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:

Template talk:Navbox

There has been an extended discussion regarding the default colors for {{Navbox}}. The crux of the issue whether or not the colors should be changed to satisfy AAA level color contrasts per WP:COLOR. Specifically, ensuring that the contrast ratio between the unvisited links font color (    ) and the background color is greater than or equal to 7:1. This RfC is being created as some expressed a desire for wider community input before implementing any changes to such a widely-used template.

The reason for meeting certain levels of contrast is to ensure accessibility for color-blind, low-vision, and vision-impaired users and readers. WP:COLOR says that, "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible." AA level is contrast greater than or equal to 4.5:1 which "compensate[s] for the loss in contrast sensitivity usually experienced by users with vision loss equivalent to approximately 20/40 vision" and AAA level is contrast greater than or equal to 7:1 which "compensate[s] for the loss in contrast sensitivity usually experienced by users with vision loss equivalent to approximately 20/80 vision" ([1]).

Below are the current template colors and the colors proposed above. Other proposal are welcome and people responding to this RfC should feel free to offer alternatives. Current colors:

Proposed colors:

Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Based on What Wikipedia is not, should the Feature comparison table as seen in this version be restored? Inomyabcs (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Should the table identifying the world's oldest living people separately identify which claims have been validated by particular sources? There are various suggestions but we should have a single discussion section here with all views expressed. One suggestion is for a Separate "verified by" column so that we can separately identify "regular" reliable sources from sources that have "verified" the claim. Alternatively, claims that have been verified can be given a separate note. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Austin Green

Per the discussion above, in order to maintain some compliance with the biographies of living persons stance on including names of relatives and related-subjects within an article, it was mutual decided to remove the DOB's of the children of Brian Austin Green in order to maintain some privacy for the children. However, it has been disputed that both the full-names and their DOB's should be included. Which is the best route to take in this matter? Options are (based on discussions and sides above:
  • A — Maintain full-names and DOB's of the children
  • B — Maintain first name only and remove DOB's of the children
  • C — Remove DOB's and names of children livelikemusic my talk page! 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

I seek clarification on the earlier RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. Is a TfD nominator now allowed to close as "delete" a discussion that they initiated? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

I recently began a discussion with another editor with regards to the placement of new Talk Page sections for the WP Policies & Guidelines WP:NCCL, which had been dormant until my recent proposal since June of 2014. I will summarize my initial position, in quotation, below:
The idea of new discussions (on unique areas of the WP guidelines) being best found on the bottom of the Talk Page appears contradictory to the intention of making them easily found. It seems to me that especially where Talk Page activity that effects WP Policies & Guidelines both covers a unique knowledge area and has been long-dormant, new issues should be presented at the forefront of the Page.

Proposal is therefore that we give consideration to including an exception to the current prescriptions of WP:TALKNEW, that distinctive new Sections added to the Talk Pages of articles discussing WP Policies & Guidelines that have been inactive beyond a reasonable period of time should be raised to the top of the said Page. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:You've got mail

Can the "You've got mail" / "YGM" templates contain an auto signature, time reference, automatic note placed in edit summary or similar?

The standard request move template is written as:

{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Surely the "You've got mail" template should do similar? In agreement with comment above, I don't personally think that Wikipedia should have a mail facility which seems to me to be a bit like notes being passed under the table. It contravenes concepts of transparency particularly in the context that Wikipedia otherwise has guidelines on such topics as WP:CANVAS. At the very least I think that notifications such as "You've got mail" should give who, when and (in the context of edit summary) what type references. GregKaye 08:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance

I have been working with the editor who has contributed this essay to look with them at some of their concerns about the ways we deploy advice on our policies and guidelines to inexpert and inexperienced Wikipedia editors. We do, at times, bite them, sometimes quite severely, and this is always a cause for concern. I have promised them that I will give them guidance on the mechanism for taking their thoughts forward into the community with a view to the contents of this essay being discussed and either adopted (as they stand or modified by consensus) or taken forward to specific forums for discussion.

This Request for the comments of those interested editors is the first step in this process. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

As this is our primary page on the use of disambiguation on Wikipedia, should it not cover the routine (though not overwhelmingly frequent) article titling and requested move situation that some titles are naturally too ambiguous and confusing to use without clarification? Use of disambiguation to clarify inherently ambiguous names, not just to resolve multiple articles competing for the same title, seems to this proponent to be something that editors will obviously expect to be covered here, at least briefly.

Some sample wording:

Uncommonly, there are other scenarios for disambiguating an article title, even when this does not disambiguate between two articles, and there is no hatnote. For example Algerian Arab is naturally disambiguated as Algerian Arab sheep, because the shorter title is innately ambiguous (fails the WP:PRECISION criterion for article titles) and may confuse readers, liable to interpret it as referring to a human population.

This keeps being reverted (in whatever exact wording) by the same two editors, on a rationale that appears to be simply disbelief that this is disambiguation-related.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)

Should the WP:NCLANG guideline include references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Cúchullain t/c 20:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

I propose replacing the line in the current Gallery policy that states, "One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.", with "Galleries may be used to show a variety of images of a subject, particularly if the images are engaging, informative, educational, or illustrate a diverse variety of perspectives or instances of the subject of the article. Preference should be given to displaying captions of each image. However, image galleries with large numbers of images should be used with careful discretion, and consideration should be given to breaking up large galleries into smaller galleries or individual images that are more focused on particular aspects of an article."
  • Support. --Pine 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)

There are two versions of "Bibliographies" section: previous version and current version. If neither version is working, what is your proposal for the section? --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

The subsection § Common selection criteria appears to be a little ambiguous in intent. I don’t find it ambiguous myself—I read it as “these are what we usually end up doing”—but some editors have interpreted it rather differently, as “these are your only options.” So whichever way it’s meant to be, could we add a short explanation to that subsection, above the list? And is there any reason that list is presented #ordered rather than *unordered?

(Note: Some of this was briefly discussed earlier, but no resolution was reached.) (talk) 16:10, 1 August 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.