Wikipedia talk:Edit filter manager
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Extraordinary Writ in topic RfC about the status of this page
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edit filter manager page. |
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
RfC about the status of this page
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia:Edit filter manager page be promoted to a procedural policy? EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Because the edit filter helper page is a procedural policy, and this page is not, I would have no objections to this. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 19:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. The content and guidelines on this page have community consensus and are followed regularly, so promoting this to a policy page is a good idea. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense - it's comparable in importance, structure and level of consensus to the EFH page which is a procedural policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Seems reasonable, and this is essentially already followed as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: per everyone supporting above. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This makes sense. Nobody (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- No objections, but I'll add that self-noms should be added as a requirement per Special:PermaLink/1217561114#Extending time for EFH discussions, where discussion clearly reached a consensus to require self-noms for both EFM and EFH requests. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems sensible as well. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but I am wondering why EFM wasn't mentioned in that closing argument. Nobody (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef: No objections personally, though I'm not sure if DreamRimmer found consensus for EFM self-nom requirements in addition to the consensus for EFH self-nom requirements in that discussion. Speaking on my own, when I !voted in that, I wasn't necessarily under the assumption it covered EFMs, but that it was intended to stop third party nominations of EFHs. Uncontroversial none-the-less, though, and the only non-self-nom I can find for EFM is Danny's nomination by SoY. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think there was no objections to that being applied to EFMs in that discussion, and which means there would be consensus. The close not mentioning that is unfortunate but the statement could always be amended. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef: I have added it to the Process for requesting section. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef: I have added it to the Process for requesting section. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think there was no objections to that being applied to EFMs in that discussion, and which means there would be consensus. The close not mentioning that is unfortunate but the statement could always be amended. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Makes sense. C F A 💬 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.