Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

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

With the |birth_place= parameter having the corresponding |birth_date= parameter and the |death_place= parameter having the corresponding |death_date= parameter, do you agree to have the |burial_place= parameter given the corresponding |burial_date= parameter? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians

This page is currently hitting the post-expand limit, meaning that the templates used to display the missing Wikipedians' names stop working midway through the W section. This is resulting in the editors' names not being displayed, and instead being replaced with (e.g.) Template:User2. I therefore think this page should be split, but I'm not quite sure what the best way of doing it would be.

A few possible ideas that came to my mind were:

Should this page be split into subpages for the starting letter of editors' usernames? (To match the way the page is currently organised)
Should the page be split into subpages for the year an editor's last edit was made (or another timeframe)? (In a similar vein to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians)
Should this page simply be split (e.g.) in half?

I welcome any feedback and opinions on this proposal, as well as other ideas for how best to split this page. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] _{RFC tag added 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)}

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Currently, the status quo for events listed on the main page is to use the present tense, even if the event in question has definitively ended. I didn't really notice this was an issue until yesterday when I noticed that the main page said that the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 is visible through parts of North America. Knowing that it was not currently visible and double checking that the article referred to the event in the past tense, I changed this to was visible. [1] I did not realize that this is against the current consensus at WP:ITNBLURB which says that these events must always be described in the present tense. If one is interested in further background, I encourage them to read this discussion here (scroll down to errors).

I think that this status quo is misleading to readers because it cases like this, we are deliberately giving inaccurate and outdated information. I believe this is a disservice to our readers. The eclipse is not visible anymore, yet we must insist that it is indeed visible. I think that we should also be consistent... If the article for a blurb is using the past tense, we should use the past tense on the main page. Therefore, I propose that events listed on ITN that have definitively ended should be described in the past tense if it would otherwise mislead readers into thinking an event is ongoing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: 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.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.