Forum:CT:Assorted policy shenanigans

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Assorted policy shenanigans

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support all. —spookywilloww^talk 19:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Heya,

Bringing some random tidbits forward. The reason this wasn't a SH first because everything here is either a) already something we've done for years and years and just never documented or b) is, essentially, pass/fail. And given a lot of it is purely documentation, probably(?) non-controversial. As such, just provided all reasoning before each; some of these are so inconsequentially minor that felt like porting it all into one CT would be most efficient.

I applaud everyone who deigns to read the wall of text....

Proposed changes in bold.

—spookywilloww^talk 19:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:VEP

• Reasoning 1: Because {{Votestruck}} has been in use since 2009 anyway, and good to "formalize" notifying people if their vote gets struck, rather than just... not telling them at all. Lifted off OOM's end times list for policy proposals.
• Reasoning 2: Similar to how it specifies for both requests for and removal of user rights; it would logically follow that we list both requests for and removal of review board membership, rather than requests for membership alone.

Users who do not meet the predetermined productivity level(s) will have their votes struck from voting forums with {{Votestruck}} by the administration and receive notification via their talk page.

Blocked users are ineligible from all active votes for the duration of the block. Users who become blocked will have their active votes stricken with {{Votestruck}}.

A user's Fandom account must have been registered prior to the start of a Consensus vote (as defined above), requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, or review board membership nominations/requests for removal of review board membership to be eligible to vote on such forums.

Proposed changes in bold.

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 19:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Cade Calrayn 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Per Imp on Vote 3 NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Wok142 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
8. OOM 224 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
9. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
10. CometSmudge (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
11. Lewisr (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
12. ThePedantry (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
13. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
14. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:USER

• Reasoning 1: Was brought up that it's unclear whether any user can implement {{Inactive}}, or just admins. But, quite honestly—whether someone's not made an edit in a year is pretty black and white—and non-admin editors have been implementing it regularly anyway without problems. May as well formalize that. Lifted off end times list.
• Reasoning 2: Rarely, people get removed from positions. At the time they lose said position, most will usually have their user status, such as calling themselves an admin, on their page. It's less of a "false claim" but more of an outdated one (the individual was not intentionally trying to be deceitful). Adding clarification to specify that these removals may occur. Though we kind of already do them anyway, the specific wording IMO is better to not imply that these position removals occurred due to bad faith (because they aren't for some; they were true claims at one point).

Users with no Wookieepedia editing contributions after twelve (12) consecutive months are considered inactive and may have their user page replaced with the {{Inactive}} template by another user; in addition, all subpages of inactive users will be redirected to their main user page. Users are welcome to return their user page and subpages to active status at any time.

Users may not make false claims about their Wookieepedia user status, such as claiming to be an administrator when they are not. Such claims are subject to removal by a Wookieepedia administrator. Other indicators of user status, such as the {{UserAdmin}} template or categories such as Category:Wookieepedia administrators, may also be removed by an administrator following a user's departure or removal from the respective position.

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 19:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Cade Calrayn 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Per Imp on Vote 1 NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Despite Imp on Vote 1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Wok142 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
8. OOM 224 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
9. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
10. CometSmudge (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
11. Lewisr (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
12. ThePedantry (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
13. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
14. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:PROTECT

• Reasoning: Wookieepedia:Administrators contains information about page protections from former administrators not being subject to administrative autonomy; while current admins maintain autonomy on their protection decisions for six months. It makes sense to plop this on the protection policy itself—which is where people will be going to look for everything they might want to know about protections—as they may not think to look on an unrelated page (WP:A) for this information and how to seek unprotection if the issuer isn't an admin anymore.

Change subheader title from "'Requesting page protection" to "Protection and unprotection requests"; leave the "how to request protections" original clause still in place. Below, add a clause, echoing WP:A:

Page protections fall under administrative autonomy, meaning that if an administrator places a permanent protection of any level or type on an article, administrative autonomy expires six months after the protection's original institution. As administrative autonomy does not apply to former administrators, a current administrator can overturn page protections they issued at any time. Requests for lifting page protections issued by former administrators should be left on the administrators' noticeboard or in the Discord server.

note: the existing clause already links the Discord policy, hence not dupe linking it in this addendum. wording lifted from WP:AA.

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 19:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. Cade Calrayn 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Per Imp on Vote 2 NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Wok142 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
8. OOM 224 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
9. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
10. CometSmudge (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
11. Lewisr (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
12. ThePedantry (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
13. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
14. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NAME

• Reasoning 1: Also taken off end times list...and also something we already do, but never got codified. Also, as bundled with this, proposing that the second example for an abridged audiobook that has no unabridged version can be 1:1 swapped by an admin to another qualifying case if Darksaber ever does get an unabridged version (to avoid a super pointless CT to example swap).
• Reasoning 2: Disambig titling - add (disambiguation) to example, per recent disambig CT.

This is the current "Disambiguation" subsection of the "Novels and books" subheader of the Naming policy. The current/full text is included for context, but the proposed added line is in bold.

• To disambiguate audiobooks, use "(audiobook)" (example: Kenobi (audiobook)).
  • If multiple audiobooks of the same story compete for the same title, naming precedence shall be granted to the mass-market edition, while all other editions will disambiguate via the publisher name.
  • If both an unabridged and abridged audiobook of the same story exist, use "(unabridged audiobook)" and "(abridged audiobook)" to disambiguate them (example Shatterpoint (unabridged audiobook) and Shatterpoint (abridged audiobook). However, abridged audiobooks should specify "abridged" in parentheses even if no unabridged version exists (example: Darksaber (abridged audiobook)).

This sub-bullet is under the "Individual comic issues" section, within the "Disambiguation" subsection, minor change bolded:

• The preceding rule also applies to individual issues of the series, and should be applied to all issues of the series, regardless of whether there is a competing issue title. A disambiguation page should be created at the root title (example: Doctor Aphra (2016) 12 and Doctor Aphra (2020) 12, with a disambiguation page at Doctor Aphra 12 (disambiguation).

(yes, this is adding (disambiguation) and literally nothing else lol, but lumping in with this vote)

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 19:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
2. I'd argue that admins already have the authority to just go ahead and change examples on policy pages if they become irrelevant :P Imperators II^(Talk) 19:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
3. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
4. As initial proposer; the reasoning with abridged is that, due to their nature, editors should always be aware that they're abridged audiobooks, just like we did with enforcing (disambiguation) on disambig pages. And the comic one is just common sense. Cade Calrayn 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
5. Not per Imp. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
6. Wok142 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
7. Glad that Dani finally became an independent thinker. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
8. OOM 224 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
9. Per Ayre. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
10. CometSmudge (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
11. Lewisr (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
12. ThePedantry (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
13. Per Imp. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
14. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)