Updating RFC list |
Updating RFC list |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>'''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' |
<noinclude>'''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' |
||
</noinclude>'''[[Wikipedia talk: |
</noinclude>'''[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RFC on proposed rename |Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions]]''' |
||
:Proposed: Rename [[WP:Naming conventions]] to '''WP:Article titles''' or something similar. |
|||
:It stikes me that, conceptually, a "Name" has connotations that evoke strong emotions that I don't think are evoked by the concept of an "article title". The two concepts are very similar... but I don't think they are quite the same. More importantly people seem to get worked up about "names"... in a way that I don't think they do about the more dispasionate term "title". Renaming the Policy would make it clearer that this policy is not really talking about the article subject's name... the policy is talking about how best to entitle our article ''about'' the subject. Yes, sometimes the best article title is the subject's name... but not always. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''[[Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#RFC should this policy include both WP:HANDLE and WP:PRESERVE |Wikipedia talk:Editing policy]]''' |
|||
:We seem to be in an edit war over [[WP:PRESERVE]] and [[WP:HANDLE]]. So to resovle this: Should this policy a) stress [[WP:PRESERVE]], b) stress [[WP:HANDLE]] or c) stess both sub-sections equally? |
:We seem to be in an edit war over [[WP:PRESERVE]] and [[WP:HANDLE]]. So to resovle this: Should this policy a) stress [[WP:PRESERVE]], b) stress [[WP:HANDLE]] or c) stess both sub-sections equally? |
||
:If the last... should the two sections be merged or should they be left as seperate sections? |
:If the last... should the two sections be merged or should they be left as seperate sections? |
Revision as of 15:31, 29 January 2010
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions
- Proposed: Rename WP:Naming conventions to WP:Article titles or something similar.
- It stikes me that, conceptually, a "Name" has connotations that evoke strong emotions that I don't think are evoked by the concept of an "article title". The two concepts are very similar... but I don't think they are quite the same. More importantly people seem to get worked up about "names"... in a way that I don't think they do about the more dispasionate term "title". Renaming the Policy would make it clearer that this policy is not really talking about the article subject's name... the policy is talking about how best to entitle our article about the subject. Yes, sometimes the best article title is the subject's name... but not always. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- We seem to be in an edit war over WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE. So to resovle this: Should this policy a) stress WP:PRESERVE, b) stress WP:HANDLE or c) stess both sub-sections equally?
- If the last... should the two sections be merged or should they be left as seperate sections?
- Would you support including reports of current citation totals or calculations of h-index in an article about an academic (or a particular work) to substantiate notability? If so, can a single standard source (such as the Web of Knowledge) be considered authoritative?—Ash (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)/Draft
- I'm listing an RfC so that consensus for this proposal may be determined. Input has previously been solicited from WikiProject Manual of Style and WikiProject Thailand, and most concerns have been addressed, with the exception of the naming of settlements, of which consensus is still unclear, as noted under #Naming of settlements above. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing
- Should the passage, Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{fact}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable, remain as part of the guideline page? 08:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Avoid instruction creep
- WP:NOT, an accepted policy, references WP:CREEP, which is an representation of WP:NOTLAW and (my favorite) WP:RAP. It's been debated for this essay to be promoted since March of last year, but no one has done anything, so I'm filing this RfC. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking
- Per the discussion here WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, is there consensus to allow bureaucrats to manually uncheck the sysop/crat bit when instructed per policy (currently by ArbCom, uncontroversial [not under a "cloud"] request by admin or crat to remove their own bit, in emergency desysop situations that would normally require a steward, and potentially in cases of WP:CDA (should that be implemented at a future date))? -- Avi (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Software notability
- Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44
- Approximately April 2008, a discussion was initiated to change the wording of WP:NFCC#3a from :
- Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
- ...to...
- Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
- This was changed on May 7 2008, and has not been changed since (as far as I can tell). From the linked discussion, the primary reason for this specific change (there was other language changed too) was because it assumed that the "in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole" would be obvious from the new wording. In other words, it was not meant to change the meaning of #3a but instead to say the same thing in as few words as possible.
- This change, however, has led to several recent problems with images, one specifically on the use of non-free team sports logos on articles about specific seasons or games (see, for example Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos). That is, it is argued that once we accept one use of a non-free image, then all other repeat uses of that image (presuming with proper rationales and the like, and ignoring other issues with NFCC#1 or #8) are not increasing the "minimum usage" aspect of the image on WP. In the current language of #3a, this reads as true, but in the former language, it is certainly not the case.
- I propose a discussion to determine if the language of #3a should be reverted, or at least clear up how consensus and legal policy affirm if "minimum use" applies to both an article by itself (which is certainly supported by consensus presently) and across Wikipedia (the main issue at hand).
- I will point out one potential legal consideration that I have mentioned before, but that I do not have an answer for. In terms of fair use, part of the legal language considers how much we use fair use (both how much from the original source, and how much reuse we have). From this aspect, we need to consider how we consider ourselves "published" in the electronic format. One can, for example, view the fact that we only have one "file" of any given non-free image (we regularly delete duplicates of such non-frees when they occur), and thus it is published only once (in the "File:" space) across all of Wikipedia and that all calls to that file through articles are not republishing it. In this case, the above statement of "minimal use" is not limited by any legal precedent, and thus we would have to turn to consensus to determine if it is the case that "minimal use" applies across Wikipedia. The opposite view, in which each inclusion call in article space to the image file is one instance of publication, does impact how we treat "minimal use" as we need to keep the number of publications down, and thus "minimal use" needs to apply across Wikipedia, not just within an article, regardless of prevailing consensus. That doesn't mean we can never use a non-free image twice, but when we start getting into the 10s and 100s of repeat uses (as the case of non-free sports logos), then clearly we've passed an allowance. Understand what we consider "publication" may help to answer this question rather quickly. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
AgencyMatters, possibly sock of AgencySecurity or Breadandsocks, inserts a list of past and present clients.
In any case, I believe this should be removed because:
- a) listing a combination of past and present clients is not helpful for understanding what the agency is today
- b) many agencies share clients.
I think WME,CAA,UTA, etc should all be reviewed. Is there an editor that could take on the major agencies and turn out something other than a brochure?
- Foobahrain (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Request for comment/Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages