Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 9 April 2007 editItayb (talk | contribs)1,420 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 14:50, 10 April 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits clean out issues older than a month. Strike unprot request (use RFPP). DeverbosifyNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:


*'''Image:FBISeal.png''' According to the United States Code, Title 18, Section 709, (and this does apply; Misplaced Pages's servers ''are'' in the US state of ]) ''unauthorized use of the FBI seal, the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the initials “FBI,” or any imitation “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such ...is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” is prohibited.'' Especially on the template ] (which you'll have to look at a past version of) this is conveyed. 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) *'''Image:FBISeal.png''' According to the United States Code, Title 18, Section 709, (and this does apply; Misplaced Pages's servers ''are'' in the US state of ]) ''unauthorized use of the FBI seal, the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the initials “FBI,” or any imitation “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such ...is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” is prohibited.'' Especially on the template ] (which you'll have to look at a past version of) this is conveyed. 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)



*''']''': Requesting commentary about ensuring that information in articles remains within the scope of the article content. --] 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) *''']''': Requesting commentary about ensuring that information in articles remains within the scope of the article content. --] 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 26: Line 25:
*'''Chemical compounds''': Misplaced Pages has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of ]. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed ]. ] has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on ]. 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Chemical compounds''': Misplaced Pages has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of ]. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed ]. ] has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on ]. 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


* ]
* ] of ] (and perhaps others): Page was protected along with ] on the basis of "stability" which is not a recognized reason for page protection at ]; a later reason that editwarring is immiment was brought up to preserve the protection, but there is no actual evidence of editwarring; rather, there is broad consensus to restore material that was deleted without consensus before the protection - even the person who reverted that restoration immediately before the block agrees with the consensus and said they did the revert for the "stability" rationale. Others, at both ] and in a related, larger thread at ], challege the blocks as unilateral (cf. ]), without consensus and against policy and process, and that disputes about the future of WP:ATT have nothing to do with whether the policies and guidelines that were melded to create WP:ATT, and which have been restored to active status, need to be protected from editing. Probably due to concerns about corewarring, WP:RFPP have been reluctant to get involved. The issues raised also extend to the protection of ] and ]. So, broader community input is sought on whether any of these page protections should remain, and whether WP:RS in particular should be unprotected immediately. 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The protection is also thwarting application of the proper merge tags to the various original policy pages, as discussed ] and at ]. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

* {{Tl|Disputedpolicy}} on ]. Some parties to the debates relating to ] (which is being debated at ], ] and ] among probable other places) believe that the {{tl|Disputedpolicy}} tag should be placed on ] because of ] (which is what the template is for, not for disputes over what a policy happens to say about something). Proponents of WP:ATT of course reject this idea. The ] that cannot possibly reach consensus internally, and needs further community input. &mdash; 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: After discussion, the template was added. A party to the disputes then immediately reverted it, with a rationale that actually has nothing to do with the template in question. ] has been asked to restore it. 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: ] that ATT needs this template. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

* ] of ] without {{tl|Protected}} tag. Short version: Article was protected pending outcome of a poll. Req. made at ] to tag the article with {{tl|Protected}}, which is not only normal but highly appropriate in this case because ] and as to its particulars (and {{tl|Protected}} specifically references dispute as the defensible rationale for the protection under ]). An RFPP admin responded by doing the requested tagging. A party to the disputes at WP:ATT removed the tag. RFPP admin replaced it, dispute participant removed it again, and replaced it with a POV statement of the situation that is ] by other parties to the debates. Should the {{tl|Protected}} tag be restored, and debate partcipants reminded to leave the article alone while it is protected, since the purpose of page protection is not to create an admins-only editing environment? The relevant RFPP material is ] &mdash; 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The {{tl|Protected}} tag was put back on this one (for the third time). 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


* ] A proposal for the naming of stations in the UK. 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC) * ] A proposal for the naming of stations in the UK. 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 41: Line 36:
* ] One possible solution (of many) to the question of paid editing. Inspired by the discussion on wikien-l. ] 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC) * ] One possible solution (of many) to the question of paid editing. Inspired by the discussion on wikien-l. ] 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
* ]‎ Proposal involving the creation of a new noticeboard. ] 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC) * ]‎ Proposal involving the creation of a new noticeboard. ] 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*] Policy involving vandalism warnings on talk pages. ] 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
*Two polls: ] and ] --] 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*] - new ideas regarding how we handle election notability and articles. --] 01:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
*] — brainstorming how we appeal for the anon's money - <font face="Verdana">''']''' <small>· ] · 12:13, Friday, 2 March 2007</small></font>
*] — an essay compiling all the information and arguments on the "tired out" discussion of adverts on Wikimedia - <font face="Verdana">''']''' <small>· ] · 12:13, Friday, 2 March 2007</small></font>
*] Should the RS guideline discuss histographical/ideological bias commonly found in some sources? Obvious example: Nazi sources will be anti-semitic, and Soviet pro-Marxist. Less obvious: Western historiography, particulary from the first half of the 20th century and earlier, will have a 'Western bias'. Should we note that such sources are likely to be less reliable when discussing certain issues then modern academic work done in countries respecting free speach and academic ethics? 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*] is this proposal rejected because consensus is unlikely? 9:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*, please add your thoughts on improving integration of news on Misplaced Pages, 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
*] A proposal to establish notability guidelines for journalists as the general notabilty guidelines can sometimes create ] in determining notability. 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
*]. Should guideline require new material be added to main articles before being added to summary sections? 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
*] is a proposal to extend restrictions on newly registered users. 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
*] should be official policy. This should be self-evident. Let's talk about it. 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
* ], a proposal to subsume and replace ] and ], is ready to be implemented. Please review the document and discuss any problems on the talk page. 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
* ], to seek feedback from editors about adminship and its processes. - 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
<!--Add new entries at the TOP, not here.--> <!--Add new entries at the TOP, not here.-->


Revision as of 14:50, 10 April 2007

Shortcut
  • ]

This page is to request comment on policy or guideline topics. That applies both to disputes about any current policy or guideline, and any new proposals or amendments to those. Further, policy matters are also discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Template:RFCheader


  • User:Itayb/Randopedia - a suggestion for introducing randomization into Misplaced Pages to help deal with some problematic aspects, such as conflicts of interest and cabals (I know, there is no cabal. But just to be on the safe side...). Comments are most welcome. 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference Desk Talk Page There is a major dispute going on there. People are deleting things written by other users, there are edit wars, people are telling other people to leave Misplaced Pages and people are starting to leave Misplaced Pages. Some people are even going away to Wikiversity. Please, comment there! It's a dispute about what is the Reference Desk and how the Misplaced Pages pillars apply to the Reference Desk. A.Z. 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:FBISeal.png According to the United States Code, Title 18, Section 709, (and this does apply; Misplaced Pages's servers are in the US state of Florida) unauthorized use of the FBI seal, the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the initials “FBI,” or any imitation “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such ...is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” is prohibited. Especially on the template Template:User FBI (which you'll have to look at a past version of) this is conveyed. 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation: I cut down the list of Ohio townships on Franklin Township to just a link to Franklin Township, Ohio, thinking to make the page less cluttered and easier to use somewhat as a directory. Another editor disagreed, saying "is there a point to forcing readers to go to a second disambiguation page?" I don't know the proper policy on this. Would there please be somewhat of discussion on the Franklin Township talk page? 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Chemical compounds: Misplaced Pages has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Misplaced Pages:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Chemical compounds. 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Category: