Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

Discussion report

Contribute —

Activate section 0 edit link for everyone: Adding an edit button to the lead section of an article to help aid editing is being proposed. This edit button would allow users to edit the lead section without having to open an edit screen with the whole article.
New class of moderator: According to Timeshifter, there is a lack of efficient content dispute resolution which is making editing become less efficient as the number of articles grows. A new group of moderators is being proposed to help aid in content dispute resolution.
Speedy deletion of machine translations: {{No-rough}} currently informs users not to add machine translations into articles, but to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Translation. Should a new criteria for speedy deletion be made to delete machine translations from other projects?

The lead section of the verifiability policy: A request for comment about how the lead section of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability should read, notably about the phrase "verifiability, not truth", concluded with a consensus to implement a revised wording.
Changing the Mediation Committee: Users are requesting input on how the Mediation Committee should be changed or if it should be closed.
De-adminship: There are currently 5 methods for how administrators can lose their rights with 3 being controlled by the administrator. Should more community based action be available to remove administrator rights or once elected to become administrator, are you one for life?
Deleting portions of an article: If edit warring is happening in regards to deletion of a section of an article should the discussion be brought to miscellany for deletion?
Does US FoP apply to foreign works?: The license of {{FoP-USonly}} is being discussed in regards to photos of buildings in countries with a limited freedom of panorama provision. This license states "while architectural works completed after December 1st, 1990 are protected by copyright laws, photography is not an infringement of it".
Global ban discussion: As mentioned in previous Discussion reports, the community is still trying to work on the details of the global ban policy regarding problematic editors.

In this issue

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

== Misstatement in RfC link ==

There is a misstatement in the link to WT:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Is MfD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages? (July 2012), "Deleting portions of an article If edit warring is happening in regards to deletion of a section of an article should the discussion be brought to miscellany for deletion?" The RfC seeks to clarify WP:User pages at MfD, not articles.

It has been well established that ordinary editing of articles, including whether a section should be retained or removed, is not a matter for XfD. WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives C.1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?