Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Project-wide topics
The following discussions related to project-wide topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Wikipedia style and naming
editWikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?
The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row. |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
| Which romanization system do you think we should use for historical Korean topics, McCune–Reischauer (MR) or Revised Romanization of Korean (RR)? We currently use MR. seefooddiet (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking
There are two common ways to link to a place name with an "A, B, C" format where the article is titled [[A, B]]. Both can be read as fair interpretations of the guidance to "link only the first unit".
Which style(s) is/are acceptable? If both, is one preferable to the other? Note: See previous discussion above and above. This is not a question about whether "New York" should be linked to New York (state) in this example; basically everyone agrees that it should not be. 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
editWikipedia talk:Administrator recall
Should the following text -- or text to the same basic effect -- be added to Petition section, at the end of the main text, right before the field to start a new page (or elsewhere):
Yes or no? Suggestions of changes to the text are of course invited. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:
|
Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly
WP:PANDORA has become a hotpoint of contention in RfD. Should it be removed, or rewritten? If it should be rewritten, what changes should be made, and what can be salvaged?
|
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
| WP:TPO details several instances of comments that are appropriate to remove from talk pages, such as vandalism, spam, gibberish, and test edits. Does this apply to archived talk pages as well? I will post a more detailed statement and further context in the replies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?
Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [1] and [2]). Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject. Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. You may also propose your own amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
WikiProjects and collaborations
edit
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
editWikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
| There has been an initiative to change the interface so that the gray header at the top of the table "follows around" as you scroll down. See: {{sticky header}}. Which of the choices below (A-E) do you prefer? What other ideas do you have?
The header is now 2 lines tall. What Timeshifter is now proposing (scroll down this example) is a narrow one-line sticky header with a link from the "Status" column head back to the "Legend" section of the article. And a link from the "Sources" column head back to the "Sources" section of the article. Notes explain this just above the table. He states this allows new users of the table to quickly return to the table TOC, or to quickly find the meaning of the legend icons. An issue in any skin other than the default Vector 2022: When you use the horizontal table TOC, or if you follow ("jump to") an anchored link within the table such as WP:FORBESCON, the top line of the note in the row you jump to would be covered by the narrow sticky header. 2 lines are covered by the 2-line header. Template discussions have not found a way to fix this. Timeshifter does not believe this is a serious problem. Others do. One solution (see E below) is to add a line's worth of blank padding at the top of each row. |
Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Can the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia proposals
editTemplate talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence
| Can the officially-determined causes be included in the Summary field of this infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| Should either of the following proposals to amend the criteria for In the news be adopted?
Proposal 1: Amend the ITN significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) to state: The significance criteria are met if an event is reported on the print front pages of major national newspapers in multiple countries (examples of websites hosting front pages: [3] and [4]). Proposal 2: Abolish ITNSIGNIF and amend the ITN update requirement (WP:ITNUPDATE) to state that a sufficient update is one that adds substantial due coverage of an event (at least two paragraphs or five sentences) to an article about a notable subject. Proposal 3: Mark WP:ITN as historical and remove the "In The News" template from the Main Page, effectively closing the process in lieu of an alternate means of featuring encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. You may also propose your own amendments. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |