Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

• Wikipedia talk:Discrimination () — This is a policy proposal. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Template talk:SWL (RfC: Should we use this template to enable contributions of semantic wikilinks? ) — The possibility of adding semantic context to Wikipedia has been discussed many times but with no action plan. The use of {{SWL}} would enable users to (optionally) create wikilinks with a semantic tag describing the relationship. The primary stated advantages are: 1) building a set of semantic wikilinks (SWL) will hopefully motivate WP to move on a technical solution, 2) this template will allow easy migration of SWLs once a technical solution is decided, and 3) the set of SWLs can immediately be used by external tools and programs, making WP content more useful. The primary stated disadvantages are: 1) usage of {{SWL}} will make the wikicode less readable, 2) there are possibly other existing solutions that accomplish similar goals, and 3) there is some question of the utility of these semantic links. More discussion and comments are appreciated. AndrewGNF (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout (RfC on promotion to guideline ) — The brainstorming phase is over, and whatever tweak on this can be made through additional discussion as with any other guideline. I say we promote it to guideline.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict (Altering guideline without Community-Wide Consensus) — Does this long passage on self-identifying names belong in a naming guideline? The passage concerned being the one which was restored in this diff.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Fiction (General policy page on fiction articles) — This is a proposal to consolidate the disparate comments on fiction articles on Wikipedia, currently contained, among other places, at WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:PLOTSUM, and WP:SUMMARY. The goal is to have a single policy page that lays out an agreed upon position for what fiction articles are, in the hopes that it will allow for some of the many disputes about fiction to be settled. Currently I think the proposal is near finished, and I want to make sure it gets plenty of eyes on it and comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Deletion review (RFC ) — The question is: How do you appeal a DRV? Although most of the time, DRV ends a debate over deletion, sometimes even DRV ends up with a lack of consensus. Per Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process, an admin can use discretion when closing a DRV. But what if the article is relisted on AfD, and then someone brings it to DRV again? Clearly, we need a definitive way to solve this ongoing problem. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Where do you appeal a DRV decision? and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist for previous discussions on this matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Falun Gong (RfC tag) — Some editors have expressed concern over the neutrality of this article and have suggested that the overall tone and certain editing practices of devoted editors have damaged the neutrality therein. In a good-faith attempt to draw attention to this and work towards improving the neutrality of the article several editors have put up the pov tag at the top of the page. Other editors have removed the pov tag, arguing that the concerns on neutrality are baseless. The request for comments in this case is on whether the Wikipedia policy on neutrality tagging has been adhered to correctly in the case of this article and whether the tag should be placed on this article until substantial changes to tone and content are made.Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong (RfC on the issue) — The question here has to do with verifiable sources, legitimate sources and the insertion of POV. The FLG supporters argue that the New York Times is not a reliable source for information on things Li Hongzhi has said. I say that the New York Times is a reliable source and feel it is not notable that a Falun Daffa webpage which purports to contain transcripts of the interview does not include these comments. I assert that the Falun Gong may have edited their transcripts for PR purposes, something supported by the fact that the New York Times has not printed a retraction and Li Hongzhi has not brought libel charges against them for that statement. I have not removed statements derived from Falun Gong sources when those statements state what the website does say. Rather I have simply removed editor commentary on what is not said.Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• User:Full-date unlinking bot (Proposed exceptions) — Per Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, "An exclusion list will contain the articles the bot will not edit. This list will contain the few article titles where a link to month-day and/or year within at least one triple date meets the relevance requirement in MOSNUM. (In these cases, it would be easier to edit the page manually in accordance with this at a later time.) Articles will be added to the list after manual review; there should be no indiscriminate mass additions of articles to the exclusion list. The list will be openly editable for one month before the bot starts running." This is your opportunity to get pages — whether specific articles or groups of articles — exempt from being edited by the bot. Be sure to state a reason with each addition, or it will be removed without warning. This list will follow the bold, revert, discuss model with adjustments; contested additions to the list will be relocated to a section of contested exceptions where they will be discussed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:George W. Bush (RfC: What are reliable sources when it comes to waterboarding? ) — The operative dispute between the various parties centers on whether waterboarding is torture, fact or opinion? There are two primary viewpoints here:*Viewpoint A: Waterboarding is, in fact, torture: This group of adherents believes that waterboarding is commonly viewed and defined as torture, an assertion that this group believes is supported by all reliable sources on the subject. This viewpoint asserts that individuals who claim that waterboarding is not torture are not reliable sources because they are either not third parties (i.e., have some conflict of interest; Dick Cheney was an example given) or are not authoritative on the subject (Tom Tancredo was cited as an example) or that various authors that reported the views of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales in the news media are reporting on the viewpoint of these individuals rather than supporting the viewpoint of these individuals. This group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, a form of torture..." used in the article.*Viewpoint B: Waterboarding may be torture, but it is not an established fact that it is torture: This group of adherents recognizes that there are a majority of those who believe that waterboarding is torture, but that not all experts on the matter believe it is torture, as reported in various reliable sources. This group also believes that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales are experts on this subject and have valid viewpoints represented in reliable sources. Hence, this group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, widely-considered a form of torture..." used in the article.There is also disagreement as to what constitutes a reliable source. Is it the news media that reported the viewpoint (e.g., CNN), the holder of the viewpoint (e.g., Dick Cheney), or a combination thereof?The issue has been discussed at length above, with little give on either side. While it has generally remained civil, there are signs that it will digress into personal attacks, and charges of wikilawyering and bias. I welcome others who have been involved in the discussion to correct anything that I may have unintentionally misstated. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) (RFC: Non-trivial or significant) — The term "non-trivial" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "significant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot () —