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:

Talk:Aspromonte goat

Does WP:CITEVAR, which is about changes from, e.g. WP:Citation Style 1 to WP:Citation Style 2, also very narrowly permit one editor to prevent other editors from changing any/all aspects of citation formatting and coding, such as proper XML (<ref name="foo" /> vs. the incorrect <ref name=foo/> which wastes server processing to correct it on the fly), ref names that are easier to understand, ref names that do not disrespectfully refer to women researchers by short forms of their first name, etc.?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Aspromonte goat

 :The about-us page at the two sources in question (in Italian) indicates that the site is developed and published by by internet site/marketing firms, hired by consortia of Italian dairy and agribusiness companies. Are these a reliable primary sources for basic facts about Italian cheeses and farm animals (sans anything of a promotional character), or are they unreliable source, and if so, on what grounds?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

The question: should paid fellowships be considered when assessing an academic's notability? As an example, the Royal Geographic Society allows members to purchase fellowship status, and having such a status has been presented as evidence of notability in a deletion discussion (see here). As a corollary, and more specifically, should we have a statement on the notability guidelines for academics that makes clear whether or not such fellowships are a criterion? KDS4444Talk 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Civility

As there seems to be some disagreement regarding which words are profane or inappropriate, I wonder what the community thinks about setting up a list of agreed upon words that should be considered "banned" in polite conversation, as least when directed at someone, especially in anger. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

There are currently 6203 reviewers, most of which have not made any reviews or edits to pages under pending changes protection in the last month or so. I'd like to suggest that reviewers who have not made any reviews for a month can have their reviewer bit removed by any sysop. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact the flag is a common victim of hat collecting; Introducing a timeout, like we have for sysop, should hopefully reduce this. Also, this should better indicate who is actually responding to the requests, and if level 2 is ever rolled out, it shows who is actively using the user right, so who the people to approach are.

--Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

#Currently: The guidance notes for the "Use in popular culture" section of the Classical Music Guideline has been discussed by over the past 10 weeks without reaching a consensus. The old guideline makes presumptions about what readers are interested in, and instructs that edits such as "Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y" should be politely reverted.
  1. Current practice: Most well known uses of music in popular culture (i.e. classical music used in films, TV and other media) does appear in the music articles. However there are also examples where this information is missing. It is impossible to know how much encyclopedic information is lost or never added as authors are discouraged to add content.
  2. Conflict: Some editors want to limit and restrict such content as in their view it provides no information about the music. The alternate view is that although miscellaneous points may be regarded as "trivia", provided they are not "trivial" and comply with Wikipedia policies, should be included as factual encyclopedic information within the music article in question.
  3. Balance: A balance is necessary between indiscriminate content (i.e. trivial or irrelevant information) and the style of reporting trivia (i.e. miscellaneous facts). There is probably good agreement about applying the WP:TRIVIA guidance.
  4. History: It appears that this conflict of views has been a problem over many years. The talk page of Beethoven's Fur Elise reveals that in 2007 "There's an intensive campaign going on now to kill off all the "in popular culture" articles" which explains why the existing guidance notes (written in 2009) suggest any such edits be politely reverted.
  5. Essay: The WP:IPC essay has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and currently appears to represent a well thought out view, which is generally accepted by all.
  6. Talk: The lengthy discussion has taken place on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music page (as this page gets more followers), and several proposed changes proposed, but without much agreement between members.

Please note: Although I have raised the issue, discussed it, and now raised the RFC, I will be unavailable to comment or partake is further discussion for the next 2 to 3 weeks. Thanks,  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 03:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Imran Khan

Note as discussion, the matter of fact, issue is not a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP or removing the information as the editor Myopia123 raising and discussing in a misleading way. The actually dispute is Manual of Style/Infoboxes, how many infoboxes should be in an article?, as I know there should be only one infobox of main information in the top right of an article, next to the lead section. I have taken a look at European sports articles that are included only one infobox, it is the wiki-standard and beauty of lay-out, adding more than one infoboxes is not appropriate, to hight-light the sport information, there should be a wiki-table in the body of section, as many European and American sport articles have. I have edited the article Imran Khan many times, there was added content that fall under promotional and puffery. The most of contributors are fans of the subject, they only add promotional and puffery content. It is an awkward style of contribution. The question is that if any subject has several professions, should be several infoboxes??!!. In the article there is an image in the subject's cricket career, in which same information is included that has been added in its second infobox, it is redundant. I suggest that there should be only one infobox included main information, for the rest, there can be created wiki-table in the section body, that is appropriate style.Justice007 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


This discussion needs input from one or more editors who did not make the changes to (reversions of) the article in question on November 5th. Thanks. 11:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Should the following be placed in this policy:
Headlines of news articles are not intrinsically part of news articles, but should be treated separately as sources rather than being used for claims cited to the news article. Collect (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

In this CFD, we renamed the WikiProject Somalia articles as: Category:WikiProject Somalia articles by quality, Category:A-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, Category:B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, etc. (because WikiProject Somalia does not necessarily only pertain to the country of Somalia). In contrast, something like Category:WikiProject Athletics articles goes by Category:Athletics articles by quality, Category:A-Class Athletics articles is inaccurate and somewhat confusing because these are identified by the WikiProject not because they necessarily are articles on Athletics (which are under Category:Athletics (sport)). I'd like to see if there's a broader consensus to support this naming convention in full. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Should the guideline about the use of a comma before Jr. or Sr. be modified to proposed language? ‑‑Mandruss  19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

This RFC is to help with determining if this edit to WP:BALASPS is preferred, discuss the merits, problems it might create or cures it might solve, and consider compromising alternative language. See prior discussion (Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?) Morphh (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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