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
| Currently 66 pages are listed at Category:Pretty Cure. It is my view that changing one page, but not the others, will result in confusion to users and editors alike. Presently, reliable sources have no consensus on whether "Pretty Cure" or "PreCure" are used. There are three possible choices: leave pages at present names, use "PreCure" instead of "Pretty Cure" for all "Pretty Cure" pages, or evaluate the name of each page separately as to whether "PreCure" or "Pretty Cure" should be used in page titles. Historyday01 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch.
— LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:NMG#Concert tours ). Instead, information about notable tours and festivals should be incorporated into either the artist's page, or the album article for which the tour is supporting. Do not list all dates here, instead mention the range of dates (ex. June–September 1992)".
Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch.
— LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have a discussion-only period at the beginning of RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Talk:Deep state in the United States
| Does the WP:WEIGHT of the currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk ) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
| Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. --19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
| Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. --19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
WikiProjects and collaborations
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Wikipedia proposals
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have a discussion-only period at the beginning of RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
| Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process
| Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. --19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
| Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. --19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
| Would it be good to have clearer guidelines on the usage of the "criminal charges" parameter? Criminal charges appear to be much like wedding engagements. They are short-lived preludes to longterm events: Convictions or marriages (write your own joke :)
Considering charges can be dropped against someone, would making the guidelines clearer to limit charges to only those that actually resulted in criminal prosecution? (Whether acquitted or found guilty.) If not, what examples could there be of someone having a lead-level fact relating to a criminal charge that was dropped and didn't result in criminal proceedings (that are not currently ongoing)? 92.12.76.138 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox criminal
| The guideline currently states that the "criminal_charges" parameter is "What the criminal is accused of (note that this is different from what the criminal is -- later -- convicted of)". Obviously the person can't be a criminal if they've only been accused of a crime, or even charged with one. However this Infobox seems to be restricted to use with notable convicted criminals. So this would imply that "criminal_charges" in this case relates solely to crimes they are currently wanted for (ie. which they have not been tried for yet).
I think there's a chance this parameter could be used to list charges that did not lead to convictions after being processed in the legal system (either because they were dropped, dismissed or otherwise found not-guilty). A short note could help clarify the correct use cases: "What the criminal is currently wanted to be tried for. Do not list charges that were dropped, dismissed or which went to trial and did not lead to conviction." 2A00:23EE:2848:15B0:E196:F555:C031:6D7C (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |