Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

← Current issue

Discussion report

news

specials

Discussion report

Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Contribute —

Centralized discussions

Proposed deletion of over 4,500 category redirects

It was proposed to delete 4,867 category redirects that had been determined to be unused via bot processes. The proposal was met with general opposition to deletion. On February 13 the discussion was closed as keep; noting that if deletion of certain redirects is desired, they can be nominated for CfD just like any other category, but they are not speediable.

Final guideline clarification: logo use in sports articles

New guidelines on the use of sports teams logos were proposed on January 12. The proposal was reformatted three times, each discussion steadily losing contributors. Due to the drop of contributors the Arbitration Committee was asked as to what the next venue of discussion should be; they advised that the discussion be taken to the Mediation Cabal. A case was opened on February 5 and is currently awaiting a mediator.

Inclusion of lists of unusual things

A centralized discussion was opened regarding the place of "lists of unusual things" within Wikipedia. One viewpoint is that it's never possible to objectively define "unusual", and so these lists are inherently incapable of meeting our neutral point of view, and that they constitute Original Research as the inclusion of any given entry in one of these lists is in effect synthesis. Others argue against this, saying that the word "unusual" in this context is just a shorthand way of saying "meets the criteria for inclusion on this page", and that as long as those criteria are stated, we are not violating neutral point of view, but just exercising a collective editorial judgment on the way in which information is grouped together into articles.

Straw poll: Allow moves to be marked as major edits

There is an ongoing straw poll on whether users should be allowed to mark page moves as major (normal) edits. Currently, all page moves are marked as minor; it has been argued that some page moves are controversial and users should be able to decide if their page move is minor or major. The proposal has been met with general support. The poll is set to close on February 20.

Granting editprotected access to non-administrators

A discussion over a proposal to allow non-administrators to edit fully protected pages is currently ongoing. The proposal was spurred when an administrator from the German Wikipedia requested adminship so he could edit the English Wikipedia spam blacklist. The discussion was closed as successful, but many of those in opposition did not want to grant him more rights than he needed to edit that blacklist. There are currently three ongoing sub-discussions regarding if this proposal should come to fruition. The current discussions include: A new access category, similar to rollbacker or accountcreator, which grants editprotected rights and nothing else.; which has been met with equal support and oppose votes, A set of new access categories, similar to rollbacker or accountcreator, each of which grants editprotected rights to a particular namespace and nothing else.; that proposal has been met with mostly opposition, and a proposal to Leave things as-is; this has been met with a small fraction of the total votes.

Bot that automatically archives every URL used as a reference

A BRFA is currently undergoing discussion as to whether a bot should automatically submit URLs recently added to Wikipedia to WebCite and then supplement the Wikipedia link with a link to the WebCite archive. The proposal has been met with both support and opposition; those opposing worry that the links will clutter articles and watch lists and proponents feel that the bot will be an effective tool against link rot. WebCite has commented on the BRFA in support of the idea.

How to raise the tone of the wiki

In a thread on the Arbitration Committee's noticeboard entitled "How to raise the tone of the wiki" and on various mailing lists, there has been much recent discussion about increasing incivility and personal attacks on Wikipedia. Discussion about ArbCom desysoping uncivil admins and the problem of incivility on English Wikipedia in general are being discussed. David Gerard indicated that Wikipedia has "a chronic ongoing civility problem" and that the Arbitration Committee should note "that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is in fact hard policy" which they will enforce. He proposed that the following wording be placed at RFAr or AC/N:

The Arbitration Committee invites cases and discussion of chronic ongoing violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is fundamental hard Wikipedia policy. Not one-offs and not (at this stage) mere incivility, but chronic ongoing personal attacks. Attempts to work through the problems (e.g. RFCs) will be expected to have been tried and failed before a case is brought.

There is general agreement that incivility is an issue; however, there is no consensus on how or if the Committee should handle these issues as they arise nor for the above wording.

Proposals

Edit notice on all BLPs

It was proposed by Cenarium to instate the use of an editnotice for all biographies of living persons. This notice would be added to all articles in Category:Living people, similar to what has been done for disambiguation pages. The proposed text is located at {{BLP editintro}}. It reads:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relating to this policy, please report it on the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

The proposal was met with overall support from those contributing to the discussion. The proposed JavaScript was transferred to MediaWiki talk:Common.js where it is currently undergoing discussion on final implementation and code tweaks.

Requests for comment

Proposed reevaluation of Notability guidelines

Although notability is a long-standing guideline, some users believe that it is time to reassess its appropriateness and meaning. This request for comment has been lead to by discussions at WT:FICT, WP:Notability/RFC:compromise, and WT:N, as well as countless AfDs in which notability has played a role and has been disputed. The request was designed to determine the community's position on 1) Whether or not there should be notability guidelines at all, rather than simply using other policies and guidelines such as Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Reliable sources; 2) Whether or not the current notability guidelines should be changed or left as it is; 3) Whether or not Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) should be renamed. Other discussions currently going on include whether or not to replace WP:N with two separate guidelines and whether or not WP:N should be made policy. Discussion 1) resulted in a snow keep, discussion 2) has general support, and discussion 3) has equal amounts of supporters and objectors. The discussion regarding replacing WP:N with two separate guidelines has been met with general opposition.

Proposal to modify the "Procedure for administrators" at WP:CSD

It has been proposed to modify the section "Procedure for administrators" at CSD to include:

If an article is deleted under any of the applicable Criteria for Speedy Deletion, this deletion can only be restored via WP:DRV discussion or via disciplinary discussion in the case of misuse of tools. Regular recreation of non-salted articles with new or improved content is allowed by any editors, and subjected to a regular process as if the article were entirely new, including further CSD if that is the case. Obvious mistakes and self-reversions do not require DRV.

The proposal has been met with general opposition.

Proposal to make Wikipedia:Coatrack a guideline

It has been proposed to make Wikipedia:Coatrack a guideline. The discussions have resulted in general opposition to the promotion.

Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause

Discussion is currently ongoing as to whether the section of WP:UP#NOT "Copies of other pages" should be removed. The current consensus appears to be leaning towards removing any time limits on how long content can remain in userspace barring illegal or libelous content.

Proposal to change wording of WP:ICONDECORATION

A lengthy discussion is taking place over whether or not to reword one heading of Manual of Style (icons) from "Help the reader rather than decorate" to "Help the reader rather than merely decorate" to more accurately describe the purpose of the guideline. Some editors have argued that the current wording regarding the use of icons in articles is misleading, or that the entire policy should be scrapped. Also, an alternate wording of the section's first paragraph has been proposed:

Icons should not be used solely to improve the visual appearance of an article. Icons which do not provide extra information to a reader or improve the readability of long lists are usually just a distraction (example). Generally, infobox fields containing only one or two entries and articles where nationality is not important should not use flag icons.

None of the proposals have consensus as of yet.

Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles

There has been a proposal to modify the page on Frequently Asked Questions about Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy regarding religion. The section under dispute reads:

Regarding terminology: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.

The argument is revolving around the use of the word myth in religious articles when another word is used in multiple reliable sources. Also in discussion is the use of the word where it is controversial and what standards should be set for its use in articles.

A-Class assessments

The assessment level A-Class is currently undergoing discussion; main points of the Rfc are how A-Class assessments and reviews should be handled, the placement of A-Class in the {{grading scheme}}, and whether the WikiProject Military History A-Class review should be implemented on a wider scale similar to their B-Class assessment project. Currently {{grading scheme}} states that A-Class articles do not need to be GA-Class, but both the Military History and Film WikiProjects have A-Class review systems placing them above GAs. Additionally, many WikiProjects don't use A-Class at all at this time due to the resources a proper review process takes to complete.

Options for what should be done include: leaving A-Class as it is, up to each project separately; standardizing A-Class below GA-Class, or standardizing A-Class between GA and FA-Class. Also up for discussion is the possibility of making A-Class reviews project wide, rather than being covered by each WikiProject separately.

Due to the high volume of participation in the discussions and the conflicting ideas it has been proposed to have a meeting on IRC scheduled for February 21 or 22 at 1900h UTC at #wikipedia-1.0. On discussion will be the possible restructuring of the grading scheme and the continued use of A-Class,.

WikiProject Puerto Rico's style guide

WikiProject Puerto Rico is trying to organize a style guide similar to WP:MILMOS at WP:PURMOS. The Rfc is asking for the assistance of the wider community to help develop the guideline and to make it an official guideline.

Arbitration Committee's mentorship proposals

A discussion has started regarding ArbCom using mentorship as a "parole" alternative to banning. Under the proposed guideline, where one or more editors persistently fail to engage other editors or the editorial process appropriately, they may be placed under supervised editing; during which a designated mentor may, at their discretion, revert or refactor any edit from that editor, direct the cessation of a line or theme of discussion by that editor, or ban the editor for increasing periods of time from any or all articles in the specified areas. At the end of a specified period the mentor will submit a review and recommendation to the Arbitration Committee who will in turn amend the remedy as they see fit. Under the supplemental proposal editors placed under supervised editing as defined above are placed under a topic ban on the specified area for the duration of the remedy until and unless a mentor is found that is agreeable to both the editor and the Committee. The current wording of the supplement is supported by the Committee; the naming of the position as "mentor" is currently under dispute.

Final adoption of WP:FICT as a guideline

After a straw poll showing informal support to make Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) a guideline; a request for comment has opened to try to get it officially adopted. There is currently a 50/50 split of supporters and objectors to the proposal. Common reasons for opposing include that there is not enough emphasis on the need for third party sources and that the proposal's wording is confusing or unclear. Supporters comments generally include that Wikipedia needs some form of governing fiction articles that is official and that this proposal is a good stepping stone.

Community expectations of CheckUser

A discussion has been opened to receive community feedback regarding expectations of privacy as it relates to CheckUser and to receive feedback on uses of CheckUser, considered by the community, to be appropriate or inappropriate. This information will be used by the Review Board when it is officially appointed. As of publication the views of five users have been stated; while others comment on whether they agree with that user's opinion or not. Only one viewpoint currently has more opposition than support. The discussion is planned to close on March 1, 00:00 UTC, but may close at a different date at the discretion of the Audit Panel.

Next "Discussion report" →