This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision What sources are considered reliable sources for Eurovision articles, in particular is the ESCKaz website a reliable source?
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Should WP:MOS be prescriptive, or should it be a guideline, as defined in WP:POL?
- Talk:Felony disenfranchisement Disagreement over style
- User:MSJapan/Freemasonry MOS I'm worried that this is becoming a proxy to put a certain view of Freemasonry as the norm across Wikipedia. It also seems redefine policies, particularly WP:BLP (by extending it to all people, living and dead). JASpencer (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death - Is it desirable for dates of birth and death at the top of biography articles to be linked to the corresponding "day" and "year" pages; or should such links be removed? -- Jheald (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on ESCKaz reliability What sources are considered reliable sources for Eurovision articles, in particular is the ESCKaz website a reliable source? The ESCKaz website is [1]. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I opened voting on wording for template:weasel, here. BrewJay (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Should software articles include wikified Changelogs? [2][3][4][5] chocolateboy (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: User chocolateboy (despite his/her impressive history of contributions to wikipedia) has repeatedly removed Release histories from multiple articles without discussion, and sometimes claiming it was in a cleanup tag when it was not. He/she has ignored comments on his talk page, and is removing valuable information. In addition, he/she removed the firefox one solely because it was mentioned after the initial talk page discussion. Why, the Firefox page has already passed GA status! There is nothing unencyclopedic about release histories. Especially when they only present the main versions/are going to be modified as such. They provide history of the software in a neat and organized manner, which versions are supported, major differences, etc. As I stated on his/her talk page (See Here), removal of this information is detrimental, and extremely time consuming to reattain. In the ardent application of WP:NOT, chocolateboy seems to have forgotten WP:NOTLAW. Lastly, just because it can be found elsewhere, does not mean it doesn't belong on wikipedia. And they are NOT COPIED. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I created a category called Category:stub parent categories which took a categiory of 6,000 items and refines it to 46 items. for some reason this has met with opposition. people seem to oppose it over minute issues. can anyone please chime in? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
To add a discussion to RFC:
- Add {{RFCstyle| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
- Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
- Warning:
!and=will not work, as they are used to separate parameters.{{and}}might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again. - To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
- For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
- Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 16 November 2008, at 21:06.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.