Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals

Edits by me

@Anomie feel free to revert the edit (or any parts you found unusual). I just wanted to break things into more specific sections (only part I care about keeping), but then the edit turned into a pain-in-the-ass/slog because of issues I had with VE. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I already took care of the parts I strongly disagreed with. I'm unsure about the various sections you added, but not enough to want to spend time on figuring out whether I disagree with any of it enough to change it. The changes like WP:EMOJI → Wikipedia:EMOJI I find at best pointless and possibly very slightly worse, but not enough to bother reverting them either (reverting pointless cosmetic edits is itself pointless, after all). Anomie⚔ 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Suffrage requirements for RfA

I think we should delete this part of the article as this article is about common proposals which are not done but Suffrage requirements for RfA have already been implemented so keeping it will not make sense for this article. Am I missing or can it be deleted? Lecket (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Re GNG and SPORTBASIC

@Anomie: it's not just one exception, it's a major one. The GNG requirement for WP:NSPORT and SPORTBASIC has a massive effect due its impact: 10% IIRC of our biographies are sports stubs (I can't find the discussion, but I do remember reading one with an exact number) and its impact on the site's gender gap), and the amount of biographies deleted from making GNG policy with NSPORT should therefore make it major enough to be noteworthy. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It still has nothing to do with the perennial proposal to make GNG a policy. Anomie⚔ 21:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does in some way; the change has pretty much the same effect policy-fying GNG has: restricting the amount of articles that can be created to GNG-compliant ones regardless of common sense and extra discretion. So, yeah, I think it should be noted for impact. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

GNG is still in all ways a guideline. All that changed is that articles about sportspeople now actually follow it instead of ignoring it. "We stopped ignoring GNG in one topic area, so it's closer to policy" doesn't make sense to me. Let's see what others have to say. Anomie⚔ 13:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the argument about "she for ships" go here?

Hi, I wasted too much time (several hours...) reading the perennial arguments about this. There have been 12 pushes in the last 20 years to ban "she" for ships and the later discussions get increasingly meta. "It's been 3 years since we last raised this so let's do it again ..." "The proposal has failed every time, but like Ireland joining the EU, the choosing will continue until you choose how we want" and "yes its failed every time but 'she' is on the decline and we will push it through sooner or later". The discussions do sometimes become political, with the anti-she side usually saying "she" is sexist, and the pro-she side sometimes declaring that to be excessive political correctness.

I put this together as a suggestion to add to the article. I think I kept it fair and balanced, despite my having a strong opinion on the matter myself. I think I will put it in, but I rarely look at the meta side of Wikipedia so feedback is appreciated.

Ban using "she" for ships

• Proposal: The Manual of Style should change WP:SHE4SHIPS to enforce "it" for ships. (Currently, either is allowed at editor's choice, but the article should be consistent)
• Reasons for or against allowing "she":
  • "She" is odd in in an otherwise ungendered language, and readers may find it unfamiliar.
  • "She" is widespread and longstanding nautical tradition.
  • "She" is sexist (as ships are objects), or not sexist (as "she" is affectionate personification).
  • Editors writing the article should have the right to choose.
  • Some manuals of style (usually Llyods) now prefer "it" to "she".
  • Many sources, including formal ones, often use "she" for ships, sometimes even when their manuals of style proscribe it.
  • Changing all the articles would be a lot of effort and drama for little point.
  • The editors proposing the change are rarely the ones who work on naval articles (and risk driving away those who do, by forcing a rule change). This point comes up from both sides nearly identically, however one side uses it for "how dare a small community defy the will of the majority" and the other for "how dare the majority (who aren't interested in ships) force its will on us".
• Past discussions: See 12 different proposals between 2004 and 2026

P.S. Not to relitigate anything, but I've never seen this mentioned: most crew on a ship are male, and everything else is typically an "it", so from a linguistics point of view, "she" being used for the ship is both quicker and less ambiguous (as "she" is unlikely to be confused as "it" might be). Maybe this is partly why the tradition has held so long? RustyOldShip (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If all the repeated proposals are on the MOS talk page rather than frequently spilling onto the village pumps, it may be better on a MOS-specific perennial proposals page. But I'm not going to fight over it. Anomie⚔ 23:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Most of the mentioned discussions at the list I linked are on "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive XXX". The discussion is heavily split between people who are into ships and write the nautical articles (who are used to using or reading "she") and editors who don't know much about ships and find it odd when they stumble onto a few thousand tons of steel being "she". I'm pretty sure any discussion on a nautical wikiproject would be roundly rejected, (in proposing to enforce "it" instead of "she") RustyOldShip (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That said, I see the generality of the other MOS arguments (e.g. american/british spelling, citation styles) and "she for ships" does feel oddly specific by comparison, but the sheer amount of ink spilled arguing about it justifies it IMO. RustyOldShip (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Verifiability

the article and others like it aim for sources which are "verifiable" but not necessarily true. This is very strange as a concept and imagining it applied, as it implies that somehow a claim on here could meet all Wikipedia's criteria (notable, etc.) and yet not be true. What does this even mean though? For those familiar with Popper and falsifiability in science I'm interested in what people think of this somewhat obscure Wikipedia pillar ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)