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:Manual of Style

I propose that we immediately and directly seek a community-wide consensus on the question of captitalisation of bird names.

The question to be answered is simply do we:

  1. Eventually remove captitalisation from the names of bird articles such as black crowned crane. [i.e. "black crowned crane" and "New Zealand scaup" in the text, "Black crowned crane" and "New Zealand scaup" in titles. Mama meta modal (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

When should the criterion for speedy deletion, reason G6 (technical deletions) apply to disambiguation pages with only two links? Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

</nowiki> at the top. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Should a dispute tag (such as {{POV-section}}) be added to the page to note for readers and editors that there is an ongoing dispute which remains unresolved on this talk page?
  • Yes; apparently there's some desire for a consensus to acknowledge that there's an unresolved dispute directly above before we can add a disputed tag to the page to encourage additional input. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, and I disagree strongly with the idea that you need a consensus to tag something as obvious as an ongoing dispute, but here I am, asking for support to add {{POV-section}} to the "Personal life" section of the article so we can encourage more input and hopefully get past the original dispute. (I tagged this as policy since it's a site-wide issue in as much as apparently we now need a consensus just to agree that there's even a problem...). —Locke Coletc 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jason Russell

Is Jason Russell's mental health breakdown relevant and appropriate to be included in his biography? 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Do you support the following changes to the section headed "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought": (a) insert, at the end of criterion 1, the words "(Original research which meets the guidelines of Wikiversity's original research policy is permitted on Wikiversity)"; (b) delete the words "There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles" where those words appear at the end of criterion 3. James500 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

I have encountered many bio articles that follow the style guidelines and list/mention only one nationality for people from disputed areas, which are potentially offensive/objectionable to the people belonging to the ignored nationality in the dispute. These include people from former colonies, those countries no longer exist, as well as Scottish and Welsh people.

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer says about potentially-objectionable content: "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the United States" implying that any content that breaches WP:NPOV is outside of this inclusion policy and the disclaimer. WP:NPOV is clear on things that can be viewed from two (or more) opposing (or different) points of view, that they need to be described/presented as such, never to be presented with one-sided view point.

So, when the two view points (e.g. Algerian and French, UK and Scottish, etc.) are potentially conflicting and only one side is presented, then the article is in breach of NPOV in my view, and the potential offensiveness/objectionability is not covered under the disclaimer.

I am not confident what method (new policy, additional warning/alert to style guidelines, etc.) is best to lessen the concern, or if there already is a policy that addesses this, so I am asking for comments and guidances. Background and some examples can be found on User talk:Yiba#Nationality of Guy Moll Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

* Per the recent statement by the WMF legal team, there are no copyright attribution reasons to disallow group/entity/role accounts in their official legal opinion. This has long been a central argument against allowing such usernames.
  • The WMF has recently proposed a requirement of disclosure for paid contributions, which has gotten wide support and is on its way to being adopted in some form.
  • Users who create a corporate or group username are attempting to disclose their affiliation in one of the most transparent ways possible, by making it their username.
  • Allowing role usernames does raise the concern of someone suggesting an affiliation that they do not have. This is handled in the German Wikipedia by OTRS verification of role usernames, similar to the way we currently handle real names of high profile individuals.

Therefore, this RfC proposes that we amend the section on "promotional usernames" to allow role/group/entity/corporate usernames, with the same treatment as WP:REALNAME; if it is a high profile name, or misrepresentation is suspected, we will send them to OTRS for verification. Gigs (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Stubs

All categories within the Category:Stubs structure should be hidden categories. The current arrangement of stub categories as non-hidden is in contravention of the guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization, where they are explicitly described as Wikipedia administrative categories. The guideline gives no rationale as to why these should not be hidden.

Stub categories are not categories which describe the topic itself and should be hidden in line with other such administrative categories as Category:Good articles and Category:Year of birth missing.

Stub templates, which generate stub categories, serve as a visual suggestion to the reader to expand the article. As a result, there is no basis for not hiding the category on these grounds (see Template:Unreferenced and Category:Articles lacking sources as a similar effective arrangement).

Stubs have not been hidden purely for historical reasons. FYI – This idea was raised by several editors in 2008[1][2][3] when hidden categories were introduced, but the conversations did not receive much attention. SFB 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Proposal to remove WP:MINREF as a decline criterion, and subsequently to delete it from the AFCH, the Reviewing instructions and the Reviewing workflow chart.

Rationale - The above discussion has reached the point where a consensus seems to be emerging that enforcing the WP:MINREF rule during AfC reviews is a impediment to the intended purpose of the project - assisting new editors to create acceptable articles. This RFC is to determine whether the enforcement of MINREF should continue to be done here at AfC or it should happen after an article has been accepted into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 23 March 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.