Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Per the above thread, it is proposed that the link to Wikinews in the "In the News" section be removed.
Support For numerous reasons, including:
We don't do this for any other sister project. Today's featured picture does not link to Commons, for example.
Wikinews' coverage of events is spotty and unpredictable
Readers may mistakenly think, because of this apparent favored status, that Wikinews is part of Misplaced Pages
Frankly, Wikinews is often an emberassment. Of all the sister projects we could be directing our readers to, this is hardly the one most users would choose to highlight, so it seems silly to have it linked more than once on the main page.
That being said, this should not be a discussion that is primarily about Wikinews itself, this is just a discussion of whether we should link to it twice on the main page when no other sister project gets such favored status. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
Proposed, to add a section to the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, 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 'today's featured article') 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
NeutralOppose. 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 WP:BEANS). 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.DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The first six options were presented when this process was opened on June 3, 2013 at 17:17 UTC. Further proposals may be added as this process is underway, they should be timestamped when added so that it is clear they came later and may not have been seen by early participants.
Option one:Make the ref desk work like an actual reference desk
The reference desk will cease providing direct answers of any kind. Discussions will be kept brief and stricly limited in scope. It will only provide direction to appropriate resources such as pertinent Misplaced Pages articles the sources used by them, and other reliable sources. The reference desk will be kept in compliance with the principle that Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a social network. Comments which are general discussion of topics or speculation will be removed. A standardized question process such as is used at real reference desks may be developed to make it possible for almost any Wikipedian to competently assist those posing questions.
Endorsements of option one
This would be my preferred option. After seeing how the refdesk regulars are reacting to any and all attempts at reform option two is now my first choice, but I still endorse this idea should that not happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.