The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Consensus is Wikipedia's friend. It is the backbone of discussion and the statute which decides all that is done here. However, sometimes I feel it fails to accurately represent the problem at hand. There are certain situations in which stalemates should be enough to continue with the implementation of guidelines (see WP:LEADCITE).
WP: STALEMATE would address two issues: the relatively minor issue of what to do when stalemate happens, and the controversial issue of what to do when consensus isn't needed to proceed (WP:MINORCONSENT?) I think there is a need for a policy such as this, as sometimes stalemate proves that a problem is important enough to be addressed. This would apply only to specific policies and guidelines, and consensus would take precedent in most cases. What do yall think? Is it serious enough to pursue? 2ple (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism
We need a whole bunch more eyes on this article, its framing, and its intervention in other Wikipedia articles on this topic if any of y'all have better blood pressure medicine or deeper knowledge of this topic than I do. It may be fine that the current lede of settler colonialism involves accusations of genocide or that this title is completely differently formatted for every other section link coming off of settler colonialism. I really don't know and I do appreciate that the current editors on this new page have been formatting well and finding sources to build their page. An intro "graph" of exactly 4 data points seems like an excellent example of how lazy and partisan "sources" on this topic can be, however, and I'd be much more comfortable with wider community involvement from both sides plus plenty of neutrals. — LlywelynII 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Should the manual of style require citations in the lead for contested statements about BLPs? The current text is generally considered to contradict itself on this point; see discussions here for details and general implications about what this would mean for the text. --Aquillion (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports
Do you agree or disagree with the proposal shown here for the notability criteria for association football (soccer)?
Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
The problem is that Hospitality Club does not really work anymore. But there hasn't been any official statment, because the creator(s) of the project just abandoned it. So, no one takes care about the portal anymore, since February 2021 the login did not work anymore, and since April 2022 the page is even offline. The service already lost its popularity in the years before, and there is no media coverage anymore. The result is, that there is no undisputed source which we could use for citation. I did add the information that the service is not functional anymore and used the Wayback Machine and some Uptime-Portal for citation, but this was considered as WP:OR. Otherwise the initiation was changed from "is" to "was" but without citation. So the question here is: Is it really WP:OR, and if yes, will we find another way to get more specific about the current situation of the project, or won't we be able to do any updates unless some media will report about this? - Flexman (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
What should be done with the bolded sentence, that is:
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
An ongoing discussion as to whether bolding the descriptive article title of tornado outbreaks and winter storms is compliant with MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE requires comment from others. As it stands now, tornado outbreak articles typically have the event type followed by the date while and winter storm articles have the date preceding the event type: Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017, Tornado outbreak of April 4–7, 2022, January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm, or January 2022 North American blizzard.
Input from others is requested. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |