Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

Does WP:GNG allow for album reviews containing substantive, in-depth analysis to ground the notability of a song article, or does the categorical prohibition in WP:NSONG apply?

If a song article has substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources, but they are all album reviews, it can still be notable under WP:GNG despite plainly failing WP:NSONG. WP:NSONG should be modified to remove the prohibition on album reviews to establish notability, and refer to WP:SIGCOV.
A song being substantively covered across multiple reliably-sourced album reviews is not a sufficient basis for notability—a notable song should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. NSONG should be clarified as superseding GNG for songs.
No change is necessary and the current wording of WP:NSONG is sufficiently clear (please explain your rationale).

Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability

Should the term "notability" be replaced with the term "suitability" (as in "a suitable topic") or "eligibility" (as in "an eligible topic"), over a transitional period, in order to reduce newcomer confusion? During the three-month transitional period, the new term would be mentioned as an alternative. Then, it would replace the old term in policies and guidelines, and "notability" would be mentioned as an alternative. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability

Can we adopt re-classify this informal essay on notability of newspapers as a formal Wikipedia:Guideline?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability→ Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers)

Having a guideline for notability of newspapers addresses the challenge of supporting recent increased interest in developing Wikipedia's relationship with fact-checking, journalism, reliable media, and newspapers in particular.

One existing closely related guideline is for books. Here is that, and several comparable essays for media.

Bluerasberry (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages

Should the following be added as a section at Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages?, which allows editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Vasojevi?i

Which version on the Origins section better reflects the sources neutrally and accurately, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:V) policies? Aeengath (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Should the WP:DYKFICTION guideline apply to mythology, religious stories (for example, stories from the Old Testament or the New Testament), or folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: Add the tag `{{rfc\|xxx}}` at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, `{{rfc\|xxx\|yyy}}`, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.