Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include:

Concise Wikipedia

A concise version of Wikipedia was proposed where articles would be up to 500 words in length and contain only the important facts. This was suggested to help the readability of Wikipedia.

Contributions to Edits

The change of wording from "contributions" to "edits" was suggested. This would better reflect what is listed at the Special:Contributions page.

Noticeboard shutdown

It has been suggested that the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard be shut down. It was suggested because this noticeboard is inactive and the disputes are absorbed by other noticeboards.

Conflict of interest discussion

This proposal aims to address conflicts of interest by adding an "intractable" section to the guideline. It specifies that by having an external relationship that could impair with the core missions of unbiased coverage, one shouldn't directly edit content or initiate deletion processes related to such a relationship.

Date and Number era style

The wording of the era style guidelines are under discussion. There are seven points regarding when to use and how to use.

Ticker symbols in article lead

The purpose of ticker symbols in the lead of the article are under review. This discussion could lead the movement of the ticker symbols to the article's infobox.

Banned user talk pages

A discussion has been opened about what should happen to talk pages of users who were banned. Should they be blanked or left intact?

Standardize version history tables

How version tables are displayed in software articles is being discussed. One proposed display is a standardization of what is currently used in various articles, another uses different colors, and the last proposed display is doing nothing different.

Fringe theories

The content guideline of fringe theories is under discussion in regards to how broadly or narrowly it should apply. Fringe theory is described as an idea that is different from the mainstream view.

Non-admin closures

The policy of non-admin closures is under review. It is claimed that without a backlog, there are enough administrators to make non-admin closures unnecessary. It was also noted that many non-admin closures end up being reverted.

In this issue

3 December 2012 (all comments)

News and notes

Featured content

Discussion report

Technology report

WikiProject report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• Looks like the "Standardize version history tables" RfC has been closed. See Template talk:Version#Results --Waldir ^talk 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE) seems to have been inactive since mid November. Should it really be listed here? --Dweller (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concise Wikipedia: I played a bit with the API and created a demo/proof of concept. It shows the lead of Wikipedia articles, stripped out of infoboxes, etc. It's on Github, so issues and pull requests are most welcome! --Waldir ^talk 21:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]