Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

Currently, the policy states the following about appealing RevDel. "Actions performed using this tool remain visible in the public logs. They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus. As with other administrative tools, good judgment and appropriate use are expected; improper use can lead to sanctions or desysopping." Additionally, the section on misuse reads: "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." There was disagreement surrounding a recent discussion at ANI about how RevDel appeals should take place, and this RfC seeks to make the process more clear. ~ RobTalk 23:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Should all numerals (whether it's written in kanji, hiragana or Arabic/Roman numerals) be romanized when they occur in Japanese terms on articles? For example, … 1 … (…1…, … ichi …) as if one (一, ichi) were used instead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

I would like to propose adding the following sentence (or a variation thereof) to some place in the article: "You should try to avoid using a word that is in the religious slurs or ethnic slurs articles in a prominent place, such as the first sentence or as a subsection heading title as a description". Ninefive6 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy

As is well known, our rules are supposed to codify existing practice. The existing practice for WP:NOSHARE seems somewhat up in the air, and I'm wondering if the community wants codify this, or double down on the old practice, or what. Therefore I'm raising the a proposal for a change. This is an advisory RfC in that I don't have a strong opinion either way, I am just wanting to gauge the current state of community opinion on a rule that probably was written some time ago, and may have drifted from current practice. WP:NOSHARE currently reads: Any user account should represent an individual and not a group (and an individual should normally only have one user account; see next section). Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked. For accounts being used to represent a group or organization, see Promotional names and Usernames implying shared use above. Exceptions to this rule can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (see list), and bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus. Here is the proposed change, based on what may be new practice. I've bolded the changes just to highlight them for this RfC, I'm not proposing that they actually be bolded in the text of the rule. Any user account should represent an individual and not a group (and an individual should normally only have one user account; see next section). Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so may will result in the user being asked to stop the practice and change their password, or in sanctions (up to and including the account being blocked), depending on circumstances. For accounts being used to represent a group or organization, see Promotional names and Usernames implying shared use above. Exceptions to this rule can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (see list), and bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Glossary of video game terms

Should glossary items use level-two headers as opposed to pseudo-headers (bolded text)? G752V (talk • contributions) 08:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences

Hi, I stopped looking at this page after my previous WP:RFC ended because there were not enough people to warrant any change. I am now aware that multiple people have commented asking me to extend this WP:RFC and that it has been put on Phabricator ( Tracked in Phabricator Task T131177 ). I see on Phabricator that they are waiting for some new system to be made that will work better and be deployed be default on all wikis. It has been suggested to advertise in more places. I propose that we don't wait for Phabricator and change it on our wiki now. I am posting two surveys one for now waiting for Phabricator and one for the overall topic. Please see above for the previous discussion and background information. Here are some pictures of what MathML vs. PNG looks like in my browser (Google Chrome 52.0.2715.0 (Official Build) canary (64-bit)) Math from Quadratic Equation in MathML on a browser that supports MathML (although many browsers do not, see below for an example). Math from Quadratic Equation in PNG. (Also feel free to fix my spelling, grammar, wording or whatever to improve this WP:RFC) Hungryce (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Page mover

Tracked in Phabricator Task T133981 With thanks to everyone who provided input and insight, I would like to put forth a proposal to create the Wikipedia:Page mover permission. My suggestion is that page movers would receive suppressredirect (The ability to move pages without leaving behind a redirect) move-subpages (The ability to move subpages when moving their parent pages) tboverride (The ability to override the title blacklist) modified $wgRateLimits, allowing them to move pages more frequently than most users Add the ability for administrators to add/remove members from this new group. Add the ability for bureaucrats to add/remove members from this new group (corollary of previous). This userright would be especially useful to editors who assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves. –xenotalk 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.