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

Revision as of 18:01, 16 July 2025

Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 August 2025

(28 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 2:

{{rfclistintro}}

</noinclude>

'''[[Wikipedia talk:VillageSpeedy pump (idea lab)deletion#rfc_070A36Crfc_4E5F19F|Wikipedia talk:Village pump (ideaSpeedy lab)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)}}

Of the 7 [[WP:RECALL]] petitions so far, at least three have some concerns at least adjacent to [[WP:INACTIVITY]] - [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay|Master Jay]], [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] (ongoing).

'''[[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.}}

Currently admins are desysopped procedurally if they haven't made any edits/admin actions for 1 year OR have made less than 100 edits in 5 years. According to [[WP:RESTORATION]], adminship is generally restored at [[WP:BN]] unless there were 2 years without edits OR 5 years since last tool usage.

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}}.

Clearly, many editors believe we need to update WP:INACTIVITY but there has been no RFCs attempted on how.

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

This is a preliminary RFC to ask two main questions -

* '''Q1:''' Do the thresholds for procedural desysoppings ( [[WP:INACTIVITY]] ) need changing? If yes, to what?

* '''Q2:''' On return from inactivity, when do they generally get the tools back? ( [[WP:RESTORATION]] )

{{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.}}

I'm hoping this narrows solutions down sufficiently that a future yes/no proposal can gauge consensus later.

'''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)}}

[[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 16:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)}}

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

'''[[Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#rfc_45F88EA|Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf]]'''

{{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

The prior RfC ended in "no consensus" when the suspect was a minor and uncharged. He is now eighteen and was indicted for first-degree murder. Should their name be included in the article?

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

[[User:FrodoMarsh|FrodoMarsh]] ([[User talk:FrodoMarsh|talk]]) 17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)}}

*'''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.

'''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer#rfc_EA00C59|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer]]'''

*'''Option 3''': Page creators should be notified at the discretion of the nominator.

<small><small>(this is my first RfC so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong.)</small></small> [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 02:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting#rfc_DB323DD|Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the names of the perpetrator and victims be in boldface? 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#rfc_0DC86D9|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should we omit {{para|instrument|Vocals}} if we include "singer" in {{para|occupations}}, and the subject is not primarily known for any other instrument (e.g. use

{{tq|<nowiki>{{Infobox musical artist</nowiki>}}

{{tq|<nowiki>|occupations=Singer</nowiki>}}

{{tq|<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}

instead of

{{tq|<nowiki>{{Infobox musical artist</nowiki>}}

{{tq|<nowiki>|occupations=Singer</nowiki>}}

{{tq|<nowiki>|instrument=Vocals</nowiki>}}

{{tq|<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}

)? [[User:FrodoMarshThedarkknightli|FrodoMarshThedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:FrodoMarshThedarkknightli|talk]]) 1723:3245, 1119 JulyAugust 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_D90E1F5|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in [[WP:HATGPT]] after further discussion at [[WT:TPG]]. Recently, an editor [[Special:Diff/1304748131|started a requested move using LLM generated content]]. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.

Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?

I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing [[WP:PAG]] that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_E526D0C|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

I am an AMPOL editor and I often see articles with party affiliation assumed in the infobox. For instance, [[Adriana Kugler]]'s infobox states that she is a Democrat, but no inline citation is provided. On the other hand, [[Todd Blanche]] does provide a citation for having registered as a Republican. I am questioning the purpose of this parameter for individuals who are not directly associated with politics—in other words, their profession does not pertain to being a politician or political consultant. "If relevant" in the {{T|Infobox person}} documentation is rather vague. The misuse of this parameter warrants some action.

The rationale for removing the party affiliation parameter is similar to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes|the RfC over the religion parameter]]. As was stated then, "This would be consistent with our treatment of sexual orientation and various other things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial. The availability of a parameter encourages editors to fill it, whether they have consensus to do so or not, regardless of instructions in template documentation to gain consensus first; new and anon IP editors generally do not read documentation, they simply see a "missing" parameter at article B that they saw at article A and add it." <span style="font-family: monospace;">[[User talk:ElijahPepe|elijahpepe@wikipedia]] (he/him)</span> 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations#rfc_C2A5694|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the historical proposal at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations)]] be replaced with a short updated naming convention guideline that links to the established more detailed region-specific station naming conventions and describes their points of commonality? [[User:Tomiĉo|Tomiĉo]] ([[User talk:Tomiĉo|talk]]) 22:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#rfc_7AE6347|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

This question is about the terminology to be used when a draft is not accepted but may be reworked or improved and resubmitted. This action is currently referred to in the AFC Helper script and at the messages provided to the author as being '''Declined'''. There has been discussion at the Village Pump at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Declined_vs_rejected_at_AfC]]. Should the terminology for the three possible actions by a reviewer be:

*'''A''' - '''Accepted''', '''Declined''', and '''Rejected'''? (The present options)

*'''B''' - '''Accepted''', '''Not Accepted''', and '''Rejected'''? (The rough consensus at [[WP:VPM|VPM]])

*'''C''' - Something else, please specify.

[[User:SoniRobert McClenon|SoniRobert McClenon]] ([[User talk:SoniRobert McClenon|talk]]) 1618:5337, 167 JulyAugust 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#rfc_D7C3F9C|Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the following criterion be added to [[WP:G15|G15]]? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 21:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)}}

What should the minimum criteria for granting the TAIV user right right be? 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{RFC list footer|policy|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}