Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should the NCAA Division I softball tournament, also known as the Women's College World Series, be added to the ITN/R (list of ITN recurring items)?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity
Should the lede sentence describe the nationality and ethnicity of the subject as:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
|
| Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Back in Feburary of this year, I started a discussion on Cartoon Brew's reliability. The general consensus on the matter was that it was reliable for animation-related topics, but should not be used in articles about living people. That being said, what is the reliability of the Cartoon Brew regarding information related to animation?
|
| There is now a definitive court rulling regarding the records of this club, recognised today by the Romanian Football Federation, which will inform UEFA.
[1] [2] [3] [4] Should we update the Honours section of this article to reflect the correct and definitive records of this club? Gunnlaugson (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. (1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated (as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should a listing of Shostakovich's marriages with wedding and death/divorce years be included in the infobox? Please provide your choice of either Option 1 or Option 2 along with a brief statement explaining your choice in the "Survey" section below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |