Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/Discussion report

The following is a brief overview of new discussions taking place on the English Wikipedia. For older, yet possibly active, discussions please see last week's edition.

Does newsworthy mean noteworthy?
At Wikipedia talk:Notability John Kenney sought clarification over the meaning of guidance that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article". Jinnai offered the opinion that it related to "stuff like late-night sports highlights on the all the professional games that were played that day, annoucements for stuff like space shuttle launching, and tabloids specifically go out to sensationalize trivial events" [sic]. However, S Marshall countered that "A reliable source is a reliable source, and if there are several of them, the article passes the GNG." Gavin.collins argued that "Notability is about which topics should be included in Wikipedia as standalone topics, and sometimes news articles on their own don't provide sufficient coverage to provide information to provide context to the reader." The debate turned to whether coverage of individual sports matches would allow for the creation of an article on that match. Gavin.collins argued that while "loads of coverage can be found for one match ... I still think rountine news reports (no matter how long) are more or less a primary source" [sic]. Masem said "(w)hen an event occurs, even if it has much coverage that day, it is difficult to ascertain if that event is truly notable to gain an article". S Marshall countered that "what makes something significant (i.e. notable) is the fact that it's been noted in reliable sources. Why should any other judgment of "significance", apart from the reliability of the sources, matter?"

Polling
''A round up of polls spotted by your writer in the last seven days or so, bearing in mind of course that voting is evil. You can suggest a poll for inclusion, preferably including details as to how the poll will be closed and implemented, either on the tip line or by directly editing the next issue.''
 * A poll/discussion is underway regarding whether uninvolved administrators should have the ability to impose sanctions on any editor working in an area of conflict where that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The poll is inspired by a remedy passed by the arbitration committee at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley.

Briefly

 * At Wikipedia talk:Notability, John Kenney has asked whether the current definition of notability is "actually supported by consensus?"
 * Discussion on whether to deprecate dates in the format of 03/04/2005 is under-way at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * Two rewrites of the Manual of Style have been proposed to address concerns over the length of the current manual. In alphabetical order, they are User:A. di M./MOSNUM and User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style

Requests for comment
Fourteen Requests for comment have been made in the week of 14–20 September:


 * Requests for comment/A Nobody 20 September 2009
 * Talk:Conspiracy theory 20 September 2009
 * Talk:Human biodiversity 18 September 2009
 * Talk:Max Boot 17 September 2009
 * Talk:The Fatima UFO Hypothesis 16 September 2009
 * Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 16 September 2009
 * Talk:Palestinian political violence 16 September 2009
 * Talk:Nuclear optimism 15 September 2009
 * Talk:Quantum mysticism 15 September 2009
 * Talk:List of channels on Virgin TV 15 September 2009
 * Talk:Carmen Miranda 16 September 2009
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations 15 September 2009
 * Talk:Mark Kirk 15 September 2009
 * Talk:Caracas 14 September 2009