Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

Clarification of Policy vs. Other
This close in AfD was interesting: Articles for deletion/List of heraldic charges. There are many, including myself, who quote WP's without knowing which are policy and which are guidelines (or essays etc.). Why not have a different naming system to differentiate between then, such as WPP: (for policy), WPG: (for guidance), and WPE (for essays)? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would require creating new namespaces. In principle I'm not against it, but I don't think it will change anything; we'll just have a redirect from WP:V to WPP:V, and most would continue using WP:V because that is what they are used to. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but it feels like not being able to separate a policy from other types of WP:'s should be a big deal? I'm not sure everybody knows the difference (myself included). Maybe we could do it by changing the colors? 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone really knows the difference; the best we have is WP:POLCON. The difference between the manual of style vs. guidelines is even worse defined.
 * What do you mean by changing the color? BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, the MoS a guideline; it's why it has a guideline template at the top of it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I do think that knowing the difference is of value. By color, I mean that when some links to a policy (i.e. WP:V), that it would come up as say a green-link (instead of a blue link)?  That might might be a quick improvement? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing the link colours is probably a bad idea. Changing the colour of the box a the top of the page (Policy, MoS guideline) might be worth considering. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the first part; various user scripts and user CSS already do all kinds of link-coloration jobs (redirects in green, links to disambiguation pages in orange, etc.), and people are doing this stuff on a very individual basis. The only thing they've ever had to work around is blue for a link to an article, purple for same but already visited, and red for link to missing page. Introducing more would break all the existing customization stuff. On the latter point, I'm skeptical this is a good idea, because various things that had a guideline tag slapped on them by a wikiproject probably should instead have  (a subclass of essay), because they only reflect a "local consensus" of a small number of editors; meanwhile, there are various essays that have the overwhelming support of the community (WP:BRD, WP:ROPE, etc.), but remains essays because they are not written as guidelines but in essay style. For a system like this proposal to work, pretty much every WP:-namespace page would have to be carefully evaluated for whether it is classified correctly, and some would need to be completely rewritten to change classification categories to reflect their actual level of community consensus buy-in. I think it's just going to remain a fact of wikilife that our documentation structure is complex and not perfectly consistent, and has a learning curve.  PS: Another issue is WP:IAR and similar concerns: there are plenty of times when the literal word of a particular policy is moderated in some particular, narrow way by principles laid out in a guideline or even an essay, but people would ignore such subtleties and just retreat to "my position wins because I cited a policy and you cited only a guideline and an essay" counterproductive thinking (not to mention that one's interpretation of the policy might be completely wrong). We already have too much of a habit of just citing a shortcut as if that explains everything, and we would not want to reinforce that bad habit with a new layer of imprimatur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Article titles written in Chinese
According to Article titles (policy), "article titles are written using the English language". Why, then, are there over 200 articles with the title written in Chinese characters? See Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @WWGB, those are disambiguation pages and not articles per se. — Qwerfjkl  talk  10:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to expand slightly on that, it is entirely permissible for a Chinese title to redirect to an English title, but this raises the obvious question of what to do when there are multiple equally plausible redirect targets, and no English-language equivalent covering all of them. BD2412  T 15:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We only create a dab when the Chinese translation is a likely search term for multiple topics, such as Chinese surnames and places in China. If the Chinese terms for "apple" and "baker" happened to be similar, we wouldn't create a dab, because Chinese is not particularly relevant to either topic. Certes (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

CP?
@Pecopteris when you wrote remove content that is illegal or discusses things that are illegal like CP, what were you referring to? I assume it wasn't WP:CP. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Child pr0n. What's the context, is this being discussed elsewhere? Pecopteris (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have linked to WP:VPP. RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see the conversation is over. I think the RFC was poorly worded, frankly. It was a general question about a specific situation - removing another person's userbox that said "this user likes What is a Woman?", on the basis that such a userbox is "extremely offensive". While there was consensus for "no change" to UPNOT, there was also a consensus that the specific action taken (and justified by citing UPNOT) was not appropriate. I think the closure should have made note of that. Pecopteris (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:VPP" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VPP&redirect=no Wikipedia:VPP] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  14:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Page size
Please see Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion
So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change the header
The header for this Village pump begins with these words:

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Wikipedia is not page").

If you are interested in this, please see Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding Official Sources as references
Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Wikipedia.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts like whether that airport has certain flights. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner  talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)