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:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC



The purpose of this RfC is to reach a solution for the problems identified by the community in the Phase I RfC. Participants will examine the proposals set forth on this page and indicate whether they support or oppose those proposals in the proper sections. Comments on specific proposals should be placed in the comments section for that proposal, while general comments about the RfC should be placed the talk page. Since this proposal may have substantial effects on the RfA process, it will be as widely advertised as possible. Thirty days after the opening of the RfC, it will be closed. The closer will determine which proposals attained consensus according to the process described at Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus.


A: More participants

A1: Advertise RfAs with a site banner

One option to increase participation in RfAs is to display a site banner (to logged-in users only) advertising ongoing RfAs.

Support A1

  1. ...

Oppose A1

  1. Oppose. This is a bit too much, in my opinion. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mariah Carey

I'm curious if the community actually agrees that these categories are legitimate on this and similar articles. Some of the potential issues raised:
  • Nothing in this article's sourced content suggests that Carey actually self-identifies as African-American, only that she's said that being of mixed ethnic background caused familial tensions and some social challenges growing up.
  • Reaching from such a statement to an assumption about how Carey identifies and should be categorized (i.e. labelled by Wikipedia) may be novel analysis and interpretation.
  • This is especially risky, and countermanded, in a biography of a living person.
  • It may also even advance the controversial, anti-scientific, and politically loaded "one-drop rule" in Wikipedia's own voice.
  • Most Americans with diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds do not self-identify as, and resist pigeonholing as "an anything" in particular and singularly.
  • It's noteworthy that we have not categorized this subject as a "Venezuelan American singer-songwriter" or more generally a "Hispanic American singer-songwriter", nor as an "Irish American singer-songwriter", or anything else.
  • It may not be sufficient that some sources might want to label Carey in particular ways for their own reasons and in their own contexts.
  • Wikipedia is not a genealogy work; pigeonholing subjects with iffy micro-categorization trivia representing everyone's ancestral heritage in detail is not relevant to WP's encyclopedia mission and purpose.
  • This may raise similar concerns to categorizing someone who is in a heterosexual [or homosexual, take your pick] marriage as "bisexual" just because they said they once had a homosexual [or hetero, if you want to reverse it] encounter.
  • Singling out "Africanness" as something to especially categorize seems inappropriate dwelling, whether it's being done for positive or negative reasons.

These are general concerns, not limited to Carey's case in particular. In short, I'm skeptical we'd ever categorize someone as a "Jewish American whatever" on the basis of partial ancestry and a few sources engaging in such labelling, absent unequivocal use/acceptance of such a label by the subject, at least for a WP:BLP.
[I'm including this as a titles/style RfC as well as the other categories, since it could affect use of ethnic terms in parenthetic disambiguation.]
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015 {{rfcquote|text= ==Background

The above policy was established in 2011. Prior to that time, there were no activity requirements at all for administrators. After four-and-a-half years under this new policy, a review seems in order.

Example cases

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

In response to a couple of instances where bot requests have been made for mass-removal of navboxes from articles on which they're not bidirectional, I wanted to double check that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was actually a valid, consensus-backed portion of this guideline and not simply something that creeped in and stuck around—at least, before approving any more bots based on the assumption that there's consensus for it (as each subsequent bot could be affecting thousands of pages). It was added in this edit without objection or support a few years ago, and while silence can be assumed to be consensus (plus it's been a while), it would help to have a definitive answer when dealing with subsequent bot requests (at the very least). Additionally, it appears that a few edit wars have happened over the years in relation to it, possibly grounded in a false assumption of original consensus.
Main questions
1. Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus as part of this guideline? ("BIDIRECTIONAL has consensus in this guideline," below)

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

— WP:BIDIRECTIONAL current text

2. Do navboxes containing a List imply that a member of the List can be treated as if it were linked from the navbox? ("List members are valid exception," below) For example, if {{Cool Stuff Navbox}} contains [[List of frozen things]], which contains [[Ice cubes]], should it be assumed that {{Cool Stuff Navbox}} can be placed on [[Ice cubes]]?

3. Can the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) assume, in the future, that there's community consensus to approve bots that reflect these guidelines without individualized consensus for each case/template? ("BAG can assume there are rarely exceptions," below) An example of such a request (actually, what prompted me to double check) is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KoehlBot, which seeks to remove {{Zoos}} from articles not directly listed in the navbox. Note this question is directly dependent on the consensus of #1 and/or #2, so you don't have to re-hash arguments from either of them. It's more a gauge of how strongly the result can be implemented. For example:

  • If #1 has support, AND you support this question, then we'll assume that bot requests that seek to enforce #1 (like the aforementioned example) have support by default (regardless of the navbox).
  • Similarly, if #2 has support AND you support this question, we'll by-default seek to ensure that bot requests take inclusion of a member article in a list into consideration so as to avoid accidental removal of a navbox from that member, too (unless there's consensus to the contrary).
  • Opposing this question will encourage the BAG to make sure any bot request pertaining to BIDIRECTIONAL gains some sort of individual consensus each time (e.g., on a template talk page or wikiproject). That is, we'll assume there are frequent exceptions to the guideline, which necessitates that each request should probably double check with the template's talk page and/or associated Wikiproject(s) to ensure mass removal is what's appropriate for that instance.

Thanks for your help, guys, and cheers =) --slakrtalk / 04:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

Should the following text be added to the 'Recommended uses' section?

Except in urgent situations, new edit filters must not be set to disallow without thorough testing and a notice at the noticeboard to give other edit filter managers and the community time to review the filter for technical accuracy and necessity.[2] In urgent situations, the notice may be made after-the-fact. Prior to and during the review of an edit filter which is set to "disallow" due to an emergency, the editor placing the edit filter is responsible for seeing that the logs are regularly monitored and false positives are minimized.


  1. ^ Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins, June 2011
  2. ^ Non-admins in good standing who wish to review a proposed but hidden filter may message the mailing list for details.
  1. Support as proposer. Sam Walton (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Caste system in India

Is the think tank publisher Brookings Institution a reliable source.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Jong-un

Is it permissible for this article use a non-free image of Kim Jong-un?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[1][2] France,[3] Australia.[4] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Current language on notability of athletes includes:
Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

Should this be changed to:

Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be generally considered to be notable.

Collect (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

In the lead should we use "biomedical and health information" or "biomedical information"?

Biomedical and health

  • Support MEDRS's goal is that "information is accurate and reflects current knowledge". Biomedical covers health, and this clarifies for the reader. CFCF 💌 📧 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Whether WP:NOTHERE must be included among the suggested rationales in the policy. I hate to be such a stubborn person, but I genuinely believe that the matter of policy change should not be in the hands of 2-3 a handful of regulars, even if they are 90% right. See also the discussion in #Not here not policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jedediah Smith

Would this section:

In Popular Culture

  • The cowboy Jedediah in the Night at the Museum movies is said by the ship_manifesto to be based on Jedediah Smith,[2] despite the disparity between a fur trapper/explorer and a cowboy. IMBD calls the Jedediah character in the movie "Jedediah Smith", but that he "he may or may not be based off the real life 'cowboy' from the 1700's Jedediah Smith."[3] The Movie Pilot asserts that all the characters in the movie are based on real-life characters, including Jedediah, who is claimed to be Jedediah Smith.[4]
  • Wikimapia states that Jedediah Springfield of the cartoon The Simpson's is also probably loosely based on Jedediah Smith.[5]

Be acceptable under the policy WP:SELFSOURCE since un-questionable sources on pop culture are not available? This also seems to fall under the guideline of Types of Claims "Sources that are considered flawed may still be used for innocuous facts that are not subject to serious dispute." I mean, this is pop culture. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Possible phrasings required to support the inclusion of a clause surrounding country of origin are multiple and we have so far no consensus on what to use. For this reason I have listed the following versions as possible:
(Note: other wording is also possible, feel free to add o the end of this list)
  1. Clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions except when they explicitly impact the quality of the source.
  2. Omission of the addition
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.
  3. Link to extended discussion
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin[1] or conclusions.
  4. Alternate clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions. However, you should consider these factors if reliable sources have specifically linked them to systematic problems in the medical literature.
  5. Another alternate clarification
    Where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries it may impact the quality of the source. (Without including <ref></ref> tags.)


  1. ^ see closing comments at here.
  • Support 1 or 2 - Oppose 3 Adding the link will result in noone reading the content and the entire sentence losing its meaning with new time-consuming debates blossoming. My reading, and I think the only sensible one is that the RfC overwhelmingly supported not including the statement on the basis that is was a hypothetical situation that had never occurred. CFCF 💌 📧 11:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

I propose a small change of the first sentence of section "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". The change is "have in the past used" ---> "regularly attempt to use". -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:59, 1 November 2015 (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.