Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Should the following be added to the 'Immediate failures' section of the good article criteria?

6. It contains obvious evidence of LLM use, such as AI-generated references or remnants of AI prompt.

Proposed after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#AI. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I propose to amend Wikipedia:Administrator recall, specifically the first paragraph of the section on requests for re-adminship, as follows:

Addition: "Administrators may choose to further delay running in an RRFA or administrator election by up to 6 months after the recall petition is closed: they will be temporarily desysopped in the interim upon declaring such an intention. The temporary desysop will be reversed if they retain adminship within 6 months by the means described below: otherwise it is made permanent."

Removal: "; they may grant slight extensions on a case-by-case basis"

Sandbox diff for clarity.

19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

English Wikipedia's recall process was largely based on German Wikipedia's recall process, but it has played out differently here than it did on German Wikipedia. Now that we've had 10 recall petitions it seems like a good time to examine the process. Support 1 or more of the following:

  1. Process is working well, no changes needed
  2. There should be some way of enabling support for the admin during the petition phase
  3. There should be fewer signatures needed
  4. There should be more signatures needed
  5. 30 days is too long, the petition process should be shorter
  6. 30 days is too short, the petition process should be longer
  7. Keep recall, but develop a different process than petition leading to a re-RFA
  8. Keep recall, but do some other change to how re-RFA works
  9. Keep recall, but do some other change to how the petition works
  10. Recall should be abolished
  11. Prohibit admins from !voting in RFCs to amend recall

When closing the closer is encouraged to think about overall support relative to participation in the RfA (e.g. if 5 people support Foo, 10 people support the opposite of Foo, and 30 people didn't support either but participate elsewhere, the consensus may be no change rather than opposite of Foo) and where a bartender's close may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP

Which option should be used to fix the technical limitations that will prevent us from expanding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (RSP)?

RSP currently lists about 500 sources, with a growth rate of about 50 new entries per year. With the current format, the page has reached the WP:PEIS template limits. Only templates within the limits are displayed; templates (and their contents) past that point on the page are not displayed. We need to restructure RSP to reduce the PEIS problem and accommodate more entries.

Editors have identified three main approaches to solving this problem. We are calling these three options "One giant table", "List of subpages", and "Row-building module". All options have advantages and disadvantages. Before we invest more hours in developing the options, we want to know which option is most appealing to the community. 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There have been some perennial discussions about removal of |slogan= from various infoboxes, but I could not find a case that discussed making WP:SLOGAN essentially policy.

In recent years, the slogan parameter has been removed from {{Infobox bus company}}, {{Infobox airline}} and the widely used {{Infobox company}} (see the MANY discussions about removing it from Infobox company).

Now WP:SLOGAN is just an essay which I know many people object to, but hence the reason for this RFC. I encourage everyone to read the essay but here are the key points (This is copied from WP:SLOGAN)

Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:

Per this search there are at least 37 infoboxes that have some form of slogan in them. The question is should all of those be removed? This does not mean that slogans cannot be mentioned in the body of an article, that is another conversation about whether they meet notability and are encyclopedic. My question is purely do they belong in the infobox?

In addition to this, what about mottos? It seems as though they are used rather interchangeably in Infoboxes... This search shows at least 72 infoboxes with a motto type parameter. Should some of those be removed? Personally I'd say keep it for settlement type infoboxes, but the way it is used on {{Infobox laboratory}} or {{Infobox ambulance company}}, it is performing the same functionality as a slogan and has the same issues.

Look forward to everyone's thoughts! - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_proposals&oldid=1318919212"