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:Disambiguation

Proposal: Change Disambiguation and Deletion policy pages to eliminate deletion of two-item disambiguation pages.

IMO, deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense. If neither of two exact match items is primary, all should agree the dab is needed. If one of two is primary, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept. Why?

  • 1. Readers seeking the primary use meaning get to it immediately, are unaffected by the dab.
  • 2. Avoid wasting editors' time in monitoring Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic to find dabs which can be eliminated, and time wasted by other editors in AFDs and other deletion processes.
  • 3. Disambiguation pages are glorified redirects, and wp:Redirects are cheap Like the essay wp:redirects are cheap says about redirects, disambiguation pages also "take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around." (Restated per comments.)
  • 4. Another exact match may turn up soon, or eventually, and can be added.
  • 5. A disambiguation page can hold other items useful to readers that are not exact matches, in the list of items being disambiguation or in "See also". Readers don't necessarily know their target is not an exact match; partial matches are helpful.
  • 6. Technically, we violate Wikipedia's promise to contributors that they will receive credit, each time a two-dabs page is deleted and then recreated later with two or more items.
  • 7. Deletions of two-dab pages are, like all other deletion actions, a negative that contributors often experience as an insult or dismissal or otherwise as a turnoff. People need 7 or 8 positives to counter a negative experience. Negativity drives down participation.

Why not?

  • 1. Readers seeking the non-primary use meaning will arrive at the primary use topic and, instead of seeing hatnote taking them directly to the non-primary use, they might be directed to the disambiguation page instead, requiring one more step. But:
    • a) If the non-primary use name is long and would make the hatnote unwieldy, readers might already be directed to the disambiguation page, under current policy.
    • b) We can simply choose not to require the hatnote to go to the disambiguation page. Change wp:TWODABS to allow it explicity: "If there is only one non-primary use on the dab page, the hatnote can go directly to that."

The current process described in wp:Disambiguation's wp:TWODABS section involves tagging TWODABS disambiguation pages with {{Only-two-dabs}}, and allowing deletion if, after some non-defined length of time, other items are not added. Let's stop the bureaucracy, reduce slightly the pipeline of articles into AFD, stop the slow churning that goes on here, and get rid of one small component of Wikipedia's negativity. RFC reopened by Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications

An entry threshold for New Page Reviewer is proposed for editors who have:
  1. Made at least 500 undeleted edits to mainspace, and have a registered account for at least 90 days, plus appropriate experience of a kind that clearly demonstrates knowledge of article quality control.
  2. Grandfathering: Editors who have made 200 uncontested or unreverted patrols, maintenance, or deletion tags between 1 January 2016 and 06 October 2016 and who have a clean block log since 01 January 2016 will have the right automatically accorded to their account via Special:UserRights
  3. The New Page Reviewer right is subsumed into Administrator, Bureaucrat and Steward

01:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


How should the year-subject pages be titled? For example, should 1 be moved to 1 AD, AD 1, 1 CE, or 1 (year)? Timo3 and Andy W. (talk ·ctb), modified and elaborated 00:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Should we allow users to edit with promotional user names that imply shared use instead of soft blocking them and instructing them to change their usernames? agtx 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Should the policy include the sentence "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

With the resignation of SchroCat and long-term unavailability of Crisco 1492, the Featured List project is down to just Director Giants2008 and Delegate PresN. As such, in a repeat of the elections we held in 2013, we are holding the 2016 FL Delegate elections this October. As detailed on the elections page, candidates are invited to submit their candidacy for the two open delegate slots and answer questions from now through October 14, and voting will commence the following two weeks. This is your chance to shape and influence the direction of the FL process and serve in one of the few positions of pseudo-official leadership has, and all editors in good standing who are interested in the FL process are welcome to put their hat in the ring. We hope to add a couple great new delegates! --PresN 01:17, 30 September 2016 (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.