideline" part. What it ends up getting marked as is not important to me, so long as the result is not wrongly marked as a community-wide guideline.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiCleanerMan, the Government of the People's Republic of China, as you probably know much better than me, was proclaimed in 1949. The name "People's Republic of China" has been widely accepted by other governments, and the PRC was admitted to the United Nations under that name in the early 1970s. In my specialist field, invariably the references are to the "People's Republic of China", including Category:Military units and formations of the People's Republic of China. For example, the US DOD publishes a document known as the "Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China."

You have started to try and change a large number of categories involving these terms. Before I start an RfC and/or an ARBCOM case for what appears to be a massive exaggeration of the commonality of the term, would you kindly like to present *why* you believe "China" has now been widely enough adopted as the *common* name of the People's Republic of China? Should say, I do not believe that having the main article as "China" creates enough precedent to change all the terms associated with the People's Liberation Army. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All involved in this dispute should probably read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about where you work, but most English-speakers refer to the PRC as China... Lazman321 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"China" = 2 syllables

"the People's Republic of China" = 9 syllables ― Tosca-the-engineer (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"would you kindly like to present *why* you believe "China" has now been widely enough adopted as the *common* name of the People's Republic of China?" You're trolling us, right? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)[reply]

• I strongly oppose something as broad as The inclusion or omission of a state name is determined by actual disambiguation need, not by external style guides. While I may agree with the principle that we needn't rely specifically on only the AP for which cities have standalone names, I believe nearly all US cities should still include the state name in the title, even if the city is the primary topic for that name or disambiguation isn't needed. Even if we could retain our discretion to deviate from the AP in particular in some circumstances, I see no issue with the current practice and this method helps avoid pointless move debates while maintaining consistency. I'd rather extend this practice of including a state name in the title to other countries, rather than the other way around. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn’t that the entire point of a Village Pump discussion? To craft something better that we can all agree to through consensus? The AP standard is written for journalists, not encyclopedias, and in my view it has no place in our naming conventions. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 19:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've shared my opinion, others are welcome to contribute. I see no strong reason to change the current consensus, and even if the wording were changed not to prioritize just the AP, I strongly believe we should not start proposing to remove state names from other titles, which would be a huge waste of effort over something that works fine as it is. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Reywas. This reads like a solution in search of a problem. I have no objection to deviating from the AP in individual cases if someone can demonstrate a benefit from doing so, but as a general rule everything is working fine as it stands and I see no benefit to changing it after this many years without problems. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I also oppose. If it isn't broke then don't fix it. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – There is no evidence of a problem with the existing scheme. It is clear, a long-standing consensus, and based on a reliable source. Implementing this change will result in the need to reconsider the article titles of thousands of pages, for no good reason, resulting in a waste of valuable editor time. See WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:BROKE. What will the reader gain from this change? As far as I can see, nothing. If the text of the guideline needs to be rewritten, that can be arranged: WP:CONSISTENT is one element of our article titles' criteria. As mentioned above, it is already possible to deviate from this guideline when consensus exists. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Regardless of its intent, the AP Stylebook is still reputable, and our usage of it to help inform our guidelines, as others have stated, has not caused any issues as far as I'm aware. Lazman321 (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Several of the opposes here rely on "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" reasoning or the assumption that editors can already make exceptions. However, that ignores the reality of how this actually functions in practice.

Every city move discussion in the United States is automatically opposed or SNOW-closed on the basis of WP:USPLACE, even when strong evidence and consensus-building attempts are presented. That means editors cannot meaningfully discuss exceptions. The policy itself shuts down the conversation before it can happen. My own RM of Orlando, Florida from last year is one of many examples.

Additionally, the claim that "it works fine" does not hold up when data says otherwise. Clickstream analytics show that thousands of readers type terms like "Orlando" expecting to reach the Florida city, only to land on a disambiguation page and have to click through. That is, by definition, a navigation failure. It proves the system is broken for readers. Not just editors.

The workload objection is also a red herring. A simple "grandfather clause" could apply: existing titles remain until a discussion is individually initiated. No one is proposing a mass retitling campaign.

Finally, the AP Stylebook is written for journalists, not encyclopedias. Its inclusion in our naming conventions has no policy basis and should not function as an unchallengeable authority. We have robust internal guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that already handle naming consistently and logically without relying on external style manuals. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 04:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That your proposed move was rejected does not indicate that anything is amiss with the guideline. What it means was that you failed to provide persuasive evidence of a 'good reason' to change the article title per WP:TITLECHANGES. In fact, in that RM, you failed to provide any evidence to support your claims, at all. I can see that you are now engaging with empirical data, such as Clickstream analytics. If you think you can make a better case now per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you are free to open a new RM discussion. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current guidelines would suggest that the proper RM if you're right about PTOPIC would be Orlando → Orlando (disambiguation), with Orlando turned into a redirect to Orlando, Florida. That way all the readers expecting to reach the city will get there right away, and a hatnote at the city page could send confused readers back to the dab page. It looks like this was last discussed here in May and there was consensus that the city is not the primary topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here since I realize my oppose was a little snippy and I think this comment makes it clearer what you are getting at. My understanding is that you feel that WP:USPLACE is causing undue knee-jerk opposes to RMs like Orlando, Florida -> Orlando that you think would benefit the wiki. But the actual RFC reads like you asked ChatGPT "write me an RFC that will stop wiki editors from using WP:USPLACE to oppose my RM". That's probably why this RFC is getting so many opposes - we don't like having our time wasted. It would be more helpful to present clearer arguments at your RM next time (maybe share some of this clickstream data you mention). -- LWG ^talk 17:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think there is benefit from nearly all US places having the state added. We also benefit from not discussing (too often) which cities should or shouldn't be exempted, which would definitely happen more if we pull in the list locally. I'd be more likely to support removing the AP list exemption and move the 29 cities to names with states. As mentioned above, primary redirects could still exist for cities whose names are the primary topic for that term. Skynxnex (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One, no one is suggesting removing the "city, state" format. I suggested moving the standard to internal review/consensus for which use the state and which don't instead of relying on an external style guide. Two, the latter suggestion only makes sense if you're gonna do that with every country that also is broken down into counties or states, or even just a simple "city, country" format. Consistency is key here and is the entire premise of my starting this RfC. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said anyone was proposing removing the City, State format. But given we have only 29 localities special cased currently (DC is its own thing), to me the implication is very strongly that this proposal is to allow more places to be named by just their name without state added.

  I don't think that all countries need to have consistent rules for populated places. I think the US model might be good to apply to places like Canada and Australia (maybe others?) where the state-level subdivision matters more than in some countries. But in some places I believe it's generally seen as less of a part of the identity/name of the populated place. I think consistency within a country is more important and why I idly mentioned as both a reason to oppose this and maybe weigh people's willingness to rename things like Cleveland to Cleveland, Ohio. I doubt that is likely at this time.

  I think you providing some examples of specific US place article titles that would be improved by this change may be helpful. But Myceteae's comment describing reasons why the status quo is probably better helps make specific examples somewhat unneeded. Skynxnex (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The current guidance is not broken and does not need fixing. Appealing to an external style guide is not inherently at odds with WP policy and practice. Much of the content in our naming conventions and MOS reflects and is consistent with external style guides and accepted conventions, even when these are not explicitly cited. Furthermore, consensus to adopt a particular external standard is valid. We do this explicitly in several places, such as (the admittedly controversial) MOS:FRENCHCAPS, and numerous naming conventions that refer to specific authoritative bodies to source appropriate article such as WP:NCFILM and WP:MEDTITLE. The whole section WP:USPLACE does incorporate local (US) customs, as does the entirety of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This does result in discrepancies between how cities in different countries are handled, especially in English-speaking regions where WP:ENGVAR considerations prevail. The AP Style guidance is authoritative, appropriate, and represents a specific application of broader guidance like WP:COMMONNAME to a particular subject area. Referring to a respected external source simplifies decision-making, harmonizes article titles, and prevents endless battles about when to drop the state. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This RfC fundamentally misunderstands how USPLACE operates. I don't know if it is a misreading of the guideline or something to do with an llm, but it is backwards. USPLACE ignores WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, setting the standard as "Place, State". The AP-exceptions are the only place where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is considered. The proposed change leads to the opposite impact that the rationale seems to want, so I suggest the RfC is closed as it cannot as proposed actually lead to a consensus for change. CMD (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with RGloucester that this would lead to a waste of editor time for little to no benefit to readers, with Myceteae that there is no procedural problem with the current situation, and with CMD that this RFC doesn't seem to have a coherent purpose. -- LWG ^talk 16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Sympathize. I agree that the AP Stylebook is a pretty arbitrary way to determine which U.S. cities play by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and which are exempt. I don't recall how I've !voted in the past, but it does seem like a cleaner solution would be to strike the AP stylebook, and either (1) apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as normal, or (2) require City, State for every U.S. city. If the argument is that "City, State" is the dominant convention, then there is no reason to have Baltimore coexist with Nashville, Tennessee. It should be Baltimore, Maryland, with Baltimore as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Or, allow Nashville as an article title (since it already redirects there). Either way would go a long way to eliminate the perennial move requests and RfCs like this one. The status quo is inherently unstable. But it's also very ingrained in Wiki-world. Dohn joe (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wikipedia follows usage in reliable sources. Sometimes usage is unclear but in this case the AP list provides explicit guidance for usage in U.S. RS for U.S. cities. It’s unusual but not a problem. That said, I’ve long held US city article titles should be treated like all others: disambiguate only when necessary. The name of any city is just its name, not including the state name. It’s misleading and endlessly confusing to include the state name when it’s not needed for disambiguation. Redirecting a base name of any US city to a title disambiguated by state name sets a contradictory and confusing standard, leading to countless unnecessary conflicts and debates. Thankfully, most other topic-area-specific naming conventions have been refined to disambiguate only when necessary, but USPLACE remains an unfortunate exception. —В²C ☎ 13:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would rather that we did away with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And that we do away with the exceptions list by moving all of those cities to the "City, State" format.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the impetus to do away with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think most proponents overlook a key benefit of the policy. The benefit is what it communicates to users about common usage. For example, our article on Paris being at Paris, rather than at Paris, France, conveys the useful information that the term "Paris", alone, normally refers to that city in English. Nobody says, "I'm going to Paris, France in July"; they say, "I'm going to Paris in July". Despite other common uses of the term, including the Greek god, the film, many other cities including the one in Texas, the way we refer to the city in France is just Paris. To put it at Paris, France would be misleading about common usage in English. That's what Primary Topic is about; convey common English usage accurately. Let's not lose that. --В²C ☎ 04:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to get a reality check on this. Basically there's been a kerfuffle involving the BBC and it's now covered in the article above linked. It already had a controversial talk page notice but I've just thought about it and given the allegations are very specifically around:

• Footage of Trump's speech before the January 6 United States Capitol attack
• Coverage of Israel during the ongoing Gaza war, with allegations it was deliberately pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel.
• Coverage of trans issues within the UK, with allegations of suppression of "anti-trans" stories.

I'm myself convinced it's very much within the scope of CTs WP:CT/AP, WP:CT/AI, and WP:CT/GG so I've now put the appropriate template on the talk page which displays the ArbCom remedies as better safe than sorry. Obviously given how stringent those remedies are (particularly due to WP:CT/AI) can I just get the thoughts of some other experienced editors as to the suitability/appropriateness of this, lest it be considered overkill by the community. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at right result, wrong procedure here. I think you have to be an admin to actually add restrictions to a page under an AE case, and not a normal editor who has involved themselves on the talk page. That said, what's there looks sane, so ideally a passing admin takes it over, logs it at AE, and we all move on with our day. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to be an admin to put the templates on because they're already restrictions in being (i.e. even on a page without a warning, if you edit material that refers to the AI area you're bound to those remedies). Basically from how I understand things to be it's a bit like "signing the Official Secrets Act" in that you don't actually need to sign it before being bound to it, simply that signing it signals you were consciously aware of its restrictions.

I would obviously however need to be an admin to add further positive remedies to it (i.e. EC protection to the article). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rambling Rambler in that the restrictions have already been enacted for all pages within the scope of the contentious topic in question. Anyone can post a notice that a page is within scope. There can be disagreement, though, on whether or not a given page (or portion of a page) is within scope. If there is a dispute and a community discussion cannot reach a resolution, then it can be raised at as a clarification request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're pretty obviously in-scope on this one, so I'll stand corrected on the procedure. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Micronational flags should be reinstated due to the fact that

• Micronations usually take pride in their flag
• Micronations technically do declare themselves to be sovereign by the Montevideo Convention.

So I dont really understand the reason why Micronations dont have flags in their infoboxes shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Montevideo Convention is something that only states in the Americas ever signed up for. Not the rest of the world. And the majority of micronations are not in the Americas. Plus micronations are not recognised internationally as states. And most micronations don't meet the criteria in that they don't have their own territory or population. A couple people coming out to live temporarily in an area does not constitute a population. At the end of the day micronations aren't really a thing, just the fantasies and creative fiction of some people. Canterbury Tail talk 19:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, like Molossia, they technically own their area outside of Dayton, Nevada shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They own the land, like I own my land. However it's still part of the country it resides in. I can call my land whatever I like, but doesn't make it separate to the country its in. Canterbury Tail talk 21:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all micronations have a single flag that is recognised by reliable sources as representing that micronation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of micronations shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't disprove my comment - Westarctica and Kingdom of Redonda both seem to have multiple different flags reported in sources. I didn't look any further down the table than that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Sealand and Molossia both have their flag flying in the images provided in the source

Source for Sealand: source

Source for Molossia: source

Both sources have the flags flying, I think I can find even more

Slowjamistan's flag: source

Austenasia's flag (held up by one of the citizens): source

Talossa's flag: source

And I think there is many more shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many micronations with their flags flying in images taken by reporters or people interested in some micronations shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against a strawman. Just because some micronations have a single flag that is recognised by reliable sources as representing that micronation is not at all relevant to the point I made. That photographs exist showing a flag of a micronation does not prove that reliable sources agree that that specific flag, and only that specific flag, represents that micronation. It's clear that some micronations have one or more flags that some or all reliable sources agree represents that micronation, but that doesn't demonstrate that my statement is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Wikipedia care in the slightest what 'Micronations' (i.e. almost nobody) wants? This isn't MIcroWiki, and we don't tailor content to suit the wishes of random fantasists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revisit an issue, it would be helpful to link to the RFC that led to the current state of affairs: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. -- LWG ^talk 19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Micronations usually take pride in their flag" So? This isn't something we need to take into consideration. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If I take pride in something it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have an article about me, or, even if we do, include the thing I take pride in in its infobox. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

WP:NCORP presently states that it is to help "determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article"

Do you agree or disagree that this includes lists of goods and services? FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - NCORP is meaningless as a standard if it can simply be avoided by turning whatever WP:PROMO article it is you wish to write into a list of the goods/services of the company concerned. It simply does not make sense that you should be able to write a article listing the goods and services of a company (so basically an article about the company) based on local coverage, trade-press, primary news coverage based on press-releases and company announcements, when you are barred from doing so about the company itself or individual goods and services.
  Basically, there's no reason why we should be able to have an article entitled List of pizzas sold by Phil's Pizza Shop based entirely on press-releases, local news coverage, and trade-press, when Phil's Pizza Shop would be non-notable under such WP:SIRS-failing coverage.
  Even a straight-forward reading of NCORP, which states that it applies to "any" of an organisation's goods and services, indicates that it was always intended to means lists of the same. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. NCORP is unambiguously about prose articles, the relevant standard for lists is WP:NLIST. Multiple people have told you this in multiple different discussions, it's time to drop the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NLIST applying does not preclude other standards also applying. Again, why should List of pizzas sold by Phil's Pizza Shop be notable if Phil's Pizza Shop isn't notable? FOARP (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, if Phil’s isn’t notable then their pizzas will not be notable. However, what if Phil’s is considered notable? At that point you have to consider why Phil’s is notable.

  IF they are notable for their pizza, then a list of their pizzas might be appropriate. However, they might be notable for (say) the architecture of their building… or for some other factor. In which case a list of pizzas is inappropriate.

  Apparently this thread was inspired by lists of airline destinations, where the airlines themselves are considered notable (so NCORP is not the issue). The next question is, why are these airlines notable? Are they notable for their destinations? Are they notable for the type of planes they fly? Are they notable for the luxury of their first class service? Etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are confusing two different types of "notable for their food". A restaurant may be notable for having good food, but that doesn't mean that the individual items on their menu are notable and deserving of a listing here. However, a restaurant may be notable for having a "super giant pizza challenge", "world's largest cheeseburger", etc. These sorts of things could be worthy of mentioning in the restaurant's article. To take your airline example, the fact that a hypothetical "Flybynite Airlines" exists and has flights to 37 different countries could be notable, but that those flights include an Ottumwa, Iowa to Bamberg, Germany flight is not. At least not within the parameters of this site. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree The concern that we will have a list of products of non-notable companies is completely hypothetical. It also has an easy compromise solution, allow a list of products of company X only if the company itself passes WP:NCORP.
  Ultimately, we should prioritize the readers in such discussions. A significant part of them use mobile and benefit from shorter and more to-the-point articles. Stand-alone lists are useful so they don't need to spend additional time navigating the parent article. The readers also won't benefit if we remove most of the entries in Category:Lists of products. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial agree Given that NLIST doesn't necessary require notability of the "products made by company X" be a notable topic nor company X to be notable if the list is, we still want WP:SIRS (sourcing requirements) from NCORP to be respected if we're just creating a list where individual products may be notable. Even if company X is NCORP-notable, a full list of their offered product or services without SIRS-type sourcing will still be a problem in failing the goal of NCORP, which is to avoid using WP for promotion or business purposes. If there is SIRS-type sourcing for every product, great (this to me would be a case for something like Apple iPhones which absolutely do not go unnoticed by the general media). But if such a list is heavily relying on only press releases or similar first-party, dependent material, that's not acceptable. Masem (t) 13:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Why should lists be exempt from this policy? List cruft doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this in favor of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists Do we really need even more wikilawyering from people fighting over that topic? As for the question at hand, WP:NLIST seems the appropriate guideline to follow. If there's any reason that lists of a corporation's products and services can't effectively be handled by WP:NLIST, I doubt we'll find it buried in the airport destination list mess. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per LISTCRUFT. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC While I appreciate that the proposer does note below what induced them to start this, this feels like a roundabout form of forum shopping to get an answer to one question that he can apply to a different one. This question is a bit vague and does not include a specific proposal regarding language on that page. Anomie makes the right points, though I'll note that airport destination sections are very different from standalone airline destination lists in how they're presented and constructed. Anyway, I disagree and don't think the pages in Category:Lists of products or those the proposer has been nominating necessarily need to be deleted under these grounds. If a corporation is notable, it often makes sense to provide what makes them notable, be that what they manufacture or where they operate. We are generally able to address this kind of listcruft already without this RFC. Reywas92^Talk 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is reasonable for a notable company to describe the types of products or services they offer as described by third-party sources. This is not the same as supporting a list of every product or service offered, unless that full list can be supported by third-party sources. Otherwise, that's likely violating NCORP and definitely violating NOTCATALOG. Masem (t) 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But it does square with WP:SUMMARY. These lists of products are properly thought of as sub-articles created as spin outs of the company articles as the list, even if well-curated to avoid becoming a catalog, would be too long for the main article. Can't knee-jerk judge these. oknazevad (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no issue with a curated list of products that have been discussed to some depth in secondary sources (not necessarily enough for a standalone article but more than a simple name drop). But the implication here is a complete list of products or services as a separate list, and that's where NOTCATALOG can be a problem. Masem (t) 02:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree A partial and generalized list of products a company offers should be included in the main company article. I see no reason why there should be a separate list that's essentially acting as a company version of WP:FANCRUFT to include every single product the company offers. And if you are going to have one, it absolutely needs to adhere to minimum WP:NCORP requirements. Wikipedia is not a product directory, though it appears some would like it to be some sort of catalogue of all goods and services that exist. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. Silverseren^C 21:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial agree In general, I think that the standards of NCORP apply to lists of goods and services. I am not sure to what degree this should also apply to any specific circumstance (such as airline destination lists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This RFC is a response to the statement in numerous AFD's (e.g., this, this, this) that lists of company services did not fall under the WP:NCORP guideline. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This RfC is another episode in the saga about airline destination lists. Most of the recent AfDs regarding them were initiated by FOARP[2]. Earlier this year, the community expressed their doubts about whether WP:NOT applies to them[3]. Now, the issue is being pressed from the WP:NCORP perspective. The change discussed here was boldly added to the guideline[4] and was reverted[5]. In response, we got this RfC.

  FOARP himself notes, we still have listings of airline services that don't pass either WP:NLIST or WP:NCORP.[6] So why do we even need to subject the lists to WP:NCORP? In my opinion, to make the discussion more focused, it's better to stick to WP:NLIST. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "why do we even need to subject the lists to WP:NCORP" - to avoid WP:PROMO content based entirely on press-releases, local coverage, trade-press etc., just simply written as a list rather than as a prose-article. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FOARP, a WP:PROPOSAL to change Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) should normally be held on its talk page.

  You and I were discussing exactly this question at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Guidance on lists of company products and services a couple of weeks ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, we were indeed discussing it, but it doesn’t look like there was enough participation since only you and I contributed to the discussion there which was why VPP is probably a better forum. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The core question here is the “group or set” requirement of NLIST… are airline destinations as a set notable? To answer that, we need to ask: Are there independent reliable sources that discuss the concept of airline destinations as a set? Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "discussed as a group" requirement does not have wide agreement in the community about what it means. Mostly, people seem to think that of course it supports "my" general view on the deletionism–inclusionism spectrum, whatever that view is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This reminds me of the discussion that led to ongoing development of the Wikipedia:Directory articles proposal. As a product meeting the standards for having an article does not automatically mean that the associated organization meets the standards, theoretically there could be a company with a list of products that have articles, while the company does not. I don't know if there are current examples in mainspace that we could examine, though. (User:Theleekycauldron/List of projects by Complexly is an example given in the directory articles proposal, though Complexly has a mainspace article.) isaacl (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking about that example further, I guess privately-held, small-shop companies could be a typical use case. A one-person (or small number of people) company could create one or more video or audio channels, for example. The channels could meet the standards of having an article while the company does not, as there often isn't much available public information about small private companies for secondary sources to write about. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I came across an example a couple of months back that I unfortunately cannot remember the name of when writing a disambiguation page - a small (Indian iirc) motorcycle manufacturer that makes/made 2-3 unambiguously notable models but is not themselves notable as nobody has written anything in-depth about the company (at least in English). Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems so very backwards to me. If a company makes multiple notable products, than that company is notable. WP:NOTINHERETED is a downstream thing, not upstream (like actual inheritance). It is and remains true that just because a product is made by a notable company, doesn't mean the product is inherently sufficiently independently notable for an article. But a notable product does confer notability on the company making it, as the company is notable as the manufacturer of a notable product.

  Plus there's no requirement that sources supporting notability are in English. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly how I've always used it and how many of our notability requirements use it. WP:NAUTHOR is entirely about how producing notable works makes the author notable. Similarly with scientists, their notability is based on producing notable research. NOTINHERITED applies to things at a lower level than the thing in question. Silverseren^C 22:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I only mentioned English as that's the only language I searched for sources in. NOTINHERITED does work both ways, otherwise the parents of notable children would be automatically notable, holding companies would be automatically notable if any subsidiaries are notable, an author of a notable book would be automatically notable, record companies of notable artists would be automatically notable, etc. That's obviously not the case - the subjects of articles need to have coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Authors of notable books are automatically notable. Silverseren^C 23:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually, but not necessarily… a book written by an anonymous author might become notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Books have their own notability standard. What we are discussing is that inherited notability upward does occur in specific topics, such as for authors. If you write books that are notable, that notability is conferred on you, hence WP:NAUTHOR. Which is why generally in discussions about author notability, we require 3 RS reviews of an author's books to say they are notable for having written notable books. Because 3 reviews is the minimum standard for book notability even if a book article hasn't been written yet. Silverseren^C 23:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Authors are notable through WP:SNG. If the notability were inherited, there would be no need for the SNG at all. But since it is better for the encyclopedia to have articles on academics, the special exception was made for them. No such thing has happened to commercial organizations. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but I think that when we parse company vs CEO vs products vs subsidiaries, we're overlooking the value of a merged-up article that covers all of these. We don't want an article title like Bob, blue-green widgets, and Big Business, Inc., but we do want a page that lets us write not just about the motorcycles but also a paragraph about their manufacturer.

  For CORP in particular, this should probably be called out as an explicitly desirable outcome. CORP articles are particularly at risk of someone saying "Well, the title is just Big Business, Inc., but half the sources are about Bob and blue-green widgets, and what's left isn't quite enough to count as SIGCOV IRS in my opinion, so I'm taking it to AFD." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's nothing more to say about a production company than "it produces YouTube channel A since XXXX, B since YYYY, and podcast C since ZZZZ", then I can appreciate an argument that a list article is sufficient for the company, and that it does not otherwise meet the standards for having an article. Nowadays, anyone can privately finance a production company and not make any significant public revelations. isaacl (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this is a popular interpretation of NOTINHERITED at e.g. AfD. You could be right! But it's worth noting the disagreement Katzrockso (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having taken part in a few AFDs of video game studios, I'll second that it is not a popular interpretation of NOTINHERITED at AFD – even if a studio has multiple notable games, AFD consensus is that just the games are notable, not the developers. Nil🥝 22:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP has no concept of inherited notability in general. Some of the SNGs, like WP:CREATIVE, do give the credence that if the creator has multiple notable works that the creator is presumed to be notable, but that does not extend to companies at all (though I do think for companies that are involved in creative product creation, we should have something in this aspect, but this is not the place for that discussion. Masem (t) 02:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What we do have is wide latitude to decide how to cover a given topic... In one context it will make sense to have the stand alone article be about the work with a subsection about the creator, in another the creator with a subsection about the work, and in a third both could merit stand alone articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having participated in some of the many discussions regarding airline (and airport) destination lists, I think the question is not so much whether NCORP as a whole applies to lists of a company's products and services, but whether NCORP's sourcing criteria, primarily WP:SIRS, should be applied to such lists. If the items on the lists are individually notable then such a requirement would be moot, but does an article listing products or services that are not individually notable require SIRS-level sources covering the list as a whole and/or all items on the list? I think the answer is yes, strict sourcing criteria should apply in such cases, particularly if the list is intended to be comprehensive. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, editing is about learning new things, my many medical issues stress my brain out, their worsening to the point it takes 10 minutes to comprehend something and it makes me not the right person for this even though I'm so young its not fair. But before I went into SVT I did intend on dealing with sockpuppetry/vandalism of Cheyenne mountain complex, I have taken wiki breaks to allow the sockpuppetry to continue to prevent a edit war or edit conflict. Can someone do something? Tokeamour (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can comprehend it if it was explained to be honest unfortunately but will try to help. Tokeamour (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the right place but I really not their anymore and really am trying to navigate it correctly. Tokeamour (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better place to ask might be WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are helpful proxy edits permitted? ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.

Yes. —Rutebega (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC) editing to clarify that ArionStar originally linked to WP:PROXY, apparently by mistake, leading me to misunderstand their question. They retargeted the link after my comment. —Rutebega (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context: I'm indefinitely banned on Commons and several users warned me not to discuss edits to Commons files here on en-wiki. ArionStar (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good advice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A commons ban does not apply on this wiki. It's possible you may be putting other commons users at risk if they proxy for you on commons - I don't see anything in their blocking policy, but then I'm not too familiar with the nuances of their policies. You / they would need to ask there. It's a bit of a suspicious question, so I'd advise not taking the mick. We like to get along with commons admins, and cross-wiki disruption can be um disruptive, but as far as enwiki goes there isn't an inherent problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Evolution and ending

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 18:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]