Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia (RFC: Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia ) — There are five co-proposers^[1] of this RFC. Please indicate your support of or opposition to the proposal, along with your comments. If referring to specific parts of the proposal, please use the numbers (1a, 1b, 2, etc). The RFC will be open for two weeks, until Monday 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC). The RFC started 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles (Cautious territory section) — Should a "cautious territory" section be included along with a list of articles that User:ScienceApologist is either permitted to edit or refused permission to edit?I believe that the "cautious territory section" is extremely problematic. There is no indication from any of the rulings made against my account that there are gray-areas such as the ones the cautious territory section is implying. Also, I think the labeling of "List of cosmologists" as "Cautious territory" but not other articles is arbitrary and capricious. I would prefer that this section not exist and that arbitrators decide either that an article is appropriate for me to edit or is not appropriate for me to edit per the sanctions imposed upon this account, specifically: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned. I would like to get wider community input on this before I make a formal request to arbcom on this matter.It is one thing to be subject to restrictions that arbcom has agreed to. It is quite another to be subject to restrictions that seem to be developing "on the fly" as it were. I have, in principle, no issue with any user requesting an amendment to the rulings against me for inclusion of a "Cautious territory" idealization of areas appropriate for me to edit, but I'm a little upset with the unilateral imposition of a new category of editing. Since there has been no specific wording as to what the consequences are for any supposed "breach" of this new sanction, I'm simply asking that either we formally impose this sanction upon my account or we decide a demarcation for List of cosmologists one way or another.Thanks.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing () — A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Video on Trial episodes (RfC: Is the List of Verdicts trivia? ) — Okay, someone keeps reverting my removal of a huge fancrufty part of this article as vandalism since he disputes its definition as trivia, and yet even also has a disclamier in an article (which I thought we were supposed to avoid). Anyway, if anything, what is part of the humorous part of the show, I think is just trivial and does not need to be included. I also have some other doubts about its inclusion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (RFC: Replacement Wording for PLOT) — This RFC seeks to determine whether a modified version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rewritten to address concerns raised in a previous poll/RFC, has consensus to remain as policy or should be moved elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Grief porn (RfC: How do we decide the above? ) — ===conflicting facts===1. When presented with two opposing citations (one claiming the coining of a term and a number of others being shown to exist before the coining), what is the proper method of resolving those differences?:Here is the edit with statement of "fact" (Claim that the term "Grief Porn" was coined on April 7, 2005) that is being questioned: [1] :Here is the supporting references as evidence showing prior use of term "Grief Porn" in literature and printed press: [2][3][4][5] exist from many years prior.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Giano/The future () — The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration. I don't suggest that debate is held here in my user space, but that we just see if there is sufficient support for such a debate. If you want to make a statement for others to comment upon, please do so below. Please try to limit statements to 500(ish) words. Hopefully, there will later be plenty of space elsewhere to fully express views and ideas.To keep this page at a reasonable length and easy to read, could people please limit their countering of other's points (in the agreeing or disagreeing columns). It's fine to do it, but please keep it to a sensible minimum and try to remember some people are more easily intimdated than others. If you really want to query a point, then please consider starting a section on the talk page and linking to it from the relevant spot here. Anything reasonable and worthwhile will hopefully be seriously debated elsewhere. This page is just to assess views not try and change them - that comes later. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:External links (Why we link official websites - proposal ) — #What should be linked currently reads: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. • "We get a lot of questions about official websites (usually about multiple websites and MySpace links). In the interest of better explaining the issues, I'd like to propose a new section that unifies all of the "official website" stuff." —Quotation from User:WhatamIdoing, 19:47, 22 June 2009; RfC posted by Milo 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot (RFC ) — Please indicate your support or opposition to this proposal, along with your comments. Please use numbers to refer to specific points in the proposal that you are referring to, particularly if you overall support the proposal but oppose particular points, or vice-versa. The RFC will be open for two weeks, until Monday 6 July, 23:59 (UTC). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• User talk:Gekkoma (Machine Translation) — Why don't we harness tools such as Google's language translation in the form of wikipedia bots to carry out bulk machine translations of articles? The imperfect articles can then be quickly 'polished' off by a human. Firstly, this is much faster and cheaper than individually translating tens of thousands of articles. Secondly, it rapidly allows for knowledge to be converted and transferred into other languages. Any feedback?:Cheaper? Whats cheaper than free? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Joseph Priestley (RfC on lead image alignment ) — "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Jarry1250/RFC () — This request for comment has been created in order to assess the community's position with regard to automated edits to heading hierarchies. (For some reason, RFC Bot needs this: - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:T-1000/Archive2 (1994 or 1995: a discussion of OR ) — A user added twice the year '1995' to the article, extrapolating the date when the Terminator arrived in T2. The excuse for this was provided in the second edit summary: "The police computer in T2 says John was born on 2-28-1985 and is now aged 10. You do the math." Aside from the somewhat unfriendly tone of that, I reverted the synthesis by noting that our personal observations and calculations aren't citable, and therefore not includable.
  The editor has added it yet again, theorizing that a simple calculation isn't original research, but common sense. I've reverted it again, on the strength of the argument I initially made - its synthesis. We need a citation stating it explicitly. Without one, we are stuck with the date of 1994. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Consensus (RFC: Is Consensus a Compromise/Synthesis of Editors' Opinions or is it Discussion Followed by Majority Preference without Compromise? ) — Per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What is consensus? in a situation in which 1/3 expressed preference for one way of using an image, and 2/3 expressed a different preference, with respect to consensus do we integrate the opinions or do we consider consensus to mean hearing everyone out but going with the majoritry preference without integrating the minority's opinion? Examples in which synthesis occurred include the pages on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh where opinions of those seeking to suppress the images for religious reasons are balanced with opinions of those who want the images in, by placing images of those religious figures lower in the article rather than in the lead. I'm seeking opinions specifically on the nature of consensus...as a way of getting a few more opinions regarding this conversation: Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Is consensus compromise?.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Robert Young (author) (RfC ) — Should general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets that does not specifically mention Young or his specific claims go into Young's article or into the live blood analysis and alkaline diets articles? 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• Template talk:Unreferenced (RFC: Should the template employ "unverifiable" or "unverified"?) — This is a dispute over which word to use in the high-use template, {{unreferenced}}, "unverifiable" or "unverified" to properly invoke WP:BURDEN.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC () — Comments are invited on how we should categorize articles that have categories named after them.--Kotniski (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. A discussion as to whether we should be able to use the word "Nakba" on Wikipedia to describe what happened to the Palestinians when the state of Israel was created. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Outside opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)