I have recently improved this article by adding reliable sources, correcting formatting issues, and ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V).
I would appreciate input on the following:
- Notability – Does the article meet Wikipedia’s inclusion standards?
- Sources – Are the references strong and independent?
- Neutrality & Formatting – Any areas needing improvement?
This RfC is to determine the consensus about (1) whether the current explanation of "self-published" in WP:SPS generally serves us well, perhaps with small improvements, or if it should be revised in some significant way, and (2) how editors interpret "self-published," in order to help us revise the explanation if needed.
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputedviaa [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitablevenues for doing so include the article'stalkpageand[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]].
+
A page can be [[Wikipedia:BLANKANDREDIRECT|blanked and redirected]] if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not [[Wikipedia:R#DELETE|inappropriate]]. If the change is disputed, such as by [[Wikipedia:REVERT|reversion]], an attempt should be made to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before blank-and-redirecting again. The preferred venue for doing so is the appropriate [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion venue]] for the pre-redirect content, although sometimes the dispute may be resolved on the page's talk page.
There is no point in syntaxhighlighting a word code.
The feature displays text, especially source code, in different colours and fonts according to the category of terms. This feature facilitates writing in a structured language such as a programming language or a markup language as both structures and syntax errors are visually distinct. — Syntax highlighting
In this discussion on Meta-Wiki last month, some renamers suggested closing the English Wikipedia usurpation request page and directing users to Meta instead. As far as I know, English Wikipedia is the only wiki with its own usurpation page, while all other wikis process such requests on Meta. While requests on Meta are typically handled within hours, those on English Wikipedia often face delays due to a lack of attention from renamers. Given this, should all future usurpation requests be directed to Meta instead? – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Presently, there are numerous WP articles of religious calendars that list the full list of celebrations, feast day of saints, etc., without those articles being WP:Stand-alone lists.
My question for which I request comments is: is putting these long lists of religious feasts in those articles a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTGUIDE, and if it so happens that they are a violation then what should be done with these lists? Veverve (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2025 (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.
