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)
| 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 {{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 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." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations
| 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? Tomiĉo (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
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:
|
Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion
| Should the following criterion be added to G15? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should WP:AIGI be modified to incorporate MOS:AIUPSCALE? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC) |