Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW: Consensus for Option B's status quo based on the rarity of quickfails and perception that Option A would merely split the same reviewing work across two processes. ViridianPenguin🐧(💬) 18:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
. Should "gender" be removed from the WP:EGRS guideline on "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability"? Fram (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Should nominations that have not received a response from the nominator be eligible for closure, ala DYKTIMEOUT? Here are some possible options, note that you can state a preference for more than one option:
Option A: Nominations can be closed if the nominator does not respond to the most recent comment or review within one week (notifying the nominator is not mandatory).
Option B: Nominations can be closed if the nominator does not respond to the most recent comment or review within one week, plus a ping or talk page message.
Option C: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within one week of a review starting.
Option D: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within two weeks of a review starting.
Option E: Status quo.
Option F: Nominations can be closed if the nomination is not approved within one month of a review starting.
This is a follow-up to the existing discussion regarding DYKTIMEOUT. Given that one of the reasons for the backlog is due to a large number of open nominations that spend weeks or even months without resolution. Given that it is common for nominations to go for a while without a response from the nominator, leading to languishing reviews, this is being proposed to add a soft time limit for nominations (independent of DYKTIMEOUT). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I propose removing the provision in Wikipedia:Political endorsements that allows local consensus to overrule our general policy that facts be sourced to independent reliable sources for organizational endorsements. Specifically, I propose striking the following sentence from the guideline: Local consensus can determine whether a specific list requires independent sources or sources connected to the organization itself, such as its website or official social media accounts.
'''Some articles do not need a year''' when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Asthisisajudgementcall,pleasediscussitwithothereditorsifthereisdisagreement.Themonthordaysshouldnotbeusedinthetitleunlessotherdescriptorsareinsufficienttoestablishtheidentityoftheincident,forexample,[[May1996Kentuckytornadooutbreak]]. Thedateisnotneededwhenthearticlepertainstoeventsthatareunlikelytorecur,suchas[[RescueofGiulianaSgrena]],ormurderordeatharticlesthatcanonlyhappenonce(suchas[[KillingofNedaAgha-Soltan]]or[[AssassinationofBorisNemtsov]]).
+
'''Some articles do not need a year''' when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Thisincludesbotheventsthathavesignificantinternationalrecognizabilityandeventsthathavehadamajorlastingimpactonanationallevel,suchasbybeingthecatalystforpoliticalchangeorbyleavingasizablemarkonculture. Eventsthathavetheirrecognizabilityandimpactmostlylimitedtoasubnationallevelshouldgenerallyhaveayearintheirtitle. Thedateisnotneededwhenthearticlepertainstoeventsthatcanonlyhappenonceorarehighlyunlikelytorecurandthearticletitleincludesthe"whom"or"what"thatwassubjecttotheevent. Examplesinclude[[RescueofGiulianaSgrena]],[[AssassinationofBorisNemtsov]],[[Sodderchildrendisappearance]]and[[SinkingoftheSSArctic|SinkingoftheSS''Arctic'']]. Themonthordaysshouldnotbeusedinthetitleunlessotherdescriptorsareinsufficienttoestablishtheidentityoftheincident,suchas[[February2022Kharkivclusterbombing]]and[[April2022Kharkivclusterbombing]].
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
