Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion's instructions and user scripts were recently changed from placing new entries at the top, to placing new entries at the bottom. Should we revert to old way (new entries on top), or keep the new way (new entries on bottom)? Changing involves updating multiple pages and user scripts, so let's get a clear consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Roberto González Echevarría

Should this biography of a living person contain information on sexual harassment allegations and/or workplace conduct cases, as mentioned in the following articles from the Yale Daily News: [1], [2], [3]? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

I screwed up and erroneously contested a reasonable CSD over the redirect Mike Hart (outfieldr, born 1951), instead causing it to be sent to RFD, wasting other editors' time. I did this because R3 contains the phrase "Implausible typo", which leads to the idea that plausible typos (such as forgetting a letter, as was the case in the CSD I contested) should be kept, or at least sent to RFD. After Tamzin (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) told me about what I did wrong, I cast my non-vote as Delete and then proceeded to type this up.

Overall, the word "Typo" in R3 implies that redirects that are NOT plausible, intentional search terms, but are still likely to be accidentally typed, should be kept. This is not the case, and as such, I think we should remove the term "Typo" from the page. This both reduces confusion and sets a clear precedent for dealing with such redirects, as they are now "Implausible Misnomers" and can therefore be deleted. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Is the amount of criticism in this article excessive or warranted? (For more info, see this archive.) Veilure (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability

Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

This is a proposal to explicitly permit the use of dash-separated titles for sports events, where such a construction is presently inconsistent with WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

There is a current discrepancy between how WP: V covers self published sources for BLP's and how WP: BLP covers self published sources for BLP's.

The current text on WP:V (at WP:SPS) is Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The current text on WP:BLP (at WP:BLPSPS) is Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The key difference being WP: V says "as third-party sources" and WP: BLP saying "as sources of material".

The question is should we change the text of one to match the other, and if so which one.

Option A No change to either policy text

Option B Change WP: BLP to match WP: V

Option C Change WP: V to match WP: BLP

Option D Some other change

--Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Should MOS:SIR be updated to explicitly state that Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the name field of the infobox? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)