Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Men's Issues

We need to go about removing anti-male POV bias from Wikipedia
Many, many, many pages on Wikipedia are entirely one-sided and display and extremely anti-male agenda. If it is not against the rules, I propose we get together as a group and start to address them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Violence against men for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violence against men is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Requested move 24 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus buidhe 05:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues → WikiProject Men – WP:PRECISION about scope - not more, not less. For a background, please see: Talk:Regular_Masonic_jurisdiction. PPEMES (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 04:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Opposed - first, this completely changes the scope of an established wikiproject. I could possibly see creating a NEW project with a broader scope (although I think “men” is overly broad), but I very much disagree with changing the scope of THIS project.  I think having a project that is specifically focused on articles relating the “men’s movement” is still a valid concept. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see that has been the case from reading the lead section. PPEMES (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - I see no reason to let the scope be limited when we have an equivalent WikiProject Women. While that project tends to focus on biographies, this one won't, but it doesn't mean we can't be inclusive. Not every topic related to men is a "men's issue" or about "men's rights". -- Netoholic @ 02:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not every topic related to men is a “men’s issue“ or about “men’s rights”... that is precisely WHY I so strongly oppose eliminating this project - it was set up specifically FOR the more limited range of topics. I have no objection to creating another project with a broader scope. After all, we have WP:WikiProject Feminism as well as WP:WikiProject Women.  Having both makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This sort of specialization is better handled with a task force within the larger scope. -- Netoholic @ 12:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we would demote the Feminism WikiProject to a task force under WikiProject Women. I would not agree to that. No, we can have both. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of participant level... once a task force grows large enough, then its potentially worthwhile to split it out. -- Netoholic @ 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Male expendability
There is currently an active request for comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice? Male expendability]. Feel free to add your voices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography
Comments invited.


 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography

 Bluerasberry  (talk)  19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues → WikiProject Men's issues – No reason why Men's issues is capitalised. (I'm aware this WikiProject is inactive but is used on a number of pages) GnocchiFan (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * There is no consistency in caps across WikiProjects. There are lots of examples like this: WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Dietary Supplements, WikiProject Law Enforcement.... I don't see a compelling reason to enforce a particular capitalization scheme here in the Wikipedia namespace. Dekimasu よ! 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we were to choose a consistent capitalization scheme, I would prefer title case for WikiProjects, which most of them seem to use (including this one). Even if it should be sentence case, is there a reason why the first word after WikiProject would be capitalized? And per Dekimasu. <small style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">SilverLocust 💬 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move notice
An editor has requested that Fathers& be moved to Fathers&, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)