1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)"

The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"

1. "Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13
2. "the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12

The RfC questions are:

1. Was Tesla's birthplace a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire
   • As opposed to the interpretation given by some editors which opinion was that, although nowadays (in 21st century) a part of Croatia, Tesla's birthplace wasn't a part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth (in the 19th century)
2. Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina"

Trimpops2 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

Since the discussion to make Class 360 and class 755 was settled a short while ago (links to 360 and 755 discussion respectively), I think the same needs to be said over here. The hatnote currently says:

I tried to changed it to:

before being reverted. I now need to see if I reach an agreement to change it to the proposed hatnote (one that links the former TPE companies directly) from the current one that links to TransPennine Express (disambiguation), like what happened when I tried to make 360 and 755 a redirect to the UK rolling stocks, both were reverted, and both reached an agreement. There was a discussion above but to settle but to no avail. Therefore, I think a request from other users are helpful like in the two other cases. JuniperChill (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Option #1

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

== Former officials ==

Option #2

== Notable Scientology officials ==

(those presumed current in office go here)

=== Deceased ===

=== Former officials ===

Option #3

(Something else, please specify)

Over the last 18 months, the nesting of the list with its subheadings has changed numerous times and has not resolved with talk page discussions, leading to this RfC to try to settle the issue.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither the phrases "genocidal killing" nor "genocidal massacre" are expressly used in the sources linked as support for the phrase, which has been added and removed in various edit wars for the past several days – the terms are potentially WP:OR, and certainly non-exhaustive. However, they are typically understood as excluding the aforementioned additional actions which are recognized as part of the Srebrenica genocide, such as when in other contexts the terms "genocidal killings and rape", "genocide and rape", imply different things. See also the article genocidal rape and the concerns which it brings up.

I submit that it's simply easier and more concise to go with the formulation The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide... Of course, the entire sentence has formulation issues – it goes on to say of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War, but as it currently exists, and in the hopes of putting an end to an edit war and making some progress in conversation, it seems necessary to take it a step at a time. 122141510 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [2])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [3])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).

It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.

Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

1. "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
   • Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
2. No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)"

The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"

1. "Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13
2. "the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12

The RfC questions are:

1. Was Tesla's birthplace a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire
   • As opposed to the interpretation given by some editors which opinion was that, although nowadays (in 21st century) a part of Croatia, Tesla's birthplace wasn't a part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth (in the 19th century)
2. Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina"

Trimpops2 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [6])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [7])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [8])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [9])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the "Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of NewsClick is:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Additionally, this should also apply to List of South Korean boy bands. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 07:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: No mention. This is the state of the article at this moment.
• Option 2: Disputed mention. This new state would put "(disputed)" after Harris' name, with a footnote going into some depth concerning the history of Harris being called "border czar".
• Option 3: Normal mention. This was the original listing (note—by "original listing" is meant the original addition of the text to the page), with the only difference between Harris' and others' being a footnote stating that her presidential campaign has disavowed the title.

Option 2 was developed as a compromise between Option 1 and Option 3, given the unusual disagreement over the use of the title. Option 3 treated the media mentions of Harris as border czar as sufficient, followed by the chronologically later disavowal. The supporters of Option 1 have several justifications, mainly (so far as I can see) that the title has always been a source of controversy, ever since President Biden gave her the diplomatic responsibility, and that she has now formally disavowed the title. Wrapped up in this latter argument is the political connection, given that most people who want to bring up the "border czar" title are doing so to the detriment of her campaign. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

(1) The inclusion of the allegation that Ukraine may have violated IHL in the specific case of a nursing home in Stara Krasnianka, Luhansk, brought to light in this June 2022 OHCHR report. It is claimed that in March 2022 Ukrainian soldiers utilized this nursing home, populated by elderly persons and disabled people, for military purposes contrary to IHL.

(2) The inclusion of a controversial report by Amnesty International published in August 2022 that there is a "pattern" of Ukraine utilizing civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, for military activity, which they indicate may be a violation of IHL.

• Option A: Include both (1) and (2).
• Option B: Include only (1).
• Option C: Include only (2).
• Option D: Include neither.
• Option E: Other

The matter has been debated extensively immediately above, and in fact for a few years now in older discussions. Thank you for contributing. JDiala (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The main viable options (examples linked) are:

• A: Keeping the infobox as it is currently (3x1, LAB CON LDM. format used for elections 1950-2010)
• B: Changing the infobox to a 2x2 layout and adding the SNP (format used for 2015, 2019 elections)
• C: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein and Reform (format used for 2017 election)
• D: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Reform and the Greens (excluding NI parties from the Infobox, see first box here)
• E: Changing the infobox to a 3x3 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein, Reform, the Greens, Plaid, and the DUP (see earlier edits to this page)
• F: Changing the infobox to TILE (format not used for UK elections, but is used for elections e.g. in the Netherlands and Israel)

Other suggestions also welcome. CipherRephic (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• A: Left-wing
• B: Radical left-wing
• C: Far-left
• D: Left-wing to far-left
• E: Left-wing to radical left-wing
• F: Radical left-wing to far-left

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.

This is confusing in several different ways:

• Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
• The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
• The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.

I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:

• (Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
• Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
• Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nouns^note (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")

Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:

1. The City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
2. Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
3. The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.

However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As the new title needs to "settle in", I'd like to propose a temporary moratorium on further rename discussions. Please kindly indicate your preferences from among:

• A-6 – A six-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-12 – A 12-month moratorium on page move requests
• A-24 – A 24-month moratorium on page move requests
• B – No page move moratorium

Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @Pppery, @Hey man im josh and @Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Does the community still want this feature implemented? (cc @Pppery, @Hey man im josh and @Novem Linguae who participated in an initial discussion on the NPP Discord server, also see T370593) Sohom (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)