Please answer in the Survey with a brief statement of a form such as Include or Yes to include the article in the category, or Exclude or Remove or No to exclude the article. If you have already !voted, please !vote again, so as to simplify assessment and closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

For example, the current Timeline of ITN [Independent Television News, British company] has many sections lacking information, and the gaps are filled with: "1956 No events. 1957 No events. 1958 No events.", etc. This has been done on hundreds of timelines about UK TV and UK radio, but on few other history timelines on Wikipedia, and it isn't common practice in sources on media history, e.g. [1], [2]. Editor guides like WP:TIMEL don't seem to go into this. - Thanks, Responsible? (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes
• No

Q2: If No, who should be listed?

• A: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs
• B: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs and whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• C: Verifiable cast who have standalone BLPs or whose appearance is meaningfully cited (i.e. more than appearing in a list) in at least one WP:RS
• D: "X#" (e.g. 5, 10, etc.) of the most central cast members as determined by subsequent discussion
• E: Other

Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Does the inclusion of this material comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, or should it be further trimmed or removed?

Disputed Material (Life groups and discipleship practices section): > In a 2019 BuzzFeed News article, several former members of Antioch Waco stated that it had a structure that resembled multi-level marketing, including "social pressure and spiritual incentives" that influenced members to spend more time and money on Antioch, and to recruit new Antioch members to "disciple." One former member told Buzzfeed News that she had both positive and negative experiences at Antioch Waco, but had come to see it as a "harmful place, with cultic tendencies" that does not have the interest of individual attendees as its highest priority. The article also reported that a Waco psychologist was seeing a group of former members that called themselves "Antioch survivors." Other former members reported being "made to feel unwelcome" by Antioch due to personal decisions, such as opting out of missions, or identity-related issues like admitting homosexuality. Seibert responded that Antioch is "committed to investing in people" and "encouraging each person to invest in others’ lives." He also responded that it is not their practice to teach its members to "cut off contact with those who leave the church", adding that it would be "rare that we would formally ask anyone to leave."

Arguments for Inclusion:

• This direct wording accurately reflects significant stories and descriptions reported in a reliable secondary source (BuzzFeed News).
• The material is attributed to former members and balanced with Antioch’s responses, maintaining WP:NPOV.
• Corroborative inclusion helps provide a fuller picture of how former members and professionals (psychologists) perceive the church, which is notable coverage from a reliable publication. The "cultic tendencies" quote provides a perspective that supports the sociological analysis regarding the church's "cult-like intensity."

Arguments for Removal:

• The material relies heavily on unnamed sources, which an editor argues gives undue weight to "criticisms."
• Critics may view the "cultic tendencies" language as WP:UNDUE since it is one person’s characterization, even if framed within a broader set of criticisms and from a reliable source.
• There is concern that including detailed "allegations" could overemphasize negative claims relative to the rest of the article.

Background: This issue has been discussed extensively in previous sections. For full context on the arguments see: Buzzfeed 2019 (Archived) #anonymous former members

HonestHarbor (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"See also" sections are purely for navigation; the titles of target articles should be unobscured, so readers know if they have already visited them.

• Do not link to redirects; use the exact name of the destination article instead, disambiguation parentheticals included.
• Do not use piped links. Links to a specific section should use {{section link}}.

(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)

• A. Descriptive titles (like "The Princess Royal" or "The Dowager Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg" or "The Countess of Carladès"
• B. Article titles (like "Anne, Princess Royal" or "Princess Benedikte of Denmark" or "Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès")

Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Question 2: How long should administrator recall petitions be left open before being automatically closed as unsuccessful?

Currently the threshold is 25 signatures over 30 days. For the sake of the closer, please pick only natural numbers.

"Successful" is the language used at WP:RECALL to signify that the admin the petition is about will need to request their tools back from the community at RFA or the admin elections. "Unsuccessful" is hereby defined, for the purpose of this RfC, as "admin retains tools". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

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)