Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policy)
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
| Hi there, as I saw some suggestions in the AfD discussion here, due to the scope of the request, and the fact some people seemingly are opposed to my proposal, here's the RfC.
What action, if any, should we do with the following class of articles that are about seasons of American football college teams? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should we move the Daily Express from "Generally unreliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to "Deprecated"? Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of CNET, following its purchase by Ziff Davis in October 2024:
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles
Should the text of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY be
|
| There is currently no rule regarding "[author] ([year])" citing within a sentence. Should there be? 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC) |
| this article contains the following quote “ Over the years that followed he added COVID conspiracies, MAGA support, open discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, lizard and paedophile conspiracies, alt-right propaganda, getting in bed with white supremacists and who knows what else by the time you read this introduction.” I believe that this is good enough to include in the overview section about what sinfest is about. We’ve been having a great deal of difficulty sourcing actual quotes about what it’s about, so this was hard to get. Another user believes since it’s a quote from a quote of an unreliable source, that it’s unusable, but I believe that since a reliable source quoted the unreliable source as fully accurate and true, at least in this case, it’s a good quote. Is the quote usable? Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC
| This RfC is to determine the consensus about (1) whether the current explanation of "self-published" in WP:SPS generally serves us well, perhaps with small improvements, or if it should be revised in some significant way, and (2) how editors interpret "self-published," in order to help us revise the explanation if needed. |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should WP:ATD-R be amended as follows:
|