Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:31, 13 March 2012

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

The presence of medal ribbon pictograms in articles has been frequently discussed here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Because of the re-occurrence of this topic, and the inconclusive nature of the discussions, the coordinators are requesting your assistance in developing a guideline that can be added to our project's manual of style.

Examples of different types of medal pictograms can be found here, here and here. Previous discussions have taken place in varying degrees of detail here, here, here, here, here and most recently here.

As the first stage of this process there are two questions we would like to put to editors:

Should medal ribbon pictograms be used in articles?
If so, where and under what circumstances?

At this early stage these questions are intended to prompt discussion rather than support/oppose type comments. However, please feel free to respond in whatever way and with as much detail as you wish. The responses will be used to formulate a guideline to be put before the project for consensus at a later date.

On behalf of the coordinators, EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:'''
 </noinclude>
-'''[[Template talk:Cite doi#rfc_20F376B|Template talk:Cite doi]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-I would like to see this template default to not having the edit link after the [[doi]] rather than default to being present as currently implemented. As previously discussed it is unnecessary clutter, it is a function that is rarely needed, and it yet another target for vandals. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Alan_Liefting|contribs]]) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)}}
 '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc_E8C7379|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history]]'''
 {{rfcquote|text=
@@ Line 17: / Line 14: @@
 On behalf of the coordinators, [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks#rfc_2F3113A|Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should the unblock-en-l mailing list [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l (mailing list info page)] be replaced with the new [http://toolserver.org/~unblock Unblock Ticket Request System] tool as the first/second step in the block appeals process? [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#rfc_36407CE|Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion). If a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking."
-; Support
-Hopefully allows us to move forward while addressing concerns previously raised. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#rfc_26D780A|Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-The instructions at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy]] are not clear about what to do when a speedy renaming is contested.
-Current practice is that when a listed category is contested, the entry is moved down the page the to a holding area, where some discussion may follow. However, the instructions are unclear about what should happen next. They currently read: ''Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.''
-My reading of this has always been that if any objection is sustained, the renaming cannot proceed through the speedy process. To my mind, this accords with the general principle that a speedy process (such as [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]]) is reserved for uncontroversial issues where there is an assumption of consensus for the action. However, another admin recently read it as allowing admin discretion in assesing the objection and any comments made in response to the objection.
-I see three options here:
-#To explicitly allow admin unfettered admin discretion in the handling of contested proposals for speedy renaming
-#To clarify the guideline so that it explicitly halts any speedy renaming in the face of a good faith sustained objection
-#Status quo: continue with the current wording
-My preference is for option 2. I suggest that the guidance be changed to say something to the effect of:
-:''Any editor may contest a proposed speedy renaming. This should be done by moving its entry to the holding area under the heading "Opposed nominations", and adding a brief explanation of their reasons. Other editors may append their comments on the objection.''
-:''The speedy renaming may proceed only if the objection is explicitly withdrawn, or if an admin assesses that the objection is either frivolous or has been made by an editor who is not in good standing. Otherwise, the contested requests can be removed from this page after 48 hours. The nominator (or any other editor) may then submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions on [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How_to_use_Cfd|how to use CfD]].''
-Any thoughts? Ideas? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)}}
 {{RFC list footer|policy|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: Add the tag `{{rfc\|xxx}}` at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, `{{rfc\|xxx\|yyy}}`, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.