Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

This page is for discussion about the page Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Section size for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (18 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,812	1,812
Unnecessary delay in publishing articles translated for $$ by an NGO	67,788	76,528
arbitrary break (translated for $$)	8,680	8,680
Notes (translated for $$)	60	60
Policy against demands of proof of non-existence	15,658	15,658
WP:V relating to photographs	4,935	4,935
Are new rules needed for high-profile or previously contested proposals?	22,068	22,068
Extent of WP:CHANGELOG	7,510	7,510
Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs	20,534	29,609
Amending BADNAC?	9,075	9,075
Stricter policy for unregistered ipv6 users vs ipv4 users	1,120	7,029
Summary	5,909	5,909
Inappropriate use of templates?	725	725
I don't know where else to ask this & this might be a hornets' nest but here goes...	15,141	15,141
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)	772	772
The header for this page	3,777	3,777
User pages and Displaytitle	1,050	1,050
Copyvio revdel question	4,306	4,306
Total	190,920	190,920

« Archives, 1, 2

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Why can't registered users edit using blocked IP addresses?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Article titles written in Chinese

According to Wikipedia:Article titles (policy), "article titles are written using the English language". Why, then, are there over 200 articles with the title written in Chinese characters? See Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB, those are disambiguation pages and not articles per se. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand slightly on that, it is entirely permissible for a Chinese title to redirect to an English title, but this raises the obvious question of what to do when there are multiple equally plausible redirect targets, and no English-language equivalent covering all of them. BD2412 T 15:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only create a dab when the Chinese translation is a likely search term for multiple topics, such as Chinese surnames and places in China. If the Chinese terms for "apple" and "baker" happened to be similar, we wouldn't create a dab, because Chinese is not particularly relevant to either topic. Certes (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CP?

@Pecopteris when you wrote remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP, what were you referring to? I assume it wasn't WP:CP. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child pr0n. What's the context, is this being discussed elsewhere? Pecopteris (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have linked to WP:VPP#Language at WP:UPNOT. RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see the conversation is over. I think the RFC was poorly worded, frankly. It was a general question about a specific situation - removing another person's userbox that said "this user likes What is a Woman?", on the basis that such a userbox is "extremely offensive". While there was consensus for "no change" to UPNOT, there was also a consensus that the specific action taken (and justified by citing UPNOT) was not appropriate. I think the closure should have made note of that. Pecopteris (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:VPP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:VPP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Wikipedia:VPP until a consensus is reached. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

Please see Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Looking for some unofficial clerks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion

So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the header

The header for this Village pump begins with these words:

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page").

If you are interested in this, please see Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Official Sources as references

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Wikipedia.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]