Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Proposal re user RFCs
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closure of RfCs. Guy 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!
This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[[1]], the free dictionary online[[2]]., the U.S. census[[3]], and the British census[[4]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[5]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[6]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC rules question
User:Ryulong created an RfC against User:Masterhatch and invited me to view it. I have had the same issues with Masterhatch as Ryulong has. The RfC rules seem to say:
- The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.
I already signed myself in "users certifying the basis of the dispute" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Masterhatch. But do I need to add evidence of trying and failing to resolve the situation myself? I have had arguments with Masterhatch about this previously, but I think Ryulong already provided enough evidence. JIP | Talk 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] does anyone read RfC/politics??
There are disputes listed under the RfC/politics page that are over a month old. I posted one less than a week ago so perhaps I'm being impatient, but does anyone actually bother to look at this page or visit articles that have been RfCd? Is there an easier way to get additional voices to comment on a particular article?--csloat 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Listings usually don't end up getting removed even if an issue is resolved, so the length of the list or the age of the entries does not mean that no one is looking at it or that problems aren't being resolved. Many people do look at these articles and visit the pages. One reason why people would be uninterested in looking at an issue is if the issue is not simply and clearly described with a link to a section that is directly linked from the RfC ([7]). Few will want to respond if they get the feeling they will have to read the whole discussion on the talk page and still might not know what the problem is. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RFC in the middle of an AFD?
An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world.
I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I'm posting the same question at AFD talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a major problem if someone wants to summon comments in a neutral way like RfC (rather than, e.g., spamming like-minded users on their talk pages), unless it were to become widespread where RfC is not used for its purpose. An RfC will not supersede the AfD. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] All parties
The rules state:
- After all parties agree the issue has been resolved
but who are the all parties concerned? If someone -- one of the editors originally involved in the dispute -- does not participate in the RFC, can this editor claim that he did not agree and ignore the RFC consensus? Goldfritha 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is more a housekeeping matter, that items should not be stricken from the list of RfCs if people do not agree that the issue is resolved; they are removed after a few weeks regardless. If someone is ignoring consensus on an article, that may require administrator intervention or escalation of the dispute. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- What article is it? —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on Wizard (fantasy) on Monday, and User:Jc37, the other editor, has made no comments in it, although making other edits on the article. Because this editor has ignored things said in the discussion page until I made edits based on them, and then reverted the edits and only then responded in discussion -- I thought I would like to know what is the Right Thing to Do before I need to know. Goldfritha 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- To be more precise, I wanted to know whether -- granting that a consensus is reached -- I could edit accordingly. Goldfritha 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on Wizard (fantasy) on Monday, and User:Jc37, the other editor, has made no comments in it, although making other edits on the article. Because this editor has ignored things said in the discussion page until I made edits based on them, and then reverted the edits and only then responded in discussion -- I thought I would like to know what is the Right Thing to Do before I need to know. Goldfritha 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- What article is it? —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, he didn't notice it because it was placed at the top of the page; I have moved it to the bottom. If you reach a consensus, you should make the appropriate edits; it should at least get the person to notice and respond. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. We can hope it will work. Goldfritha 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Is it proper for another editor to add a RFC to a different list? I had made a RFC in Nun and listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, and the other editor listed it, again, on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Goldfritha 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's fine for another user to list it in another section; in general such cross-posting should be kept to a minimum though. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reworking some of the categories
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics is perpetually empty or nearly empty, and articles about Carnatic music or Ernest Hemingway do not belong alongside articles about CNN and Eminem, so I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature should be split into something like "Popular culture" and "Literature, art, and language", or instead the 'serious' subjects can simply be merged into History? —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be separated. Though I think just creating an Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games page should be enough. I also think we should leave Language and Linguistics separate, even if it's a typically small section. - jc37 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That is, people posting RfCs brings a lot of traffic to the page which then responds to the RfC. If no one posts, no one is there to respond to the stray RfC either. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in looking them over:
- I still think that Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games should be created as its own sub-section.
- split history and geography into:
-
- Physical geography and political boundaries (such as countries) - Open to suggestions for a better name. Essentially it's what would be found in an atlas, plus geographical/geological themes.
- History.
- Merge history with art and literature, and language and linguistics (three now smaller but related groupings).
- Thoughts and suggestions welcome. : ) - jc37 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- For electronic media, why not just calling "popular culture" or "Media and popular culture", that's a simpler title and is basically equivalent to what's meant by electronic media, without making it sound like the technical specifications of the Internet Protocol should be in this category.
- For geography, are there really enough articles for this category?
- Merging history with art and literature, etc. makes sense. After all, it's all history if it's not contemporary culture. —Centrx→talk • 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Devilmaycares RfC
I've moved the Devilmaycares RfC into the candidate pages, because it would appear that only 1 user has certified the dispute. As it happens, the RfC is also over the 48 hours. Addhoc 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
