Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:01, 23 August 2025

Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 August 2025

(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 2:

{{rfclistintro}}

</noinclude>

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#rfc_4E5F19F|Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the following criterion be added to [[WP:G15|G15]]? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:10.5pt">[[User:Bunnypranav|<span style="color:#2D78BE">~/Bunny</span><span style="color:#2c5282">pranav</span>]]:&lt;[[User talk:Bunnypranav|<span style="color:#2D78BE">ping</span>]]&gt;</span> 12:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#rfc_5FD01CD|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

I've noticed some pages, such as [[2025 in Wales]], [[2024 in Wales]], [[2023 in Wales]] etc have each and every date individually linked within them e.g. [[1 January]], [[2 January]], [[3 January]] etc. Does this fall under [[MOS:OVERLINK]]? I've tried to remove these links before but have received opposition. I'm opening this up for an RFC because there seems to be a lack of any responses to posts on this talk page. I would post it on the talk page of an article if it were relevant to a single article but as you can see this is present across multiple articles, so I wasn't sure where else to post this. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_A84A0DF|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] varies in [[WP:CONLEVEL|levels of consensus]]. In [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2]] it was alleged for some parts of MOS: {{tq|some of those guidelines have fewer watchers than my talk page, and are largely written by parties to this case}} [[Special:Diff/1307322181|(see discussion)]]. Meanwhile, CONLEVELS states:

{{tqb|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.}}

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that while some parts of MOS are the result of consensus with significant participation, there may be other parts that are indeed {{tq|consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time}}.

Also of note are the [[Special:Diff/1306799581|proposals]] by L235 that did not make principles for that case. Specifically,

{{tqb|Policies and guidelines have a combination of prescriptive and descriptive characteristics. Policies and guidelines document community consensus as to {{tq|"standards [that] all users should normally follow"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), giving them some degree of prescriptive force. Simultaneously, policies and guidelines seek to describe {{tq|"behaviors practiced by most editors"}} ([[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]), and change with community practice, giving them a descriptive quality. Naturally, disagreements regarding the extent of a policy's consensus or prescriptive effect arise from this combination, and the text of a policy can sometimes diverge from or lag behind community consensus. These disagreements, like all disputes on Wikipedia, should be resolved by discussion and consensus.}}

'''Does MOS necessarily indicate community consensus on a wider scale?''' In other words, should closers examine the specific text for level of consensus before using it to overrule a (potentially larger) group of editors? <span style="font-family:Ink Free"> Good day—[[User:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:navy">RetroCosmos</span>]] ^{[[User talk:RetroCosmos|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]}</span> 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#rfc_0862FFF|Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

I've been following [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?|this discussion]] for a while, and seeing how someone was reported to ANI for not notifying page creators, I think it's time for an RfC

*'''Option 1''': Page creators must be notified when their article gets tagged for speedy deletion.

*'''Option 2''': Page creators must be notified when their article gets tagged for speedy deletion, excepting obvious vandalism, attack pages, or pages otherwise created in bad faith.