Rather than engage in edit wars over non-consensus deletions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, I've created this page to reflect only consensus discussions. StuRat 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and refactored from the Ref Desk talk page archives:

Here I wish to only build a list of Ref Desk policy issues under dispute. I don't wish to discuss them here, just build a list. That discussion can happen elsewhere. Please add any issues I missed to the list. Also, add a link after each item to where that discussion is or has occurred, if you have one:

• Purpose of the Ref Desk [1]
• Is the Ref Desk considered to be like an article or like a talk page ? RESOLVED
• Rules for deletion RESOLVED [2]
• Is opinion allowed RESOLVED
• Are references required for all statements of fact ? RESOLVED
• Are answers containing original research allowed? RESOLVED [3]
• Are answers with references outside of Wikipedia allowed ? RESOLVED
• Are responses which don't directly answer the question allowed ?

• If still related to the topic
• If totally unrelated

• Can we address another responder, or only the original poster ?
• Is humor allowed ? RESOLVED
• Is sexual content allowed ? RESOLVED
• Are poorly written questions allowed ?
• Should signatures be required ? RESOLVED
• May we edit the posts of others ? RESOLVED [4]
• Avoid using abbreviations like "OP" ?
• Is "just Google it" a valid response ? RESOLVED [5].
• May the same people post both questions and answers ? RESOLVED

Agree. We should avoid any abbrevs that are likely to confuse newbies (I had a specific question on the meaning of "OP" from one of them). Also, many of the abbrevs baffle me, as well. StuRat 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thought this has been decided. Also the suitlalby empasize or whatever. -THB 15:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]