An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
I just want to ask that I know how to create articles, but I want to know which information, links, notability, and relatable sources are required. --YAKSH75 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YAKSH75, Timtrent has put some good information about this on your talk page, but the most important thing is finding sources that are reliable and that talk about the subject in detail. Is there something specific you were wondering about? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books & Bytes – Issue 70
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes Issue 70, July–August 2025
You recently closed a previous discussion that I started relating to renaming various Gaza war university protest-related articles. Thank you for your help with this, and I apologize for making multiple decisions that resulted in the discussion being unwieldly.
I am requesting your feedback, or closure, of a new RM that has been opened regarding these articles. I left a comment advocating for opening a new RM with a more narrow view given developments in Talk:Gaza genocide regarding WP:Wikivoice, which you referenced in your closing comments.
Your advice would be appreciated for how best, and if, to proceed with closing the current RM and opening a new narrower RM in its place.
Hi Alexandraaaacs1989. I prefer not to close an RM for the same page twice (as suggested here), so I'll leave this for someone else, but since it's been a week and everyone but the nominator thinks the RM is too broad, I suspect it'll be dealt with pretty soon.
It looks like you're not interesting in opening an RM on the genocide point anymore, so I won't say anything on that. Certainly no one is prohibited from starting a new discussion on that front (I don't even think I have the power to do that), though people obviously have to use their judgment on what's going to be a productive use of the community's time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Extraordinary Writ, thanks for letting me know. Though I initially said I was uninterested in new RfCs, the titles are starting to bug me again so I will probably get back around to opening a new RfC after first addressing more pressing tasks.
I have one last and very brief clarifying question for you related to your closing comments, and your feedback would be tremendously valuable. As you saw, CNC and I had a debate in the new RM relating to the genocide-in-titles point, and I backed down. I trust CNC, but this specific issue is important and I'm newer to Wikipedia so I wanted to explicitly reaffirm CNC's claims in order to have full peace of mind.
Therefore my question is: when it comes to the "policy basis of those arguments being unclear", does this mean you agree with CNC—that there is no potential policy basis of which you're aware on which an argument for the genocide-in-titles point can be made? I.E., is my side of the argument 100% lacking in legitimacy per WP? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did seem to me that the arguments made in the 2 September RM didn't have any real basis in policy, although I hedged a bit in the closure because there wouldn't have been consensus to move no matter how I weighted the !votes. I can't really go beyond that and pre-judge other arguments that might hypothetically be made down the road, though. And obviously other closers may think about things differently. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
