Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Should the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper be replaced with a new version along the lines of the following text?
--21:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should Wikipedia:Citing sources have an explanatory guideline with a set of accepted citation/footnote styles, with the lists of allowed formats and structures to be decided by future RfCs? Jc86035 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
| Should the acronym WP:NOTNEWS (of "Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper") be replaced with WP:NOTROUTINENEWS, WP:NOTTRIVIALNEWS, or a similar new shorthand?
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| After what is turning out to be an unsuccessful proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal/RfC - Extend WP:U5 to the draftspace, I have come up with something new. I reckon that we should allow proposed deletions in the draftspace. This will ensure that things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO trash can be PRODed instead of having to go into WP:MfD. Also, WP:PROD has a seven-day wait most of the time before the page is deleted so it can mean that things can be deleted after seven days with proposed deletions in the draftspace without having to go to WP:MfD for basic things like WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHOWTO which have no chance and obviously will get deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Following a prior discussion, I propose we institute an activity requirement for BAG members, much like Admins have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| I am going to propose that WP:U5 gets extended to the draftspace. This is because the draftspace is being abused in a way that there are so many drafts being found daily which are basically WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is mainly point 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST which I am seeing in loads of drafts. Rule 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST is "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace." and I am seeing that new users are using the draftspace in a way so that WP:U5 can be escaped because WP:U5 does not apply to the draftspace at the moment. If this is implemented, there will be less drafts coming to WP:MfD daily that could actually do with being speedily deleted per WP:U5.
My new proposed wording for WP:U5 is: Pages in userspace or draftspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages and drafts, with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should Wikipedia have one set of criteria about articles on schools up to and including the high school level and a different set for articles on schools of higher education? (I.e. beyond high school, e.g. universities.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
| Criterion G6 is overloaded with many different things all lumped together as "uncontroversial maintenance" and is the most frequently abused of all criteria. It would never be approved if proposed as is today. The best way to solve this, in my opinion, is to unbundle the various different reasons into separate criteria that are individually objective. I'm not proposing to do this all at once, but to work on it step-by-step so that objections to one aspect don't derail the whole thing.
One aspect of G6 stands out as being a particularly poor fit with the rest: "Deleting redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Commons)." Accordingly I propose to move this criterion, without any changes, from G6 to a new R4 for these reasons:
This does not change what can be speedy deleted, just under which criterion is gets speedy deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil)
| Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view clearly states that if an opnion is stated in a news then it must be clarified in the encyclopedia entry that it is opinion of someone and not a fact
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view The citations given are from websites with questionable integrity like infomoney.br, of whose charter and aims we know nothing about. Also the citations do not explain at all why the labelling of "far-right" has been done, it just uses it casually. It is highly improper to use newspaper articles in this manner. News can be used as citation to say "event x occurred", but not as a conclusive evidence to say "x is a bad person" or "x is a far right" or "x is a far left". I disagree with this kind of biased approach and I request for comments. Berzerker king (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should we make this template hidden in the article mainspace with a code to those who doesn't logged in, especially readers? The articles that linked using this template are mostly only in the interest of the editors and often distract the readers who come here only to read (example: Fair use, Internet troll, International Phonetic Alphabet). We already put links to the project page at the left bar and from the Main Page. Some would probably argue that this hatnote would attract new editors, however that's not our purpose, our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote: "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for", most readers not even intended to look for the project namespace in the first place. This discussion is almost similar to WP:CNR. Hddty. (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
| Should the following section be added, just before the "additional criteria" section?
This was developed in a long discussion at N, here. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
Concerning this 9 year old sentence:
Should this sentence be removed and the text changed to explicitly apply to talk pages, or is the above line a reasonable explanation of the first line of WP:NPOV in that the NPOV policy (and its supplements) only apply to encyclopedic content and not talk pages? -Obsidi (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Should the following section be included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources?
— Newslinger talk 08:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |