This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

June 2017

Religion in officeholder infoboxes

Resolved

– Got an admin to deal with it.

Should we remove from Template:Infobox officeholder the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?. --Anandmoorti (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think so, per the WP:VPPOL RfCs removing those parameters, across the board, from all infoboxes in which their inclusion was not vital to the nature of the infobox because it is for a religious leader, and where its use could be confusing or PoV, which is certainly going to be the case with politicians. It was in fact that very use (at Bernie Sanders) that triggered the RfC to be held in the first place. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anandmoorti: PS, you could start the conversation there simply by copy-pasting the above post and reponse to the template's talk page, if you didn't want to open a more formal proposal. I would suggest not to just go remove the parameters, or it will probably cause a predictable shitstorm. There are many people convinced (wrongly in my view) that religion is a vital parameter in politician templates, and they need to be out-argued the long way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Will you please remove that religion= parameter in the Template:Infobox officeholder because I don't have access to that page. Neither no one has made any comments regarding this issue Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Religion_in_officeholder_infoboxes. Therefore its my humble request please you take up this issue and resolve it. There are numerous article where no sources have been provided on religion of that person yet editor have mentioned them. Moreover its difficult to get sources.--Anandmoorti (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable doing that as a non-admin, for reasons I've summarized at that template's talk page. The TemplateEditor bit is for doing technical work, not making policy- or consensus-determination decisions – even in a case like this, where there's a strong consensus record. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?

Done

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pharmacies

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pharmacies. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-US2

Done

– Merged their functionality of the first two into their parent templates, and supported deletion of the stand-alone versions. For the later-nominated ones, also suggested merging, but they should be kept otherwise.

Template:Lang-en-US2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-GB2

Template:Lang-en-GB2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-NZ

Template:Lang-en-NZ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-AU

Template:Lang-en-AU has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Language with name2

Template:Language with name2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy

Done

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blockbuster LLC

Done

– I closed this one.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blockbuster LLC. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of events related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

New and expanded research accounts
Global branches update
Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether to discuss, propose, or not at Wikipedia talk:Notability

I read your response to the closure. (Well, a joint closure per my request at WP:AN.) Seems that GNG or topic-specific guidelines still need improvement. The matter can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability; your last visit to the page was the 2015 discussion. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's the right ultimate venue. The purpose of my post to was to encourage those those care most to take that action; I'm tired of seeing VPPOL RfCs ending in no or partial consensus and then usually result in no followup to resolve them [further], sometimes for years. Gotta prod people. I'm not sure I'm the best one to write up a proposal on this at WT:NOTABILITY; I'm not an AfD regular, and really don't pay much attention to deletion. It's a "sexy" part of WP for a lot of people, but not me. I understand the policies and guidelines, but others are more steeped in it and will be able to formulate language to include/change with less likelihood of it being rejected on some technicality. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

Done

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Jamerson

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Jamerson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Dogs!

I was waiting for your response, Mac. I was also expecting something from out-of-left-field, and you did not disappoint! Some will query my motives. If so, they have probably not read my second paragraph where I said: The "View history" log also reveals that over time, one person or another comes along and focuses on furthering the project but then after a year or two then moves on. I have contributed to this project for over 2 years, and it is almost time to move on, back to my ice age wolves! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@William Harris: Not sure what this is in reference to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

OH, right, the WikiProject Dogs thing. Well, yes. People do come and go, but the articles remain, and projects that seem mostly moribund can still serve a purpose. I'm thinking, for example, of WP:CUE which has ground to a halt, was always mostly just me and one other guy, and which produced Glossary of cue sports terms (the largest such article on WP), and a notability guideline, and a stable categorization scheme, and a topical manual of style, and good articles (and some Good Articles and Featured Articles), and new templates like {{Rp}} and the {{Glossary}} family for use by everyone, and much else, all of which still serve us well, even if people don't use the wikiproject's talk page much any longer. Various wikiprojects tagged as inactive become active again later. Others upmerge into a parent project. Others just sit there. Sometimes it takes some new blood to come up with reasons to start a project back up and do something new. If the topic is narrow enough, its work may also largely become "done" without much left for an organized project to do, but provide some resources like "how to write an article about [topic]" and some template links and such. It's all good. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mac, and your last comment on the project page comes with good timing and gets us all back on track. I fear that we shall get no more comments. If so, I do not think we have the numbers to form a consensus to do anything further. At the end of the two weeks, if this is still the case I would like to call upon your knowledge of WP:POL to adjudicate. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the goal? Different peeps have different views on whither this should go. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

Done

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I've commented at the discussion. However, I don't think this constitutes a neutral notice as called for by WP:RFC and WP:CANVASS. "Attempt" and "overturn" are loaded wording, and you are making a strong con case against the proposal, presenting evidence and your subjective reasoning (which which I agree, BTW), not just notifying people of a discussion. A neutral notice would have read something like "Since you commented in a previous RfC on the matter, you may be interested in the discussion [link here], which is revisiting some aspects of the RfC [link here] and RfC [link here]." The end. I used to write "activistic" notices like this myself, and got raked over the coals for it. Learn from my mistakes. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Point well taken. I will take extra care next time. And I do appreciate the criticism. Not quite as much as I would have appreciated not screwing up in the first place, :( but still very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

NP. The main reason I bring it up isn't to be critical, but suggestive of strategy. I've learned the hard way that RfCs can be derailed by claims of non-neutral canavassing, and people will often care more about appearances than intent. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabolous

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabolous. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)