Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report
In the article that we present below, we are going to address the topic of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report in a broad and detailed way. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report is a topic that has generated great interest and debate in recent years due to its importance in today's society. Throughout this article, we will analyze different aspects related to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report, from its historical origin to its relevance in the contemporary world. In addition, we will explore various perspectives and opinions of experts in the field, with the aim of offering a complete and in-depth vision of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Discussion report. Without a doubt, this article will be very useful for those who wish to learn more about this topic and its implications today.
MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled
This Discussion Report covers some of the debates on this great site of ours that were closed or archived from May 30, 2022 through June 2022. Three of them stood out as especially notable, which are as follows:
How to refer to China's Communist Party
On May 6th, Mx. Granger started a manual of style discussion on the use of the names "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" across Wikipedia articles. Editors discussed the justification behind allowing the use of either name, and others proposed alternatives such as "Chinese government". The conversation did not appear to reach any particular consensus despite decent participation, and as of the time of publishing is still open.
Deciding the fate of Administrative action review
A formal request for comment was initiated by Beeblebrox on June 14th to decide the fate of Administrative action review (a.k.a. XRV). The proposals centered around reviving it or retiring it and marking it as historical. After nearly a week of discussion, the RfC was closed with the consensus that the community would prefer to improve the process and fix the issues raised.
Mandatory draftification of poorly sourced articles
The village pump saw a suggestion on June 3rd that all articles not deletable under WP:BLPPROD having no sources in their history be moved to draftspace. It was opposed by 27 editors over the course of three weeks and closed by Thryduulf with "a strong consensus that mandatory draftification will either not improve or even harm the encyclopaedia".
Discuss this story