Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/Discussion report

Discussion report

User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

Contribute —

By Pythoncoder

Discussions often result in improvements

This month has been a busy one for discussions on major topics. The following is an overview of what's been going on:

Is competence required?

In an attempt to change the status of

!votes

in support of the proposal, the essay page was subsequently promoted to 'supplement' status.

Event coordinator user right is coming

With the implementation of

WP:SNOW

.

On infoboxes

When do

ArbCom suggested this question should be discussed, a discussion popped up on the policy Village Pump

. The topic of the discussion was whether infoboxes should be included by default on most articles, on "broad classes of articles" or omitted from most articles. Most people agreed that there should not be a "default", and that we should stop discussing this over and over.

In a separate discussion, some users think data from

Wikimedia's raw data repository Wikidata could be used in infoboxes of articles. There's a wide variety of options as to how this would be implemented (if at all). The community is fairly evenly divided as to whether or not such a system should be implemented. The discussion can be found here

.

Reporting harassment

A discussion is ongoing to make it easier to report harassment on Wikipedia. The discussion is part of Wikipedia's community health initiative, which serves to reduce harassment.

Drafts to be deleted – in certain cases

The community decided in

notability criteria. This follow-up RfC proposes a revision to the information page on drafts saying that "A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion policy

." As of May 16, support !votes outnumber oppose ones by a factor of 4 to 1.

Portals are staying

And finally, the portal discussion that was the subject of the previous Discussion Report has now closed with a "strong consensus" against deleting portals or marking them as historical. However, as many users agree that portal reform is needed, more portal-related discussions are likely to take place in the coming months. Jimbo got in on the discussion too, suggesting on his talk page that we look at how portals are used on other language Wikipedias but not stating an opinion one way or another.

← Previous "Discussion report"

Next "Discussion report" →

In this issue

Discussion report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Event coordination request process went live, event permissions can be requested at
WP:PERM/EVC. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About