Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

Talk:Kiznaiver

With respect to the characters section, should it be trimmed to just one sentence per the relevant guidelines at WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles

Should we merge the headings in the article or keep them? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Following the discussion above here and via the prior, withdrawn-for-revision RfC here, am proposing a revised version.

Should the following paragraph be added to What Wikipedia Is Not? Jytdog (talk) Changed date to 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

See Category:Lists of airline destinations.

These 444 pages are lists of every single city each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of Wikipedia is not a directory? 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

All right, since the point has been raised (in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2) that it's difficult to close a reconfirmation RFA within existing policy without invoking IAR, let's see if we can come up with some wording. I propose the following, to be included in WP:RFA#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures.

If an administrator files a request for adminship (commonly known as reconfirmation) without resigning the administrator user right first, the RFA should proceed as if it was any other request. When determining consensus, the closing bureaucrat should review it as if the admin had resigned before the RFA for the purposes of determining community support. If the closing bureaucrat determines that the request has failednot succeeded, they are authorized to consider this as a self-request for removal of permissions and proceed as specified in the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats policy. If they determine that the request has succeeded, it shall be considered a successful request for adminship.

If the administrator withdraws from the RFA before the bureaucrat begins the closing process, then regardless of the current state of the discussion, it shall be closed with no further action taken.

I think this will resolve most of the issues short of howdareyouwasteourtimedoingthis. I'm not happy with allowing withdrawing before close, but I don't see any good way to handle it short of major rewriting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Noticed we had a few editwars over links removed from "See also" sections because the links were in the footer template (pointing here for validations). I think our rule on this needs updating as 50% plus of our readers dont see footers because of mobile view limitations. Think its best we remove the bold text as outdated that makes navigation harder for our mobile readers.--Moxy (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines be moved to WP:Manual of Style/Video games, as part of the MoS?

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Is the ARC 100 a notable and reliable record chart for Croatia? Abi-Maria (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Based on the above proposal and leaving out point number 2. Should we do the following?

Under "Becoming an administrator" after the 2nd paragraph as a separate paragraph include:

"Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay."

And under "Misuse of administrative tools" as the 3rd sentence in the 1st paragraph, include

"Administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Be bold

Therefore I would like to suggest two additions: The first one says how not to use WP:BB, the second one says that instead slapping someone with WP:BB, with possible subsequent further bickering, you better boldly edit yourself.

(shortcut: WP:NOTBOLD) Being bold is not compulsory: People may have valid reasons for not being bold: one may have not enough time or expertise, one may be unsure in their criticism and wanting more feedback, etc. Therefore a reference to this guideline should not be used as a reprimand for something not done.

[author's comment: I suppressed my urge to dwell more on the last statement: possible exceptions (e.g. when validly discussing someone's (mis)behavior) or consequences, such as hurt feelings of the criticized.]

(shortcut: WP:BOLDBACK) Being bold works both ways: If you meet with a non-boldness, just fix the article yourself, and readers will see a better article much sooner. After that you may write in the talk page something like: "Thank you for pointing the issue out. I fixed it. Next time please be bold and don't hesitate to fix the problem yourself".

[author's comment: I did this quite a few times as a follow-up when IP readers report in talk page some weirdness in an article.]

Since this is a non-trivial addition, I am askin for extra opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)