Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Due to bot issues this in not currently showing as an open RfC. However while we await legal input from the foundation it should remain open. I've queried the bots action with it's owner and started a section below #RfC tag. Dpmuk (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
| NFCC states as policy (#9: "Restrictions on location") that display of non-free images isn't allowed on any page on Wikipedia other than mainspace articles and a few administrative exemptions. It doesn't say how they should be handled. Sometimes such revisions should be deleted or removed from public view. But against that, there is probably a practical and reasonable limit, we don't want to encourage well-meaning but disruptive rampant ransacking of the entirety of Wikipedia page history looking for and deleting any non-content revisions displaying a non-free image. (At least, not without consensus).
Criteria for deletion tools is being discussed elsewhere and clarity at NFCC would help - the issue is best resolved by consensus on best practice of NFCC handling. Sometimes revisions displaying NF content may need to be deleted and not just edited out - but when? What criteria? How narrow? WP:NFCC is mute. It just says it's not allowed, but not whether, when or how they may be removed if they happen. The policy doesn't say whether removing a displayed free image (by editing the page) is usually sufficient or if it must also be removed from history like any copyvio. If the line isn't at either extreme but somewhere in-between, or specific circumstances may affect the decision, then there is no guidance on best practice. This RFC is to ask users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9:
|
Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
| { |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Recently, an editor tried to spin-out a fictional character article from a fictional character list. I reverted it, thus re-merging the spin-out back into the list, in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT / WP:SIGCOV.
That editor accused me of deleting the article. In the interest of disclosure, I didn't look closely at the article and quickly reverted the spinout. But I did re-add some information back into the list, and I did invite him to add further information to the list. Instead, he took the issue to the article rescue squadron. My goal is not to dispute what to do with the article. The process around this article has already become needlessly dramatic and it doesn't need more drama. I'm here to ask the community about our policy on the appropriate use of the newly created rescue list. ARS recently saw their rescue template deleted from a consensus that there were systemic problems. I honestly don't know if the community would consider this use of the new "rescue list" to be kosher or if it's slipping towards the problems that got the rescue template deleted. So I thought the best thing to do is to just ask. I'm okay with what the wider community decides. The rescue list is currently used for articles at AFD. (I guess that could include prods and speedy deletions, but those processes are so easy to contest that it makes the ARS kind of redundant.) A few ARS editors recently expanded the scope of the rescue list.[1][2] Should the rescue list be used for content within articles, merges, and disputed spinouts? Thanks everyone. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:No original research
| WP allows primary sources to support isolated facts. Comment is requested here upon extending WP:V and WP:Primary to explicitly allow entire articles based upon primary sources, provided these articles contain no synthesis, analysis, or interpretation of the original sources. A summary of a recent discussion follows this RfC at Wikipedia talk:No original research.
Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
| Should AN/I be subject to clerking/moderation? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
| General notability guideline (GNG) is already mentioned, so I wonder if this Project could create its own Notability guideline based on commonly accepted guidelines, like GNG. If approved, should it mention real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development? Would it affect such articles as Starr Manning and Aubrey Wentworth? I haven't created proposals yet, but, if many people disagree, then no proposals necessary, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Under discussion
| I propose that this template explicitly encourage consensus building, discourage bold edits until discussion has ended and link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes. Jojalozzo 04:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Many thanks. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
| "New messages" banner hoaxes simulate the MediaWiki interface. Many direct readers to unexpected locations such as the practical joke article and non-Wikipedia websites.
Proposed: "New messages" banner hoaxes in the user and user talk namespaces are prohibited. Note: This proposal covers only banners that in both wording and color closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.
|
Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories
| Below is a sample of the page overleaf containing (as you can see) an example of an all-inclusive category that would not be appropriate to create. "Wikipedians who walk" is clearly not going to be all-inclusive and frankly the example is tasteless and (if taste doesn't matter) simply doesn't demonstrate the point it is there to demonstrate. My alteration from "...walk" to "...respire" was undone.
Inappropriate types of user categories
Since the purpose of user categories is to facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia, categorisation on the basis of any characteristic (including particular abilities, interests, knowledge, or skills) that has no or limited relevance to the encyclopedia is inappropriate. Some examples include:
I recently changed the example to "Wikipedians who respire" since all living things respire. Not all Wikipedians walk (don't bother with the citation needed crap). I'd like good sense to prevail, and the example to be changed to something as uncontentious as "Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia". The change I already made was an attempt to keep the idea of a biological constant that links all Wikipedians (as walking |
| There is a large number of categories in the form of "people from", such as "Category:People from Kraków." They have no single parent category, being the low level of categories like Category:People by place and its children. Those categories suffer from a major issue - it is unclear whether they are for people born in a given place, or for people with strong ties. I have always thought it was the former, but the usage is not consistent. Worse, the problem is compunded through clearly different interwikis; for example, for the Kraków category mentioned above, French wiki has fr:Catégorie:Naissance à Cracovie ("born in Kraków") and Polish, pl:Kategoria:Ludzie związani z Krakowem ("people associated with Kraków"). It doesn't help we have some associated categories too, for example Category:People associated with Kraków or Category:People associated with Edinburgh (both parents to respective "people from"). This suggests to me that we need to rename all "from categories" that do not have the "associated with" parent into an associated with version, but keep the from categories, which should be populated with the people born in those locations. We should also have some parent categories for all associated with and from categories, although I am not sure about the desired names. Perhaps Category:People associated with a location and Category:People by birthplace? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)
| A recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Room for Magic (2nd nomination) has got me thinking about criterion three, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The webcomic in question doesn't seem notable by any common-sense measure - no hits on Google News or Books, no claim in the article of wider influence - and yet criterion three gives it a claim to notability under our guideline, as argued in the previous AfD discussion from 2006. Is there any actual need for this criterion? It seems to me that anything worthy of an article would already pass criterion one by being covered in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. Let me know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
- 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 30 minutes by RFC bot.
