Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-11/Discussion report

Discussion report

WebCite proposal; request for adminship reform

Contribute —

WebCite proposal: Link rot is a problem for references on Wikipedia. WebCite is currently used to prevent linkrot by providing archives of the links. However, WebCite will stop accepting links if its fundraising goals aren't met, so concerned editors started a proposal for the Wikimedia Foundation to take over the WebCite service.
Adjusting "Era style" section in MOS:NUM: An adjustment to the dates and numbers section of the manual of style is under discussion. This adjustment would aim to end the editwarring that occurs due to confusing wording.

Request for Adminship reform: The request for adminship process is currently under discussion. This is intended to find out the problems with the process and figure out solutions.
Article feedback: As the scheduled date for full release of the article feedback approaches, users are being asked for their input on concerns regarding the tool.
Meaning of "ambiguous": Currently ambiguous is defined as, "when [a single term] refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." When it comes to disambiguation pages what does the word ambiguous really mean?
Stephen King's signature: Signatures of living people are sometimes used on articles. A concern was brought up that Stephen King's signature was being used for forgeries. A discussion regarding the use of signatures was opened.
Recurring items in the news: Currently there is a notable Recurring items list for the In the news section. This contains a list of pre-approved notable events that would be included in the news section. However, users believe that the list no longer serves its original purpose.
Shared accounts for use by minors: A discussion regarding the editing of Wikipedia by elementary students under direction of their teacher. What should be done about the policy of not sharing accounts?
Failing Good Articles: A change of wording regarding what makes an article automatically fail the standards of the good article review is under discussion.

In this issue

To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.