Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
|The issue isn't one of Creation Science but one of neutrality, where the language in the article that declares that:|
is not NPOV because it asserts a thesis that life comes about through an "up from the muck" process only, which is vastly overreaching and overstated, and categorically rules out "down from the stars" theories. Rowan claims science is agnostic, then the POV here is that science and the article should remain agnostic and not atheistic.
(An editor Apokryltaros (labelled as Mr Fink) claimed the right of closing the above discussion, which was improper in my view. He also removed my comment from his talk page.) -Inowen (nlfte) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
|I am going to propose that WP:U5 gets extended to the draftspace. This is because the draftspace is being abused in a way that there are so many drafts being found daily which are basically WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is mainly point 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST which I am seeing in loads of drafts. Rule 5 of WP:NOTWEBHOST is "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace." and I am seeing that new users are using the draftspace in a way so that WP:U5 can be escaped because WP:U5 does not apply to the draftspace at the moment. If this is implemented, there will be less drafts coming to WP:MfD daily that could actually do with being speedily deleted per WP:U5.|
My new proposed wording for WP:U5 is:
Pages in userspace or draftspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages and drafts, with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?.
|Should Wikipedia have one set of criteria about articles on schools up to and including the high school level and a different set for articles on schools of higher education? (I.e. beyond high school, e.g. universities.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)|
|Criterion G6 is overloaded with many different things all lumped together as "uncontroversial maintenance" and is the most frequently abused of all criteria. It would never be approved if proposed as is today. The best way to solve this, in my opinion, is to unbundle the various different reasons into separate criteria that are individually objective. I'm not proposing to do this all at once, but to work on it step-by-step so that objections to one aspect don't derail the whole thing.|
One aspect of G6 stands out as being a particularly poor fit with the rest: "Deleting redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Commons)." Accordingly I propose to move this criterion, without any changes, from G6 to a new R4 for these reasons:
|Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view clearly states that if an opnion is stated in a news then it must be clarified in the encyclopedia entry that it is opinion of someone and not a fact|
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice"
The citations given are from websites with questionable integrity like infomoney.br, of whose charter and aims we know nothing about. Also the citations do not explain at all why the labelling of "far-right" has been done, it just uses it casually.
It is highly improper to use newspaper articles in this manner. News can be used as citation to say "event x occurred", but not as a conclusive evidence to say "x is a bad person" or "x is a far right" or "x is a far left". I disagree with this kind of biased approach and I request for comments.
|Should we make this template hidden in the article mainspace with a code to those who doesn't logged in, especially readers? The articles that linked using this template are mostly only in the interest of the editors and often distract the readers who come here only to read (example: Fair use, Internet troll, International Phonetic Alphabet). We already put links to the project page at the left bar and from the Main Page. Some would probably argue that this hatnote would attract new editors, however that's not our purpose, our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote: "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for", most readers not even intended to look for the project namespace in the first place. This discussion is almost similar to WP:CNR. Hddty. (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)|
|Should the following section be added, just before the "additional criteria" section?|
|Concerning this 9 year old sentence:|
Should this sentence be removed and the text changed to explicitly apply to talk pages, or is the above line a reasonable explanation of the first line of WP:NPOV in that the NPOV policy (and its supplements) only apply to encyclopedic content and not talk pages?-Obsidi (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
|Should the following section be included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources?|
|Should WP:DIFFCAPS specify that title case alone is insufficient disambiguation and/or eliminate the Red meat vs. Red Meat example? See above discussion for the specific context of this request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)|