Added: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{rfclistintro}} |
{{rfclistintro}} |
||
</noinclude> |
</noinclude> |
||
'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_937869F|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]''' |
|||
{{rfcquote|text= |
|||
I hate to open yet another railway RfC (why is that topic area so fraught with dispute?) but move-warring has broken out and it needs to stop. |
|||
'''How should articles on railway lines in Russia be titled?:''' |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|- |
|||
! Option A |
|||
! Option B |
|||
! Option C |
|||
! Option D |
|||
|- |
|||
| En dash and lowercase "line", as with other transit articles |
|||
| Hyphen and uppercase "Line" to mimic the [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]] in Russian Cyrillic |
|||
| En dash, but uppercase |
|||
| Hyphen but lowercase |
|||
|- |
|||
| Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line<br />Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line) |
|||
| Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line<br />Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) |
|||
| Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya Line<br />Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya Line) |
|||
| Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line<br />Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Status''' |
|||
<small>I wouldn't quite agree with SMcCandlish that move warring has broken out, but we do need to hash this out, again, apparently. An editor changed some disambiguators (not changing the caps and dash issues, but bringing them to my attention at WP:RMTR). So I moved a few things to conform with normal style. He asked for a revert of those moves, at [[WP:RMTR]]. The admin who did (part of) what he asked unfortunately made a mistake and overwrote a line article with a station article somehow before going off for the evening. Another admin saw the requests still there and tried to finish up, without noticing the problem. It's still a mess. We'll get it sorted, maybe not today. So it's a good thing SMcCandlish didn't provide a link to the line article, because it would just confuse by taking you to the station article. Nevermind, back to the real issue. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''[[Talk:Monopoly (game)#rfc_28AAF92|Talk:Monopoly (game)]]''' |
'''[[Talk:Monopoly (game)#rfc_28AAF92|Talk:Monopoly (game)]]''' |
||
{{rfcquote|text= |
{{rfcquote|text= |
Revision as of 06:01, 9 December 2017
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
I hate to open yet another railway RfC (why is that topic area so fraught with dispute?) but move-warring has broken out and it needs to stop.
How should articles on railway lines in Russia be titled?: { |
I'm requesting comments on the proposed edits discussed above in the "Singular they" section. Currently the article includes these two sentences:
The proposal is to change this to:
As I said in the previous section, I think the use of "singular they" should be avoided if possible by rewriting sentences, where this can be done in a way that is gender-neutral and isn't awkward. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should the changes in this diff be kept? I updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Multiple rivers with the same name to reflect what I think represents a likely consensus, but the last time we had a small discussion there it closed with "no consensus" and advice to "be flexible". So we need a bigger discussion while remaining flexible. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
Talk:Succession to the British throne
The name of Prince Harry is constantly changed at this article to Henry, and then back to Harry, and then back to Henry, and so on. Should he be called Harry or Henry or both? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Is "telenovela" acceptable to use in disambiguating articles on programs of this type? In other words, is Name (telenovela), Name (2017 telenovela), etc. acceptable to disambiguate a series from other topics of the same name?--Cúchullain t/c 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
In responding to an edit template-protected request (temporarily declined), the question has come up whether to remove transit system icons entirely from station (and perhaps similar) navigational templates, or to preserve them along with plain wording; clearly the icons alone are not sufficient even with alt text because the words in many of them (when they even contain words) are not alway legible in icon size.
I.e., the question is whether to remove the icons like the one shown in front of "London Underground" in this example: I declined the request at least initially because an argument can be made that the icons are helpful to a subset of editors (each is recognizable instantly to anyone familiar with the transit system in question) and thus are not purely decorative; these icons do not raise the socio-political and WP:UNDUE issues that overuse and misuse of flag icons do; and we're more tolerant of such images in nav templates than elsewhere. On the other hand, the icons are surely not necessary, and it's not clear how helpful they are nor to what percentage of readers. I remain neutral on the question; this is a procedural nomination so template editors know what to do. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Someone's put the following into Wikipedia:Categorization of people:
It is proposed to replace this much clearer, narrower wording that does not have the WP:CONLEVEL policy problem of carving out a strange exemption for a single wikiproject:
The parenthetical about family name order could be put into a footnote. [Clarified: 09:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
How should the titles of railway line articles for Mainland China and the high-speed railway in Hong Kong be named? Jc86035 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC) |