I work to revertvandalism and also on NFL and sometimes other sports related topics. Recently, I have been helping to fix typos and other small mistakes.
Favorite users... (t)
| Eagles247(eagles fan:D, welcomed me to Wikipedia, see him all around nfl projects. Number 1 favorite.) | Useight (active, part of nfl wikiproject,)|
Currently, the status quo for events listed on the main page is to use the present tense, even if the event in question has definitively ended. I didn't really notice this was an issue until yesterday when I noticed that the main page said that the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 is visible through parts of North America. Knowing that it was not currently visible and double checking that the article referred to the event in the past tense, I changed this to was visible. [1] I did not realize that this is against the current consensus at WP:ITNBLURB which says that these events must always be described in the present tense. If one is interested in further background, I encourage them to read this discussion here (scroll down to errors).
I think that this status quo is misleading to readers because it cases like this, we are deliberately giving inaccurate and outdated information. I believe this is a disservice to our readers. The eclipse is not visible anymore, yet we must insist that it is indeed visible. I think that we should also be consistent... If the article for a blurb is using the past tense, we should use the past tense on the main page. Therefore, I propose that events listed on ITN that have definitively ended should be described in the past tense if it would otherwise mislead readers into thinking an event is ongoing.Clovermoss🍀(talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this RfC is to determine the consensus for how creations in violations of general sanctions such as WP:ARBECR should be enforced. AwesomeAasim 04:14, 8 April 2024 (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.
The purpose of this RfC is to determine the consensus for how creations in violations of general sanctions such as WP:ARBECR should be enforced. AwesomeAasim 04:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Should there be a new R5 criteria for incorrectly formatted redirects to DAB pages? Redirects to disambiguation pages with malformities qualifiers such as Foo (desambiguation), Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) and Foo (Disambiguation), this excludes redirect using the correct WP:INTDAB title namely Foo (disambiguation) or any title that has useful history. Redirects with incorrect qualifiers that don't target disambiguation pages can be deleted under G14.Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the following proposed insertion to the list of exemptions to the edit warring policy be added? Exemption #9: Reverting edits that have been specified as not edit-warring by a policy or applicable Arbitration Committee ruling.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:10, 2 April 2024 (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.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
-6.jpg)
