Revision as of 17:31, 3 July 2013 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:01, 20 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,001 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species). | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
{{rfclistintro}} | |||
'''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' | |||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
⚫ | ''']''' | ||
''']''' | |||
{{rfcquote|text= | {{rfcquote|text= | ||
Should admins or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots? 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
Per the above thread, it is proposed that the link to Wikinews in the "In the News" section be removed. 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
⚫ | ''']''' | ||
{{rfcquote|text= | |||
Currently, there are about 200 indefinite rangeblocks on various IPs, most of which are non-required now. A previous proposal on this Village Pump, which sought to remove these old rangeblocks under controlled conditions passed successfully. This proposal is to finalize all the various details on that proposal, and to carry forward with it. | |||
] (]) 06:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
''']''' | |||
{{rfcquote|text= | |||
Proposed, to add a section to the page ], the section to be titled "RfC on main page items" and the content to consist of the sentence '''"Publication of a main page item (such as ']') is suspended while a valid RfC on the item is open"'''. | |||
The intent and probable effect of this addition is twofold: | |||
#To establish, by clear inference, that RfC on main page items are indeed permitted and operative. | |||
#To specify how main page items are to be handled in these cases. | |||
'''Survey''' | |||
*<strike>'''Neutral'''</strike> '''Oppose'''. Herostratus' wall-of-text below has convinced me that RfCs and DYK noms are very different types of discussion, so his suspending one discussion to open another wasn't (or shouldn't have been) as counter-productive as it first appeared to me. That said, I don't think it's an ideal situation, and shouldn't be explicitly endorsed by the guidelines (per ]). And given that, as far as I'm aware, there's only ever been one such RfC in the history of Misplaced Pages, the proposed rule doesn't seem necessary at this point. These RfCs ought to be sufficiently rare that the validity of each can be discussed individually. So, in short, I'm voting for status quo – RfCs on main page items should be neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden.] (]) 07:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
''']''' | |||
{{rfcquote|text= | |||
How should we handle inactive bots and keep bots on Misplaced Pages more organised. '''Started: 10:20 6 June 2013 UTC''' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
{{RFC list footer|prop|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | {{RFC list footer|prop|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
Latest revision as of 23:01, 20 December 2024
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Should admins or other users evaluating consensus in a discussion discount, ignore, or strike through or collapse comments found to have been generated by AI/LLM/Chatbots? 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
Requests for comment (All) | |
---|---|
Articles (All) |
|
Non-articles (All) | |
Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. |