| Revision as of 07:03, 19 April 2006 editGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,547 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:01, 18 January 2025 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,330 edits Removed: Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<noinclude> |
|
{{shortcut|]}} |
|
|
|
{{rfclistintro}} |
|
{{RFCheader|History and geography}} |
|
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
*], ] Naming dispute. If it is OK to include Armenian names for Azerbaijani and Turkish towns and settlements, why Azerbaijani and Turkish names cannot be included to the articles about Armenian towns? 07:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
*] - whether or not it should be quoted from sources that the Ottoman Empire was in fact a multi-ethnic state where religious faith was the determinant factor over ethnic origin. 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There has been previous discussions regarding whether the ] & the ] should be included in this article. The main question regarding this is whether or not this article covers only sovereign states (which Hamas & Hezbollah are not), or whether it covers non-sovereign states/political entities/paramilitaries. The lead of the article is vague in this distinction, but does specifically call out {{tq|national government}}. So, should both events be included or excluded? |
|
*]:dispute over biblical reference to Isles of Elishah. One user claims this is reference to Britain or the British Isles, others can find no evidence. 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: dispute over relevance and interpretation (original research?) of two events. ] 13:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: No dispute, just looking for input on the use of "Flemish". 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Whether or not it is valid to erase other culural viewpoints of Carthaginian society, rather than explain or moderate them. Whether it is valid to remove unsubstantiated, but common, stories (in this case the alleged pratice of child sacrifice) from the article completely, rather than mentioning it, and explaining that it could be case of ] by Roman and Greek historians. Whether it is acceptable to remove sources from the Bibliography used to "support" some of the "objectional points". Whether or not a disambigation link at the beginning of an article should be removed. - 01:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] — There is a dispute on how to apply ].... Should "East Sea" redirect to ] first or disambiguate first?12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - whether "East Sea" is English or Korean local language term ] 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - edit war over the inclusion/exclusion of certain external links, and also over other wording, all of which I feel completely lost about, but I want to see some neutral editors with some expertise involved to evaluate the situation. --] (]) 05:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Discussions of race - are Persians "descendants of Aryans"? 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Khomeini's views on non-Muslims. 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Can Rudolf Virchow be listed as a Freemason? 07:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Accuracy dispute over quotes in ] and appropriateness of quote in ]. 01:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - there is a debate over whether goldcoastaustralia.com meets the guidelines for being an external link from the ] article. See also ]. 07:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - re Eire's refugee policies during WWII, and general military options from WWII, which users Demiurge and Jtdirl insist on imposing their own opinions without sources or citations and neither is qualified as a military historian. They are censors not historians, and refuse to engage in conversation on discussion page or provide any reason other than boilerplate nonsense ("sockpuppet vandal") to censor anything they do not agree with. 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*], Which countries are part of Scandinavia? 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* Should ] point to the Philosopher, or a disambiguation page? Your thoughts welcome at ]. 19:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Long edit war about the numbers in a chart about casualities during World War II along with some other issues. It was protected for 2 1/2 months...unprotected with no agreements made. It's been unprotected for 3 days and things are right back to where they were, including users accusing others of vandalism. Neutral voices would be very welcome. 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] How should English Misplaced Pages articles spell the name of the two Aztec emperors? Montezuma, Moctezuma or Moteuczoma? 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Shouldn't articles about battles and/or disputed military outposts be allowed to included the names by which both sides referred to them? Thanks. 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Should it also mention the name "Arabian gulf"? 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] A long argument about the oportunity to rename ] into ] and so on until ] into ] (and to keep ] as a redirect to ]). ] 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] It is an arguement whether he should be considered a ] or a ]. --] 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] There is an unresolved dispute as to which reference to use for this list/ranking. The choice is between the UN urban agglomerations list and the list by the website citypopulation.de. 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] whilst everyone seems to agree that the anceint Scots Gaelic etymology of the name should be included in the article, should the Gaelic name of this Lowland Scots town (unused locally) been given equal prominence in an infobox. --15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** There is a general discussion about the matter ] - '''] ('']'')''' 15:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] In the introductive paragraph of that article, the asserted "brief period of independence (1917-1921)" is based on ] (the kind hypothetical reader may take a look on ] and the quoted sources in ]). 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] Question over primary source as an encyclopedic reference. 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute and possible edit war has gotten out of hand, with constant POV pushing and no cooperation, could soon extend into flaming and personal attacks. Misplaced Pages policy and verifiability of article has been compromised, and all attempts to solve the problems ends in revert. |
|
|
--04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute and increasingly edit war over the inclusion of ''Islas Malvinas'' in the first line of the article. I would tentatively say that most people have accepted it being there, the remaining question is whether the Malvinas should have some kind of note that it is not the official name, nor the direct translation, something along the lines of ''commonly known in Spanish speaking countries as...'', ''alternative Spanish name...'' and others at the ]. ] 00:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute on whether this should be an article or a disambig page (see also ] and its history), and whether it is a ] of ] (see also ]). 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]:There has been a serious edit war over the accuracy and neutrality of information added to the article, with personal attacks and accussations. One of the involved editors asked for Full Protection (granted) and put the case before the Mediation Committee, which was not accepted by the other editor, who seems to prefer instead to have other fellow countrymen as mediators.15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Months-long edit war over the validity of a view that Paris' commuter belt should seem as the city itself; predjudiced (and constant) reverts and other bad editing habits. 09:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: There already exist more accurate exit lists on several articles such as ], and thus the page was edited to link to those to avoid a ]. Several editors are reverting this for no apparent reason. 07:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute whether to include the ] and the ], both targets of revisionism, in the article. 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute over whether al-Khwarimzi was an Arab or a Persian. 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute over what should and what should not be in the article. 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute over inclusion of disputed material. 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] and ]: There are four sections of one road, Queen's Road East, Queensway, Queen's Road Central, Queen's Road West. Should the stub article Queensway, be merged into the article Queen's Road? 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Option 1''' – Yes, both events should be included as this article should cover sovereign and non-sovereign state declarations of war. |
|
] |
|
|
|
*'''Option 2''' – No, both events should be excluded as this article should only cover sovereign state declarations of war and not included political entities/paramilitary-related declarations of war. |
|
] |
|
|
|
*'''Option 3''' – Include one but not the other (Specify which is included and which is excluded). |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''The ]''' (] 18:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should we use the fresco ] in the source, or the version ] by ]? ] (]) 01:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the ] be included in the tables of the ''political parties standings'' section & the ''transposed 2021 results'' sub-section? ] (]) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
The current single sentence on Gaza in the lede is as follows: {{green|During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas as terrorism and sent military aid to Israel, as well as humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.}} The sentence is regularly modified, including the word "limited" which keeps being added/removed in front of "humanitarian aid". I started ] on this topic a while ago; it didn't get a lot of input and didn't lead to a consensus. I thought this RfC could generate a larger discussion and settle a few related questions at once: |
|
|
* Should the "military aid" and "humanitarian aid" be mentioned side by side as is? |
|
|
* Should we mention that the amount of military aid sent to Israel is ? |
|
|
* Next to the mention of military aid, should there be a mention of allegations of war crimes against Israel? |
|
|
Feel free to expand the discussion to other questions. My hope is that we can workshop a sentence that has a consensus behind it. Thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
I'm opening a new RfC in an attempt to permanently solve this dispute. Should the Estado Novo regime be considered fascist? -- ] (]) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
'''Question'''. Should this article include allegations of sexual violence and torture that were documented in the broader conflict after the Hamas-led incursion? |
|
|
*'''A'''. '''No''' - These should be covered in parent articles (e.g., ]) and in dedicated articles (e.g., ]) |
|
|
*'''B'''. '''Yes, in aftermath''' - Include them in a brief Aftermath section (the current {{alink|Israeli counterattack}} section or a new one) with links to more detailed coverage in other articles. |
|
|
*'''C'''. '''Yes, in main content''', either: '''1. as in current version''' (see {{alink||Reported atrocities}}), or '''2. elsewhere''' (please specify). |
|
|
]<sub>]</sub> 11:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the Yom Kippur War be characterized in any of the following ways in the infobox ]: |
|
|
# Do not characterize the war in the infobox, but write "See aftermath." |
|
|
# Israeli victory |
|
|
# Stalemate |
|
|
# Egyptian victory |
|
|
''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should ] specify the start of a century or millennium as a year ending in 1 (e.g. the 20th century as 1901–2000), as a year ending in 0 (e.g. the 20th century as 1900–1999), or treat both as acceptable options with the use of hatnotes for clarity in the case of ambiguity in articles? See the discussion above. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
There have been several discussions opened in the past regarding this article's content and overall scope. Several wars have a list of military engagements and battles. Examples include: ], ], ], ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] is no different with this article. However, unlike all the other list of military engagement articles, this article has a ton of clean-up templates including lack of sourcing, MOS, and scope issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, with all that background, let's have a discussion on what the '''''scope''''' of this article should include, or more specifically, '''what is a "]" during the Israel-Hamas war?''' Are ''"Battle of ...."'' engagements? Are airstrikes engagements? Should the article's scope be redefined away from "military engagements" to just "engagements"? Ect... '''The ]''' (] 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{RFC list footer|hist|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_B6019~11.jpg){kind=link}