Wikipedia talk:Edit filter manager

Learn more about this page

Edit filter management
Tags management

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edit filter manager page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:EFM

Wikipedia Help Low‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Low	This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RfC about the status of this page

Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments9 people in discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Wikipedia:Edit filter manager page be promoted to a procedural policy? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Support. Seems reasonable, and this is essentially already followed as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support: per everyone supporting above. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support This makes sense. Nobody (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

That seems sensible as well. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but I am wondering why EFM wasn't mentioned in that closing argument. Nobody (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

Support: Makes sense. C F A 💬 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic