Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Shortcuts WP:CCPWP:CCP WP:COPOWP:COPO WP:CCPOLWP:CCPOL...
Click to read more »to find other sources and improve the article while remaining within WP:CCPOL results in an unsalvagable mess. Much of the text is refutation of casting...
Click to read more »It needs further improvement in terms of content and references per WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS. A few notable references that can be added include the following:...
Click to read more »article, as a result I've edited it to improve WP:NPOV in line with WP:CCPOL, can you take another look and share your thoughts as to whether you believe...
Click to read more »and award winning journalists are encyclopedic. This article passes WP:CCPOL and is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019...
Click to read more »alhashimi: You are welcome to learn the core content policies of Wikipedia at WP:CCPOL which says that any article which says that every article should be written...
Click to read more »April 2018 (UTC) Delete looks like a good example of a violation to the WP:CCPOL Butch.labajo (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Delete as a potential hoax...
Click to read more »fact, notable. That said, the article violates all three points of the WP:CCPOL and should be removed from mainspace immediately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »"content dispute", but extensive intransigent behaviours circumventing WP:CCPOL compliance. The article is on a sensitive political topic involving the...
Click to read more »repeated claims of lack of understanding of fundamental guidelines such WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS in the context of multiple attempts at engagement on issues of...
Click to read more »think she seems encyclopedic. The article itself seems to me to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Keep - Neutral point of view and...
Click to read more »(Asbury Park, New Jersey) 31 Oct 1971, page 39. Article mostly passes WP:CCPOL, and I'll try to clean it up a bit more. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:24, 8 June 2018...
Click to read more »particular subject, and meets Wikipedia's core content policies WP:COPO and WP:CCPOL of Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) Verifiability (WP:V) and No original...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »to imply a level of expertise that seems make the subject encyclopedic. CCPOL are ok, I think JOURNIALIST #1 is achieved. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:03, 15 June...
Click to read more »(talk) 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Keep - after cleanup, this satisfies WP:CCPOL (V/NOR/NPOV) and has suitable references. The subject seems to me to be...
Click to read more »in article) So the article does not fail our core content policies (WP:CCPOL): V, NPOV, NOR. Also, as the subject is covered in many sources, it seems...
Click to read more »issue is the sustained dismissal of WP:CCPOL. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC) WP:CCPOL is a catch-all "explanatory supplement"...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Keep - Article passes WP:CCPOL and is reliably sourced with multiple, in-depth sources. As a mayor and...
Click to read more »"content" and just ignore WP:CCPOL simply because its in draft space. When a bold edit in article space violates CCPOL oftentimes that text is reverted...
Click to read more »scattered and needs improvement in terms of flow of content to align it with WP:CCPOL guideline. It can trimmed down to keep only relevant information and references...
Click to read more »announcements provide in-depth coverage and sufficient RS to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Deceased individual not a risk for failing NOTPROMO. Substantial public...
Click to read more »not hesitate.Anaverageguy (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Keep Per WP:CCPOL & WP:EP. It is a notable hoax because many government officials, politicians...
Click to read more »showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to WP:CCPOL. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »all mayors being includable in the encyclopedia, given they satisfy WP:CCPOL and the article satisfies WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. For...
Click to read more »is a bit revert-happy in the direction of a strict interpretation of WP:CCPOL, than someone overly permissive with regard to OR. I know it can be frustrating...
Click to read more »more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act...
Click to read more »extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with...
Click to read more »indiscriminate, and fundamentally cannot comply with WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:DUE–the WP:CCPOL trifecta. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »far too often on talk pages. In principle, the examples comply with WP:CCPOL except that a few more citations are needed per WP:V and these lines have...
Click to read more »AniMate's WP:NPOV and raise it with WP:COI. Then I'll trump all of them with WP:CCPOL. I think they're all quite clear-cut. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)...
Click to read more »the exact type of sloppy referencing and repeated violations of the WP:CCPOL that preceded their reprieve and which they also committed while socking...
Click to read more »to maintain any semblance of neutrality or otherwise comply with the WP:CCPOL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC) This was archived...
Click to read more »cannot be trusted to understand the most basic and fundamental parts of WP:CCPOL. Bargaining that they be allowed to remain to edit on a different religion...
Click to read more »article must reflect this POV—"call a spade a spade".[16][17][18][19] WP:CCPOL (WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, etc) are optional nuisances to be overridden with...
Click to read more »mainspace (at the time the pages were moved). Pages need to reasonably meet WP:CCPOL and WP:N before a move to the mainspace. Bar the very first one in the section...
Click to read more »a non-protected article [195]. To me, this user does not understand WP:CCPOL and their edits are time consuming to other editors [196] in order to fix...
Click to read more »blocks or topic bans. Either 3RR or 1RR applies, depending on context, and CCPOL and BLP always apply, regardless of context; let's not complicate it further...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »WP:OFFICE policies trump community-created ones. Below the OFFICE level, WP:CCPOL ones trump a lot of other ones on many things, though this can run the other...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act...
Click to read more »all mayors being includable in the encyclopedia, given they satisfy WP:CCPOL and the article satisfies WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. For...
Click to read more »(most of which I agree need toning down) since WP:NPOV, like the rest of WP:CCPOL, is a GA matter). If MILHIST is "taking over" GAR for its own wikiproject...
Click to read more »fact, notable. That said, the article violates all three points of the WP:CCPOL and should be removed from mainspace immediately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)...
Click to read more »(Asbury Park, New Jersey) 31 Oct 1971, page 39. Article mostly passes WP:CCPOL, and I'll try to clean it up a bit more. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:24, 8 June 2018...
Click to read more »WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Keep - Article passes WP:CCPOL and is reliably sourced with multiple, in-depth sources. As a mayor and...
Click to read more »April 2018 (UTC) Delete looks like a good example of a violation to the WP:CCPOL Butch.labajo (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Delete as a potential hoax...
Click to read more »figures getting pages, a problem I think is a feature and not a bug of BASIC/CCPOL. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Is Wikimedia suddenly running out...
Click to read more »(talk) 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Keep - after cleanup, this satisfies WP:CCPOL (V/NOR/NPOV) and has suitable references. The subject seems to me to be...
Click to read more »indiscriminate, and fundamentally cannot comply with WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:DUE–the WP:CCPOL trifecta. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »to find other sources and improve the article while remaining within WP:CCPOL results in an unsalvagable mess. Much of the text is refutation of casting...
Click to read more »not hesitate.Anaverageguy (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Keep Per WP:CCPOL & WP:EP. It is a notable hoax because many government officials, politicians...
Click to read more »article, as a result I've edited it to improve WP:NPOV in line with WP:CCPOL, can you take another look and share your thoughts as to whether you believe...
Click to read more »in article) So the article does not fail our core content policies (WP:CCPOL): V, NPOV, NOR. Also, as the subject is covered in many sources, it seems...
Click to read more »(talk) 01:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Keep - after cleanup, this satisfies WP:CCPOL (V/NOR/NPOV) and has suitable references. The subject seems to me to be...
Click to read more »think she seems encyclopedic. The article itself seems to me to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Keep - Neutral point of view and...
Click to read more »particular subject, and meets Wikipedia's core content policies WP:COPO and WP:CCPOL of Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) Verifiability (WP:V) and No original...
Click to read more »It needs further improvement in terms of content and references per WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS. A few notable references that can be added include the following:...
Click to read more »to imply a level of expertise that seems make the subject encyclopedic. CCPOL are ok, I think JOURNIALIST #1 is achieved. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:03, 15 June...
Click to read more »essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Delete Failing the WP:CCPOL in such a way that removing those violations would leave nothing behind...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »scattered and needs improvement in terms of flow of content to align it with WP:CCPOL guideline. It can trimmed down to keep only relevant information and references...
Click to read more »not hesitate.Anaverageguy (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Keep Per WP:CCPOL & WP:EP. It is a notable hoax because many government officials, politicians...
Click to read more »three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this...
Click to read more »alhashimi: You are welcome to learn the core content policies of Wikipedia at WP:CCPOL which says that any article which says that every article should be written...
Click to read more »of policies that really don't overlap much (except WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CCPOLs I suppose?). So participants in one won't necessarily be interested in or...
Click to read more »and award winning journalists are encyclopedic. This article passes WP:CCPOL and is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019...
Click to read more »announcements provide in-depth coverage and sufficient RS to satisfy WP:CCPOL. Deceased individual not a risk for failing NOTPROMO. Substantial public...
Click to read more »using reason and common sense. If WP:COMMONNAME conflicts with the WP:CCPOL, then CCPOL will generally take precedence but this is not carved in stone. All...
Click to read more »figures getting pages, a problem I think is a feature and not a bug of BASIC/CCPOL. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Is Wikimedia suddenly running out...
Click to read more »noticeboard threads about the dispute, and both of us operating under the same WP:CCPOLs, which I think already suggest building articles like SK using the highest-quality...
Click to read more »--cyclopiaspeak! 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) @Cyclopia:, you really need to read WP:CCPOL - In its earliest form, the policy singled out edits for exclusion that:...
Click to read more »of neutral point of view, no original research, and reliable sources. WP:CCPOL must all be considered at once. The simplest start to overcoming the argumentative...
Click to read more »see a consensus to delete as un-V (or, at least, as noncompliant with WP:CCPOL), no agreement for a redirect, and no support for a merge. One remark on...
Click to read more »the most strident voice in such disputes is someone who understands WP:CCPOL, facing a WP:FACTION of PoV pushers. I should probably work this up into...
Click to read more »not used with respect to wikipedia articles. see the links provided at WP:CCPOL IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Hi IRWolfie-. Thank you for...
Click to read more »see a consensus to delete as un-V (or, at least, as noncompliant with WP:CCPOL), no agreement for a redirect, and no support for a merge. One remark on...
Click to read more »addition of "without evidence" is not in compliance with MOS:LEAD and WP:CCPOL. Its use in the lead is editorializing and Pro translator was correct in...
Click to read more »needs third-party help ensuring that Ross the subject's article follows WP:CCPOL. My own watchlist is too long to for me to promise any long-term help, but...
Click to read more »WP:CONSENSUS, as it is part of internal WP:POLICY, not an article subject to WP:CCPOL; editorial consensus on how to write a particular article is not required...
Click to read more »the article. I have worked on the article to make it compliant with WP:CCPOL, WP:NPV and WP:GNG guidelines. I have also edited the content to make it...
Click to read more »(most of which I agree need toning down) since WP:NPOV, like the rest of WP:CCPOL, is a GA matter). If MILHIST is "taking over" GAR for its own wikiproject...
Click to read more »Case resolved, parties agreed to collaborate according to WP:CCPOL. If there is another content issue that cannot be resolved between the two of you,...
Click to read more »discussions and you guys rake in all that sweet, sweet admin cash. Under WP:CCPOL we follow the sources and the line lies where they say it lies. Yesterday...
Click to read more »specifically, "arranged for a big band lineup". I draw your attention to WP:CCPOL and WP:LIKELY: Wikipedia's content policies require inline citations for...
Click to read more »