Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 6 January 2024 (Protected "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report": old newspaper articles don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite))). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Discussion report

MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled

Finally a discussion report that doesn't make you feel like this.

This Discussion Report covers some of the debates on this great site of ours that were closed or archived from May 30, 2022 through June 2022. Three of them stood out as especially notable, which are as follows:

How to refer to China's Communist Party

On May 6th, Mx. Granger started a manual of style discussion on the use of the names "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" across Wikipedia articles. Editors discussed the justification behind allowing the use of either name, and others proposed alternatives such as "Chinese government". The conversation did not appear to reach any particular consensus despite decent participation, and as of the time of publishing is still open.

Deciding the fate of Administrative action review

A formal request for comment was initiated by Beeblebrox on June 14th to decide the fate of Administrative action review (a.k.a. XRV). The proposals centered around reviving it or retiring it and marking it as historical. After nearly a week of discussion, the RfC was closed with the consensus that the community would prefer to improve the process and fix the issues raised.

Mandatory draftification of poorly sourced articles

The village pump saw a suggestion on June 3rd that all articles not deletable under WP:BLPPROD having no sources in their history be moved to draftspace. It was opposed by 27 editors over the course of three weeks and closed by Thryduulf with "a strong consensus that mandatory draftification will either not improve or even harm the encyclopaedia".