Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

This page is for discussion about the page Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Section size for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (10 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	2,085	2,085
Date redirects to portals?	14,112	14,112
Issues with antiquated guideline for WP:NBAND that essentially cause run of the mill non-notable items to be kept	19,079	19,079
Adminitrator recall: reworkshop open	378	378
Blind 1RR/3RR	10,776	10,776
RFC at WP:RSN#RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?	1,100	1,100
Wiki-policy about Bibliography List in an article about a famous person.	1,854	1,854
Citing a paper in a journal versus citing the journal itself	1,614	1,614
Protect sockpuppet tags?	555	555
What determines "global consensus"?	3,098	3,098
Total	54,651	54,651

« Archives, 1, 2

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Page size

Please see Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Looking for some unofficial clerks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion

So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the header

The header for this Village pump begins with these words:

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page").

If you are interested in this, please see Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Official Sources as references

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Wikipedia.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]