Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

National varieties of English

There are dozens of articles that use colour and color, honour and honor, etc. Help:Using colours uses colour 44 times and color 27 times, and the spelling differences exist peacefully within the same article. They don't even argue or edit-war. Honor Guard also is an excellent example. The last time I looked at it, there were several infoboxes that used honor for a country that uses honour. I do not know how to change that. I am best at spelling and grammar. The ENGVAR issue is slowly resolving itself. Most of the colour/color articles use both varieties of spelling. My recommendation would be to get rid of the British flag/American flag on the Discussion page. Makes me cringe each time I see it because it looks like ownership. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'e proposing. Is it to do away with ENGVAR because it's not being followed? To apply it more programmatically so that it's being used consistently? I won't common on the "flags on the discussion page" point, since I'm delivering a neutral notice about a related RfC below.

Related RfC

Anyone interested (pro or con) in what User:Tiyang said above will probably want to weigh in at WT:Manual of Style#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

USPLACE

The most recent in a long series of unsuccessful proposals to change WP:USPLACE was followed in March by a conditional moratorium in which the administrative closer said, "consider this another perennial proposal." Would it be appropriate to consider it for formal inclusion in the list? Proposals to apply minimum disambiguation to USPLACE have certainly been long-running and unsuccessful; at the same time I'm sure there are many things that get repeatedly discussed and rejected, and not all may fit the list. Either way, I just wanted to raise it and get others' thoughts. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I added a sentence about how including the state makes it clear that the article is about an American town. I think that's an important aspect personally. Thoughts are appreciated. AgnosticAphid talk 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is it important to note that it's an American town and not a Canadian, Irish, or Liberian town?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally resolved issues

“ Some proposals which remained on this page for a long time have finally been proposed in a way which reached consensus ”

What are these? We should list them on this page. There might be some lessons about how to solve vexing problems. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit late but seconded. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Add the MOS FAQ points

The perennials listed at WT:Manual of Style/FAQ should probably be added here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about this. Given that no one's objected, I'll work on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:FLOW

As WP:FLOW work seems to be discontinued, shouldn't the references to FLOW be changed from "FLOW is expected to affect ...." to "FLOW would have affected ...."? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Social media buttons

It may be of interest to readers of this page that I have started an idea lab discussion regarding social media buttons. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Move maintenance tags to talk pages

see also Wikipedia_talk:Perennial proposals/Archive 1#Move maintenance tags to talk pages (October 2010)

I have re-written the section to state that there is no genera consensus over maintenance templates.

Prior to my edit it stated "*Reasons for previous rejection: Every reader is a potential editor and the maintenance tags give potential editors ideas of how to improve an article." this is clearly untrue. It is much more accurate to say There is no consensus on this issue. I have also highlighted what is to the best of my knowledge the only major RfC to take place over this issue Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page in the last quarter of 2013. If anyone knows of any other large scale RfC (say involving 20 or more people) then please add then to this section. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, with the exception of the added link to the orphan tag RFC. It seems to me that you are coming perilously close there to trying to water down the wording that is counter to your own minority POV that tags should be moved to talk pages. I also see you tried to so this same sort of thing here a few years ago and were reverted then too. Anomie⚔ 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Anomie what is your evidence that the current wording is accurate? -- PBS (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus last time seems to support the current wording. It seems to me that you're trying to define "large scaled RfC" to exclude almost every past past discussion so that you can cast doubt on the fact that the community has consistently rejected such proposals. Anomie⚔ 18:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Anomie. You say "community has consistently rejected such proposals"

1. What do you mean by "community?"
2. If "consistently [rejected]" then how do you explain away the Orphan RfC?
3. If rejected then you will have examples where there has been rejection as opposed to no consensus. Please list some with links to the archive or diffs.

-- PBS (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please give some linkgive diffs or links to RfCs where there has been "rejection" as opposed to no consensus. -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Automated Hostbot welcome messages

Some time after I started editing Wikipedia recently, I received an 'invitation to the Teahouse' on my talk page from Hostbot. I'm not taking a stance for or against these automated notifications, but they are very similar to a welcoming bot. I also received welcome notifications when I joined, and when I made my first and tenth edits. Worth a mention in the welcoming bot section? Teratix (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Spinning out the core admin tools (blocks, deletion, protection)

Probably deserves a section on here. I know there's an essay around talking about these three as the three core tools. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Izno The existing Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures would seem to cover it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Am blind. Thanks! --Izno (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

US places

The section on US place names currently addresses proposals to loosen WP:USPLACE so "unambiguous" place name articles no longer carry the state name (e.g. changing Missoula, Montana to Missoula. I think it should also address proposals to make the convention stricter and apply it to all or most articles. Every now and then, someone proposes a title like "New York, New York" or "Chicago, Illinois". I think the usual arguments are that all place names are inherently ambiguous or that there are historical or sociopolitical reasons for a stricter comma convention, such as maintaining the federal character of the United States. How about this?

State name in US place names

• Proposals:
  • Change WP:USPLACE (the "comma convention") to remove the state from the titles of articles about unambiguously-named US places. Example: Missoula, Montana → Missoula.
  • Make the "comma convention" stricter: require the state name in all or most titles, even widely recognized cities with unambiguous names. Example: Denver → Denver, Colorado.
• Reasons for previous rejection:
  • Reliable sources commonly append the state to US place names, but do so less often for widely recognized places.
  • Appending the state name for lesser-known cities, and omitting it for major cities, is common usage and sufficiently natural that it may be considered part of American English.
  • Repeated or otherwise ambiguous place names are very common in the US; a majority would require disambiguation regardless of WP:USPLACE. Appending the state produces a consistent and predictable set of titles.
  • Not disambiguating by state would affect the titles of articles about places in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, where disambiguation is not common (see for example Manchester, England; and Manchester, New Hampshire).
  • Including the state makes it clear that the article is about a US municipality, which can be helpful with lesser known places.
  • Twenty-nine significant US cities do not carry the state name per AP style. In the early days of Wikipedia, all US place names carried the state name; even the New York City article was at "New York, New York". When the state was removed from a few major cities' article titles, contentious move request discussions and page move wars arose. After years of discussion, consensus finally arose to use the AP Stylebook as a reference, and to limit the removal of the state name only to those cases.

Any suggestions? szyslak (t) 04:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of returning to a strict "city, state" format for all US place names. You mention "widely recognized cities with unambiguous names" and give Denver as an example where the "city, state" formation is not needed, but Denver is NOT an unambiguous place name in the US (see Denver, North Carolina among others). --Khajidha (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Perennial proposals which succeeded

The top of page alludes to the fact that some perennial proposals have succeeded. Are there examples? Would it be of interest to add a footnote with links to at least a couple of them? -sche (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on my observation of thousands of refimprove templates, inline citations are a de facto standard. I find it laughable that this is still in "perennial proposals", and think that what's become a joke should be removed. RobDuch (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Voluntary account verification

I think that this has probably been intensely debated before, but i was unable to find a relevant discussion, and hence this discussion. What my proposal is; that users who want to have their accounts verified should be allowed to do so (like Citizendium). If they want to contribute anonymously, they can just sign out and do so. One benefit i can think of is that contributers with knowledge in technical topics such as natural sciences, engineering etc can be identified and their contributions can be easily idetified as reliable. Any reccomendations and counter arguments are welcome. :) SarthakKas1 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)