Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions

Frequently, contracts between sports teams and players/coaches are leaked to media outlets before they are officially announced.

This essay is often invoked to keep any mention of these reported details out of articles until the signing is officially announced [1], and articles are protected to prevent new editors from adding the information. For examples: [2] [3]

This RfC is to determine if the following line should be altered:

If anything is to be presented at all, it should be limited to prose attributed to the source that is reporting the transaction.

I would propose revising it to read like this:

Updates to articles subject to a reported transaction should be limited to prose that specifically attributes the source that is reporting the transaction.

This change would codify and encourage Wikipedians old and new to cover what reliable sources will often widely report, but in a non-crystally way that communicates the uncertainty. An example of how that could look is in Monty Williams' article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube

In 2023, is Deji Olatunji notable enough to be removed from WP:DEEPER and have a Wikipedia biography?

As you can see, this proposal aims to discuss the notability of Deji Olatunji, KSI's brother formerly known as ComedyShortsGamer, who has 10 million subscribers on YouTube and has expanded to several other ventures. As a little bit of background: several times in the mid-to-late 2010s up until March 2022, there were more than 20 deletions of articles for Deji under G4 and G5, along with at least two AFDs then, including this one. Around October and November 2022, another article (under the title Deji (YouTuber)) was created, due to his fame having significantly grown in recent years following the speedy deletions and AFDs, to the point of facing Floyd Mayweather Jr. in an pay-per-view exhibition boxing match. However, in the midst of a move request discussion initiated by me, it was deleted under G5, despite there (at the time) being no voiced objections to the subject's notability or any initiated AFDs. Afterwards, I established the most recent deletion review, which had two camps forming both in support and opposition of his notability. Ultimately, the closer decided that there was a consensus against his notability, citing User:JzG/And the band played on.... Subsequently, he was added to WP:DEEPER. Afterwards, there was dissent from me and User:PantheonRadiance on User: Sandstein's (the closer) talk page (see talk page discussion here), with the proposal to establish this RFC to discuss it further. However, I didn't start it until now, due to being preoccupied with my education and to give the issue some rest temporarily.

Opponents to his notability argue that good faith has been exhausted for the subject, due to the 20+ G4 and G5 deletions. They note that User:JzG/And the band played on... applies, even though the subject, Deji, never proposed the article himself or encouraged the behavior of the Ultras (in this case referring to his hardcore fans) that continued creating poor-quality startup articles for the subject. They believe that this erosion of good faith overrides any increased notability after the fact.

Dissenting voices who believe Deji is notable enough for an article believe that his notability exceeds by a long shot that of the other entries at WP:DEEPER. They believe that his reliable source coverage is significant, and that any Wikipedia stigmas caused by the ultra editors are very unfair to the subject. They believe the latest drafts at the time of the Deletion Review, as well as the latest article at Deji {YouTuber) which was deleted just before the Mayweather vs Deji bout, were satisfactory articles that established notability for the subject. They believe that notability can change and elevate to Wikipedia levels later, even in the face of 20+ G4 and G5s beforehand. PantheonRadiance stated it best on Sandstein's talk page:

The deletion did have quite a lot of merit in the past as many of the previous versions were riddled with unreliable, primary, and/or non-independent sources, if they weren't stacked to the brim with original research. Based on those, community consensus was perfectly justified in deleting the article. However, looking at the recent versions that were created by blocked users, it was clear that there were plenty of reliable and significant coverage of Deji between his video content, his boxing career and personal life. I was going to post my two cents on the article at the deletion review too but it closed before I got a chance to do so. But basically put, there were reliable sources that significantly covered him even present in some of the AfDs (this one for example), that were dismissed because they were "trivial" even though they did explain significant aspects of his YouTube career and life that could've flashed out the article. Not only were sources like BBC and The Daily Dot present that covered Deji, among others from Business Insider and The Independent, but recently Deji's boxing match received coverage from Sky Sports, ESPN and Bleacher Report. Even considering the poorly made attempts at creating this article in the past, I think even the most cynical Wikipedia editor can't seriously dismiss all of these sources as trivial coverage. From a quantitative standpoint each source covers him in multiple paragraphs as opposed to passing mentions. And at best, saying the topic of these articles is insignificant is merely subjective skepticism that doesn't change the fact that reliable media outlets consider him significant enough to report on him. And at the end of the day, isn't that all that should matter?

Therefore, I once again ask in this RFC: Is Deji notable enough for an article in 2023? DrewieStewie (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:PragerU

At the time of this RfC, the article includes a sentence covering how PragerU profited off a video of theirs that contained anti-LGBT content.

There exists three sources for this content that have been discussed thus far, Media Matters, Washington Blade, Columbia Journalism Review.

After intense debate above, it was work-shopped into three proposals:

Option A:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBT group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video featured anti-trans rhetoric and misgendered trans competitors while arguing against the participation of trans athletes in female sports.

Option B:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video, featuring a female high school athlete arguing against against trans-athletes participating in female sports, misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.”

Option C: Leave it out entirely.

17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Chicago CRED

This article from the Chicago Tribune describes and reviews an Opera performance titled "The Walkers" that was written about this organisation, a performance also discussed by its creator in this source from the Washington Post.

Should this Opera receive mention in this article about the organisation on which the Opera was based? 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla

How should MOS:JOBTITLE be applied to this page? Should peers be listed under their name and title or title alone? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Does the standardised format of the yearly contest articles need to be altered? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner

As discussed previously, in the edit request above, i propose the re-addition of the full lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner" to this article.

Users @Binksternet and @Magnolia677 have removed all but the first stanza of the US national anthem. The guideline they cited, WP:NOTLYRICS has a clear exception for songs such as national anthems, which this article is about. When justifying their edits, Magnolia677 stated that their concern was that the full lyrics were 32 lines long, ignoring the pages of longer anthems, such as those of Turkey's İstiklal Marşı (40 lines) and Italy's Il Canto degli Italiani (48 lines not counting chorus) among others. The question is, should the full lyrics be included in the article, or not? Use the Support template if yes, and the Oppose template if no. Should the consensus be in favor of re-addition, the lyrics will be re-added to the article, either by me or another editor. If you're not sure about your opinion, but want to support or oppose, consult the appropriate policies for advice. Thanks for reading and discussing. 179.54.211.52 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox settlement

1. Can the "native_name" parameter be used to display an alternative placename that is used by First Nations peoples?

2. If so, should this only apply to places where said First Nations people are the dominant ethnic group? Poketama (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey

Shall the names of rounds, Preliminary Round, Qualifying Round, Semifinals, Quarterfinals, Finals, as a reference to their full names (i.e. Stanley Cup Quarterfinals, Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, Gagarin Cup Semifinals, etc.) be capitalized in Template:NHL seasons by team, Stanley Cup playoffs articles, and any other small reference across all of WP:HOCKEY?

• Option 1: Maintain status quo
• Option 2: Lowercase these words in both references and general uses of the words
• Option 3: ???

A larger discussion about article moves was here, which resulted in no consensus. A similar discussion regarding this particular issue is above and also discussed here.

My opinion is neutral in this (for now), but I don't want the constant fighting between different factions of Wikipedia. Conyo14 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Péter Eckstein-Kovács

Should the Hungarian ethnicity of the subject of the article be mentioned in the lede sentence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)