This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
|For the band Led Zeppelin, should rock and roll be included in the list of genres in the infobox? There is some discussion on the matter on the article's talk page, here, as well as on the some of the archived talk pages,
here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here (please note there could be more discussions that were missed). The genre section in the infobox currently lists; Hard rock, blues rock, folk rock, heavy metal & rock and roll. The first four genres listed are not in dispute at this time, nor or any other possible genre that are not listed. So, to recap, and to be clear, do you "support" inclusion or "oppose" inclusion of "rock and roll" in the list of genres? Thank you - wolf 08:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
|Should this article include a dynamic, 100+ entry list of tracks that use this break, or incorporate notable uses of the break into the article itself? Jokullmusic 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)|
|Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)|
|What is the best term for Carina's relationship to the Collector in Guardians of the Galaxy?
|General request for comments about this article, specifically regarding the NPOV policy. 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)|
|Should there be a |
|In light of recent attempts contesting this, and to resolve any lingering arguments against the inclusion of this genre, I am opening this RfC. Dan56 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)|
|This RfC is about the Star Parivaar Awards. Star is a television network in India. They regularly hold an award ceremony to praise television series that air on their network, and television actors who portray roles in these series.|
|Should the sentence listing "The Queer with the Leer, The Fag on the Crag and The Quare in the Square" as nicknames for the statue be included in the article? Amsgearing (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)|
|Please note that per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia does not use lists to create comprehensive primary-sourced directories of "every non-notable thing in this class that happens to exist in the world" — Wikipedia lists (especially if they have open-ended inclusion criteria that invite hundreds or thousands of entries instead of a small defined number) are not free-for-all "web directories" of everything that exists, but are finding aids for Wikipedia content. So the only appropriate entry on this list is the one that has a Wikipedia article to link to, and padding the list out with non-notables, sourced only to their own self-published websites or the CHFC's directory of its member co-ops, is not an acceptable detour around the fact that there's no substantive reason to keep a list of just one thing. This was clearly an attempt to undercut an AFD discussion by turning the list into something Wikipedia lists are not supposed to be, and it is not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)|
|Should we restore this paragraph? It still can be trimmed or rewritten. I disagree with deleting all the content. I followed the instructions at WP:Compatible license and WP:COPYPASTE. QuackGuru (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)|
|This is citation clutter. There is no need for a total of 4 citations for one sentence. The first citation verifies the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)|
|As seen in a section above this one, one view is that the article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence. This view argues that the prevalence of violence perpetrated by women is downplayed, and that quality sources support this. This view says that there should be more in the article about domestic violence against men and certain related debates. The other view is that the article reflects the general literature on this matter and is therefore WP:Due weight. The literature on domestic violence/intimate partner violence focuses significantly more on women than it does on men and states that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences. It also significantly highlights self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. Quality sources support this. Not every debate should be be included or get as much weight.
So, for this RfC, the question is...does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence? I'll alert WP:Women, WP:Men, WP:Sociology and WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)