Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
some of those guidelines have fewer watchers than my talk page, and are largely written by parties to this case(see discussion). Meanwhile, CONLEVELS states:
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 consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time
.
Also of note are the proposals by L235 that did not make principles for that case. Specifically,
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? Good day—RetroCosmos talk 01:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Policies and guidelines have a combination of prescriptive and descriptive characteristics. Policies and guidelines document community consensus as to
"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"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.
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
- 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.
- Option 3: Page creators should be notified at the discretion of the nominator.
Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
|instrument=Vocals if we include "singer" in |occupations=, and the subject is not primarily known for any other instrument (e.g. use
{{Infobox musical artist
|occupations=Singer
}}
instead of
{{Infobox musical artist
|occupations=Singer
|instrument=Vocals
}}
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
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. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
- A - Accepted, Declined, and Rejected? (The present options)
- B - Accepted, Not Accepted, and Rejected? (The rough consensus at VPM)
- C - Something else, please specify.
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion