Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Should the talk page guidelines recommend the use of Standard written English? (An alternate policy proposal is also being drafted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Up to now the essay WP:NENAN (Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox) was used as a valid argument for the nomination of templates at WP:Templates for discussion. It was used more than 450 times in that way.

Recently, after a string of nomination based on WP:NENAN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft objected to this.

In short there are two questions:
1) Is Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox a valid argument for nomination of a template?
2) Is the threshold of five valid blue links, created in practise over time, a valid and reasonably threshold for the minimum number of valid links?

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 21:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dialogue on edits by U.S. Congressional staff

I am in a room with several Congressional staffers. They are interested in exploring how they can contribute information in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and best practices. In light of recent media reports, they are concerned with public perception of their participation on Wikipedia, even when edits are made in good faith. They are open to suggestions from the Wikipedia community. Harej (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


I just removed the second image of "Treats!" magazine (the one with the two ladies on it ).

I believe this fails NFC, specifically, NFC #3. NFC #5 and NFC #8. I'll explain why I believe that, and obviously, consensus will dictate what eventually happens:

NFC #3 speaks to Minimal usage, specifically:

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information


An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (minimal use)

One cover is already here on the page, that one cover is fine, there's no specific text speaking about the other cover, nor is it historically significant, so the 1 cover on top suffices and conveys the necessary information by itself.

NFC# 5 speaks to content -- and yes I realize Wikipedia is not censored, however NFC #5 states:

Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

because it fails #3, and also fails #8, it automatically fails rationale #5

NFC #8 speaks to contextual significance, specifically

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

The one cover is enough to assist the readers' understanding and it's omission would NOT be detrimental to that understanding. Further, there's no specific text about that particular cover.

In short, I believe that image fails that above NFC criterias so, that image needs to remain out of this article.

What's everyone else say ? Kosh Vorlon    12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

How should we word the first guideline at Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines (and in the nutshell portion) for templates versus what should be in articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

So it's been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try to fix problems currently contradict each other. My opinion is that the older policy should trump the newer one, which just seems petty, but I'm happy to hear other views. -- Kendrick7talk 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Recently, I closed this AN/I discussion per WP:NAC, with a clear consensus to impose a cban from moving pages. However, the edit was reverted by John, saying that the wording used in WP:CBAN (closing administrator) meant that a non-admin close was not allowed, however another user said that admins were only needed to enforce actions.

Therefore, I wanted to clarify the community's current viewpoint. Can:

  1. any editor in good standing close a discussion with clear consensus at the relevant venue, and impose a CBAN per WP:NAC.
  2. Only administrators can close discussions and impose CBAN's.

--Mdann52talk to me! 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Should MOS:JAPAN continue to require disambiguation for unique place names? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

It has been drawn to my attention that the advice being offered in relation to improper usernames is unclear in whether we should be warning users ({{uw-username}}; {{uw-coi-username}}) for their username who have never made their first edit (e.g. [1] [2]). Suggested new wording to the top of Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames:

Consider leaving well alone

If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it. Assume good faith, and also note the exceptions in the section on inappropriate usernames. Generally, one should not ask a user to change their username unless the user has made at least one recent edit.

xenotalk 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi

Following this discussion, Template:cite doi currently operates by searching the doi string against an individual template subpage within Category:Cite doi templates (each of which is simply a hardcoded {{cite journal}} citation). There are currently over 50k doi template subpages (more than 10% out of all templatespace) out of approximately 67 million doi in existence. Each citation is of very low (or no) usage. Should every subtemplate under Template:cite doi be substituted into each page as a cite journal citation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal

During the recent deletion discussion, many expressed discontent with the current title, including people arguing for deletion as well as people arguing for inclusion, specifically that the word 'history' was misleading in this case, that the article was more about Jews and Israelis in Nepal, and not about the history of the Jews in that land, which -- I think most agreed -- is unsubstantial, and limited to the past few decades. I think there is agreement that there is not a strong permanent presence of Jews in Nepal, although a strong tourist population as well as Jewish outreach organizations such as Chabad. It is likely that the term 'history' caused the deletion discussion to begin in the first place. User @Nyttend: proposed renaming or moving the article to Judaism in Nepal which seems, in my view, to accurately and succinctly describe the article. The question, then: should we change the article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.