Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| (This was moved across from WT:VG/S as that board rarely holds RfCs.) The previous discussion has reached a stalemate unfortunately. I did update the VG/S page in good faith, but was reverted by @NegativeMP1. I've got no issue with this. What I do feel needs to happen however, is for there to be an agreeable compromise for Valnet. I can speak for myself here, but I feel that other VG editors will agree, the Valnet topic is tiresome. Some of you may be aware that I help keep Cite Unseen updated on GitLab. A recent discussion on Discord with @SuperGrey established that specific sources can be marked as reliable per writer. So a source can be marginally reliable generally, but if a cited article is written by a whitelisted writer, it will be marked as reliable in that instance. I think we established in the previous discussion that TheGamer (and other Valnet sites) do have some very experienced writers. If these writers, for all Valnet sites, could be compiled. A page could be created such as WP:VALNETWRITERS that lists writers the community agrees are reliable (with specific writers proposed here). These writers can then be added to Unseen's whitelist. This would mean all Valnet sites become marginal generally (or another classification), but those writers would be the exception. I've set this up as a formal RfC so that it can at least be made official in some capacity. We've all got opinions on this, so for this, I am basically prohibiting myself from being able to support a specific option. Here are the options for RfC purposes:
I'm not going to ping anyone from the previous discussions, as this will no doubt be seen. I really hope this can help resolve some of the issues we've faced with Valnet sites, and that keeping the topic specific can prevent tangents. 11WB (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC) |
| Inviting further discussion whether brief (passing) mention that Sweeney is a Registered Republican is consistent with WP:DUE given (new) mainstream coverage of this fact in relation to her career (see above for prior discussion).HardScience (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
How reliable is Zee News, to be used in Wikipedia?
|
| Which of the following should be used as Sydney Sweeney's infobox image? 22:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Should Rihanna be described as a "songwriter" in the lede and infobox? 17:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Should the guideline on infoboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines be changed from:Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. However, current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project. Links to the various infobox-related discussions from 2007 to 2013 are provided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions. to: Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article.(strikethroughs are original text at start of RfC; bold is amended text as of March 27) Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
How should we format his place of birth in the infobox?
Absolutiva 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels
| Should awards navboxes (Hugo Award, Nebula Award, Locus Award, Ignyte Award, etc) contain a decade-by-decade split? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Is it due to label Dhurandhar: The Revenge as "propaganda" in the lead sentence? 01:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| There is an ongoing dispute about whether to include a brief reference in the plot summary to a scene in which Casey apologizes to Teddy for past actions.
The current proposed wording (or similar variants) is: "During their encounter, Casey awkwardly apologizes to Teddy for what he did to him years earlier while acting as his babysitter, describing it as wrong and a 'power thing.'" Casey explicitly refers to "what I did to you," calls it "wrong," and characterizes it as a "power thing," but the film does not label the act more specifically. The material has been removed and restored multiple times by different editors, indicating an ongoing disagreement about whether it belongs in the article. MollyRealized (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:List of fake news websites
| What should the criteria for inclusion in List of fake news websites be?
Per the above discussion, there is disagreement on what qualifies for this article, and no clear consensus has emerged. The areas of disagreement are:
EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
| When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC) |