Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
 | This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Biographies
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display
|
| Editors in numerous discussions have agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters.
Should we keep or remove the following 3,123 words and 20,513 characters of sentences (including headings and ellipses) under "Content Proposed to Be Deleted"? Any sentences prior or following the removed sentences would be slightly edited for grammar and clarity to account for the removal. Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97, SusanLesch, Bishonen, Dark Dreaming. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the lead of this article keep or remove the sentence "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding."
Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| Which of the following two images (A or B) should be chosen for the main image at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Bringing fresh eyes up to speed: There is concern about a possible BLP vio in this article. This is the edit in question. (Also, comments on the subject's intelligence is mentioned further along in the article.) Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should there be an infobox on this page? G-13114 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies
[edit]| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| This wiki page is pretty thin, compared to other large multinationals (Nabisco, eg: Nabisco), so I'd like to suggest adding additional sections with well-resourced information about the organization's work. Food security is a key focus for the organization, so suggest starting here. Below is a draft section with third-party source. All factual / cut and dry. Thoughts?
Suggest adding new section food security with suggested language and sources below:
|
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
WP:NCORP presently states that it is to help "determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article" Do you agree or disagree that this includes lists of goods and services? FOARP (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should research products of Primerica be included on the page?
The following language is under discussion: Primerica conducts quarterly surveys that monitor the financial health of Americans.[1] earning between $30,000 and $130,000 annually called the Financial Security Monitor.[2] In 2023,[3] the company created the Household Budget Index, a monthly index[4] that measures middle-income Americans’ purchasing power for necessities such as food, health care, gas and utilities.[3] |
| Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Was the previous WP:DESTNOT consensus (1) broad in scope or (2) specific to the two articles questioned? |
History and geography
[edit]Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts
| Can the ACLED Explorer (cited 77 times), the ACLED Dashboard (cited 12 times) and any other ACLED raw data, be used to reference claimed casualty figures? Note that access to some of the data may require free registration. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC) |
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Hello, regarding to this article. Should we use the infobox historical era layout instead of this infobox country one? Since Fascist Italy can be a broad concept, it can be referred to as the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 (this article) and the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, something like a disambiguation. Although the article's main point was about the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, it was a historical period within the state. Note that our article on Vargas era previously used the infobox country template, but now they changed it to the infobox historical era one. I think this article should follow suit. RatMan7108 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the death toll estimate of 186,000 by Khatib et al. 2024[5] be included (with attribution) in the infobox of this article? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the lead section also mention Hebron's Arabic name? (Al-Khalīl) NotJamestack (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
| Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?
|
Language and linguistics
[edit]Maths, science, and technology
[edit]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Q1. Avi Loeb's work related to UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy,
Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...
Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...
|
Should the last sentence of the lead read:
|
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the "Scientists" section state that the NASA UAP Panel studied classified evidence? ~2025-33471-28 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media
[edit]Talk:List of best-selling video games
| As shown in the article, sources are divided between Minecraft and Tetris as to which should be considered the best-selling video game. The main problem is with Tetris definition. Many sources consider it a video game, but some also consider it a franchise. How should this be resolved? Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 22
| Should the weekly summaries in the page be condensed down to around 4-5 lines instead? This is prevalent in the tasks section, where each task is described in way too much detail that it's not deemed as a summary anymore. DueChayapol (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Q1: Should every person who appears in this film be listed in the cast list?
Q2: If No, who should be listed?
|
| Should there be an infobox on this page? G-13114 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following be included in this article's "Sales" section?:
"Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda also praised the game to investors, noting that 'the game has also received positive feedback on its action features, including its parkour and combat capabilities'." ~2025-32924-72 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law
[edit]Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts
| Can the ACLED Explorer (cited 77 times), the ACLED Dashboard (cited 12 times) and any other ACLED raw data, be used to reference claimed casualty figures? Note that access to some of the data may require free registration. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should this be considered an incident, or an attack? NotJamestack (✉️ |
| Should the comparison that Herb Keinon made of the proposed renaming of the park to the renaming campaign that took place during Nazi German for things named after Jewish people be included in the article? Pinging all extended confirmed editors who have edited the article in the past 18 months: StairySky, SeoR, Guliolopez, MemicznyJanusz, Sumanuil, Financefactz, Fearadach, Dewritech —Green Montanan (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Editors in numerous discussions have agreed that this article must be trimmed, but disagree on what content should be cut. In source editing, the second presidency section of this article is 10,462 words and 68,064 characters.
Should we keep or remove the following 3,123 words and 20,513 characters of sentences (including headings and ellipses) under "Content Proposed to Be Deleted"? Any sentences prior or following the removed sentences would be slightly edited for grammar and clarity to account for the removal. Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97, SusanLesch, Bishonen, Dark Dreaming. Bill Williams 21:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the lead of this article keep or remove the sentence "Trump's actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding."
Pinging editors in the previous discussion: Valjean, Mandruss, GoodDay, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Riposte97. Bill Williams 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Hello, regarding to this article. Should we use the infobox historical era layout instead of this infobox country one? Since Fascist Italy can be a broad concept, it can be referred to as the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 (this article) and the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, something like a disambiguation. Although the article's main point was about the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, it was a historical period within the state. Note that our article on Vargas era previously used the infobox country template, but now they changed it to the infobox historical era one. I think this article should follow suit. RatMan7108 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
This RfC has two questions:
If 1. is voted true, we will be able to say there is scholarly consensus in Wikivoice with sourcing but without attribution across Wikipedia per WP:CONLEVEL (this will be considered the global consensus). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Which of the following two images (A or B) should be chosen for the main image at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the death toll estimate of 186,000 by Khatib et al. 2024[5] be included (with attribution) in the infobox of this article? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the subsection |
Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii
| Should the Manhattan Institute be used as a source and does this source (https://news.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx) support the statement that Hawaii is a liberal state. Des Vallee (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Democratic Socialists of America
Which version of the lead section should be implemented as the basis for future edits?
|
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
| Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE, can be found here and here.
Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?
|
Religion and philosophy
[edit]
Society, sports, and culture
[edit]Should the phrase and access to New York City cultural institutions (e.g., theaters, museums, etc.)in the first paragraph of 21st century be deleted as undue weight? Please answer Yes or No, or the equivalent, with a brief explanation in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the biography include the following paragraph about how MTV was instructed in 1991 to refer to Michael Jackson as the "King of Pop"? Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
| In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?
As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
| When is it due to mention that an article subject has a minor planet named after it?
Some options, as well as important additional information, can be found in my initial comment below. Renerpho (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the proposal above this RfC be implemented into the article? NotJamestack (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Which logo should be used for AT&T Corporation? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Shall we add a one word summary of the controversy/dispute in the WP:LEAD of the WP:BLP of Max Verstappen?
Choices:
(Essentially we are adding the word disputed, controversial, or leaving as is). Also has been discussed in the talk page section above this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia style and naming
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Should the following (or similar guidance) be added to MOS:SEEALSO?
(I would propose adding this above the {{annotated link}} paragraph, unless someone has strong feelings it should go elsewhere.) -- Beland (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display
|
| Should the subsection |
| Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) be revised with regard to the naming conventions for state routes in Kansas and Michigan so that the parenthetical disambiguators "(Kansas highway)" and "(Michigan highway)" are only used when disambiguation is necessary, or another format entirely is used instead? 23:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Was the previous WP:DESTNOT consensus (1) broad in scope or (2) specific to the two articles questioned? |
| Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) be further modified to only require "(UK Parliament constituency)" or "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" when there are multiple constituencies such as North East Fife (UK Parliament constituency) and North East Fife (Scottish Parliament constituency) and otherwise use Clacton (constituency) instead of Clacton (UK Parliament constituency) and Orkney (constituency) instead of Orkney (Scottish Parliament constituency). At #RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles there was consensus to move unambiguous articles to the base name such as Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (UK Parliament constituency) to Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket but this RFC deals with removing extra disambiguation when the topic does need disambiguation because of a different use such as a settlement or district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Request for comment: Should we replace the current text of the guideline at Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models with the draft guideline at User:Qcne/LLMGuideline?
The new draft guideline defines an LLM, strongly advises editors not to use LLMs to add content to Wikipedia, and describes how to handle LLM-generated content that is already present. This follows on from the RFCBEFORE discussion at Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#Further amendment proposal #2: qcne, where several alternative drafts were discussed. qcne (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC) |
Category talk:Canadian sportspeople by country of descent
| Following a CfD for categories relating to British sportspeople in 2023 here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025 here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French, I submitted a deletion review in November here which endorsed the no-consensus closure. I have no problem with that, my purpose was to seek a logical global consistency on the suitability of this intersection - it was suggested that RfC was the best place for that, so here I am, again.
Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters. There is no evidence that Category:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing. On the French side, there is no evidence that Category:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid) – because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections: Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present but Category:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any reader with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (see Turks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical, either those should be restored or these other 'survivors' merged too. PS I'm not certain if the RfC type I have selected is the most suitable, please change it if not. Crowsus (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox chess biography
Should |country= be used for the flag under which the player plays or the federation to which the player is affiliated? This issue has previously been discussed here: Khiikiat (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
|
User talk:Athanelar/Identifying AI-generated text
| This has been up for a bit over 24 hours and has had a fair few eyes on it with no strong objections and some good tweaks, so I'm moving forward to RfC.
The RfC closer for WP:NEWLLM stated that a community consensus on identifying AI-generated text would be necessary in order for that guideline to be properly enforced. The question for this RfC is thus: should this proposal be accepted as a supplementary essay to WP:NEWLLM (and future AI-restricting guidelines) to serve as a consensus standard for how to identify AI-generated text? Athanelar (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the subsection |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
| Should data table captions be required only for screen readers? If yes, the first sentence of MOS:HEADERS would be changed to remove "and used on all data tables." In its place, a second sentence would be added saying that captions are still required for accessibility, to be voiced by screen readers, with Template:Sronly hiding the caption from sighted readers by default. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| This request for comment proposes deprecating the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. The current guideline ties certain U.S. city article titles to whether the AP Stylebook lists them as not requiring a state name, a practice that dates back to Wikipedia’s early years. However, this external dependency conflicts with Wikipedia’s self-governed policy hierarchy and with the way other countries’ naming conventions are structured. No other national convention relies on an outside publication to determine article titles. This discussion invites editors to consider whether Wikipedia should instead base U.S. city naming solely on internal principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, supported by verifiable usage data such as pageviews and clickstreams.
Proposal Deprecate the Associated Press Stylebook as a naming authority within WP:USPLACE. Future decisions about the inclusion or omission of state names in U.S. city article titles should be based solely on Wikipedia’s internal policies and verifiable usage evidence. Replace the existing paragraph:
with:
Add an explanatory note:
Background The current wording of WP:USPLACE incorporates the Associated Press Stylebook as part of its reasoning for which United States cities are exempt from the “Placename, State” format. This reliance on an external publication is unusual within Wikipedia’s system of self-contained policies and guidelines. Other country-specific naming conventions (for example WP:UKPLACE, WP:CANPLACE, WP:NCAUST, WP:NCIND) rely only on internal policy principles such as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rationale The AP Stylebook was created for journalistic brevity, not encyclopedic clarity. Wikipedia’s naming standards are designed for reliability and reader intent, not for newspaper copy. No other country’s naming convention cites an external editorial manual as authority. The United States should not be an exception. The AP list of cities without state modifiers is dated and arbitrary, reflecting mid-20th-century newspaper familiarity rather than modern global recognition. Wikimedia’s pageview and clickstream data provide transparent, empirical evidence of what readers mean when they search for a city name. This change aligns WP:USPLACE with WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, ensuring that the same principles apply worldwide. Intended outcome Consensus to remove or deprecate references to the Associated Press Stylebook from WP:USPLACE and clarify that U.S. city naming follows the same internally governed, data-based principles used for other countries. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 18:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
[edit]Talk:List of best-selling video games
| As shown in the article, sources are divided between Minecraft and Tetris as to which should be considered the best-selling video game. The main problem is with Tetris definition. Many sources consider it a video game, but some also consider it a franchise. How should this be resolved? Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
[edit]Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables
| Should data table captions be required only for screen readers? If yes, the first sentence of MOS:HEADERS would be changed to remove "and used on all data tables." In its place, a second sentence would be added saying that captions are still required for accessibility, to be voiced by screen readers, with Template:Sronly hiding the caption from sighted readers by default. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
[edit]| Should we remove the section "Blurbs for recent deaths" from the information page "In the news/Recent deaths"? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC) |
Unsorted
[edit]
User names
[edit]
|
Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • |
This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:
- Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
- For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.
Do NOT post here if:
- the user in question has made no recent edits.
- you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblocking).
Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:
- has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
- has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
- is not already blocked.
If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.
Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.
Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList
Reports
[edit]Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.
- Place your report below this line. Please put new reports on the top of the list.
- ^ Menton, Jessica (9 Apr 2021). "A year after COVID, personal finances are not so grim for millions of Americans". USA Today. Retrieved 23 December 2024.
- ^ Dumas, Breck (13 October 2024). "Middle-income households with negative views of their personal finances surges to new high". Fox Business. Retrieved 27 January 2025.
- ^ a b Kanell, Michael E. (22 August 2023). "New Primerica index shows household finances improving, still burdened". The Atlanta Journal Consitution. Retrieved 23 December 2024.
- ^ Lee, Medora (25 October 2024). "Inflation-shocked low- and middle-income Americans may not spend normally for years". USA Today. Retrieved 23 December 2024.
- ^ a b Khatib, Rasha; McKee, Martin; Yusuf, Salim (5 July 2024). "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential". The Lancet. 404 (10449). Elsevier BV: 237–238. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01169-3. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 38976995.