The head of...

or

The Head of...

Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized?

WildComet (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Revision of 13:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

to

• Revision of 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a substantial amount of ambiguity and/or incongruity with the use of the term "faculty", so it should probably be replaced.

There is not much observable evidence to explain what was the true intent of the folks who created this category and its subcategories, so we should reach a new consensus on what the name should be, or a consensus on whether or not to try to enforce some sort of a new standard even. 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The head of...

or

The Head of...

Should references to the chief/head of defence be capitalized?

WildComet (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The goal of this consultation is to help outline clear enforcement pathways for a drafting committee to design proposals for a comprehensive community review later this year. The proposals may integrate with existing processes or additional pathways that may be suggested. For more information about the UCoC project, see Universal Code of Conduct overview.

Discussions are happening on many projects and are listed at the 2021 consultations page.

Please discuss in the subsections below and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) How long in general should a version have been in place for it to be considered "stable" for the purpose of obtaining consensus? This isn't intended to be a strict rule but merely give some general rule since sometimes (like with the technical request of Talk:Kereta Api Indonesia#Requested move 8 June 2020) a move made years ago is requested as a revert of an undiscussed move even though the move happened over 2 years ago and in some cases like Omos an unrevert was made that the change was made a month ago even though it had had the same target since 2004 prior to the change.

(2) How long should a version take to be stable for the purpose of WP:RETAIN when a page is edited or renamed against this (and one of the exceptions doesn't apply, such as communality, strong ties or ATDAB)? See examples of Humour and Chinese whispers where this has been debated. @SnowFire, FOARP, Necrothesp, and Calidum: who were involved significantly in the chinese whispers debate on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Removal of RfC Link
• Should some of the definitions for the criteria be further refined?

--Cs california (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Hyperlink says:

"A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when. A disadvantage with this method is that the page history of the original article must subsequently be retained in order to maintain attribution."

Do we want to consider this to be proper attribution? -Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Happily888 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Should we consolidate mainline and regional carriers in "Airline and Destination Tables"?

Blissfield101 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia globosa» subsection. Any reasonable objections? Feedback on sources is welcome. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose to adopt the changes below but before this can be done here are some questions:

1. Do you find the following excerpt being a biomedical information (WP:BMI)?
2. Does it require more sources (WP:RS/WP:SOURCE/WP:PRIMARY)?
3. Do you have reasonable objections against putting the excerpt under «Malassezia restricta» section?

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia restricta» subsection. Any reasonable objections here? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. To help support our reporting work, and to continue our ability to provide this content for free to our readers, we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site. This compensation comes from two main sources. First, we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers. The compensation we receive for those placements affects how and where advertisers’ offers appear on the site. This site does not include all companies or products available within the market. Second, we also include links to advertisers’ offers in some of our articles; these “affiliate links” may generate income for our site when you click on them. The compensation we receive from advertisers does not influence the recommendations or advice our editorial team provides in our articles or otherwise impact any of the editorial content on Forbes Advisor. While we work hard to provide accurate and up to date information that we think you will find relevant, Forbes Advisor does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Here is a list of our partners who offer products that we have affiliate links for.

There is RSP on related issues at WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON.

QUESTION: RS on Cryptocurrency articles? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

— BriefEdits (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 0 (status quo): Limit minor edits to registered users.
• Option A: Limit minor edits to autoconfirmed (or confirmed) users.
• Option B: Limit minor edits to extended-confirmed users. (No change to bots or admins which currently have this access)

This is a follow-up to this RfC on effectively disabling minor edits. As there was no consensus then, this is to establish clearer consensus regarding an alternative proposal. (This is my first time requesting comment, please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.) Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)