Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

I don't know whether or not this was proposed before, but I believe that the distinction between policies, guidelines and essays should be emphasized by using

) 15:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead, we should clean up the poor explanation of the differences, which led you to believe that there is a "clearcut hierarchy of power" between policies, guidelines, and essays. There never has been, and there has never been any intention to claim that there is. For example, NPOV is hugely important—it is both policy and fundamental principle—but it does not somehow outrank WP:RS or WP:N, even though those are "only" guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is -and has been all along- a "clearcut hierarchy of power" between policies, guidelines, and essays. Since WP:RS is a guideline, it can never have a power more than WP:NPOV or any other policy. If you wish that WP:RS becomes as powerful as WP:NPOV, why don't you start a process to make it promoted to policy status. I'd recommend you to read

WP:POLICIES once again. Interested parties can look at the other branch of the discussion here. Logos (talk

) 20:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you read policies once again, paying particular attention to the bit that says "Editors must use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand". Note that it does not say things like, "An unrelated policy outranks a very relevant guideline".

Logos, I don't know what gave you the idea that there is a clearcut hierarchy of power, but I offer three pieces of information that might interest you:

1. The archives for this page, and several others, are filled with complaints that there isn't a clearcut hierarchy, usually from someone who lost a dispute. You might want to spend a few hours reading them before making assertions about facts. (I don't recall anyone being happy about this, but the fact remains that it's true.)
2. The number one rule is to WP:Ignore all rules, which is the sort of principle Kind Of Causes Problems™ with clearcut hierarchies of power. The only "clearcut" hierarchy between advice pages is the one that is in WP:V—and I can tell you not only that it exists, but who added it, when, why, and how successful her efforts to add it to other pages were (answer to the last item: "not").
3. Over the last six or eight years, I've spent many hundreds of hours on Wikipedia's policy and process pages. That's probably more than all of your editing combined. It might be appropriate for you to start assuming that I might know what I'm talking about here, even if what I know does not match what you believe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your arguments are trivial. I'd recommend you to read

WP:POLCON once again, paying particular attention to the very first bit saying "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". Had there not a "clearcut hierarchy of power", then there would be no possibility of a conflict. And in case of a conflict, people would be able to assume that guideline takes precedence. The part you cited is trivial, says nothing, and perhaps added by you. Have I said anything like "An unrelated policy outranks a very relevant guideline" before? This is some kind of fallacy, you know that, don't you. Logos (talk

) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I must correct a misunderstanding; it seems that one my statements above ("Since WP:RS is a guideline, it can never have a power more than WP:NPOV or any other policy") made WhatamIdoing think that I was claiming that "An unrelated policy outranks a very relevant guideline". I don't know how an unrelated policy can outrank a related guideline, perhaps there are examples out there. However, people may claim (or have been claiming already) that, a well developed guideline is very related than a lean policy, and may make a habit of suspending that policy for similar issues. That's one of the outcomes of "there is no hierarchy" view. Logos (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have more than one page, there is always the possibility of the pages saying different things, or, to use normal English, to give "conflicting" advice or information. We have had such conflicts in the past. We offer the "temporary measure" only for convenience during dispute resolution, not because one is better than the other. (Also, that temporary convenice doesn't address the most common problem, which is two guidelines contradicting each other—which, according to you, isn't even possible, because you say that there would be no possibility of a conflict unless one page outranks the other in a "hierarchy of power".)

You don't seem to be able to hear this when I'm telling you, so perhaps you would like to hear someone else's views on whether there is some secret meaning behind saying that editors "should normally follow" or "should attempt to follow" a page with a particular label on it. (The labels themselves use different wording.) There are a number of editors who have followed this page over the years; perhaps someone like

User:CBM. If you're really having trouble with this, we could make this policy easier to understand by using exactly the same "should normally follow" language to describe both types. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You're making too many trivial arguments and assumptions.

I am not interested in "what if 2 guidelines contradict each other" or "what if 2 essays contradict each other" cases, because I already know that, both have the same "weak power" as compared to policies.

Let me try once again: When a policy contradicts a guideline, policy takes precedence over guideline. Let's say that it is a "temporary measure". Normally, guideline should be revised to comply with the policy but let's say some editors thought that guideline's related wording is better. Unless the conflicting bit of the policy is amended according to the guideline after a wide consensus (not only by the edit of a obsessive essayist), policy is more powerful than the guideline. Even after that change, policy will continue to have more power than the guideline. However, people should be careful about that "consensus", since many editors do not follow these pages, major changes should be asked to the community through some sort of RfC or village pump.

Consensus is the key; think about it. Policies are powerful than guidelines because they have the least/minimum amount of "dubious" content. Some guidelines are such that, even they may have conflicts/contradictions within themselves. Why is that? Because some isolated instance/case made some editors thought that they have to amend that part of the guideline right away without seeking any consensus.

I am willing to see that, both policies and guidelines are labelled as "should normally follow". You, or your friends here, can't do that, because you need to achieve a consensus for that. I don't think that, guidelines will be labeled as "should normally follow" in any near future. Drop me a message please, when you succeed. Logos (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say the distinction between Policy and Guideline is one of function and focus, rather than importance or clout. According to the original concept, Policy pages laid out the basic principles which govern our editing. Guideline pages expanded on those principles (or specific elements of those principles), explaining them in more detail and giving advice on how best to implement them, in practical terms. To put this another way... policy pages originally focused on what the "rules" are, while guideline pages focused on how to implement those rules (A good example of this is the relationship between our

WP:Reliable Sources

guideline. The policy is that information must be verifiable... the way we implement that policy is by providing reliable sources). Meanwhile essay pages were supposed to focus on why. They were designed to explain why our policies and guidelines said what they said (or, in the case of minority opinion essays, why a group of editors disagreed with a particular rule).

At least that's the demarcation as it was originally. Over time, the demarcation between "what", "how" and "why" has blurred. Today, Wikipedia is much a more "process oriented" place than it used to be ... statements about how best to implement policy have evolved into "rules" in their own right. So... guideline pages can and do spell out "the rules"... the difference is that those "rules" still tend to remain focused on practical implementation, rather than the more generalized philosophical statements found in on Policy pages. Meanwhile... many of our Policy pages have been subject to instruction creep... and delve into implementation (I think this was an unfortunate, but natural development... as we have become more process oriented some editors have added implementation rules to Policy pages... thinking that this will somehow give those implementation rules more "clout". I suppose this was to counter "it's only a guideline" arguments). Again the lines have been blurred. So... in a way you both were correct. There is (or at least was) a distinction between Policy and Guideline pages... but that distinction isn't (or at least shouldn't) be one of importance or clout.... it is (or should be) one of focus. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a poor explanation of the differences, but a case of ill-defined differences.

The concept of hierarchy of policies over guidelines assumes that they are speaking to the same thing, which usually doesn't happen.

No policy or guideline page is supposed to contract any other. If you find an example, let us know, and we'll work to fix it.

Some "policies" are more like guidelines, offering advice not rules, and not being enforceable per se. Examples are Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus.

Some guidelines contain near objective rules, and if you cross their lines you'll find them sternly enforced. The prime example here is

. The guideline is a less curt explanation of the policy, I suppose it is sensible.

So why are softly worded pages like Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus tagged {{policy}}, and Wikipedia:Notability, a page enforced with the deletion stick, tagged {{guideline}}? Because the detail of these policies are well-agreed, and not really so debatable in practice, while notability requires a great deal of case-by-case interpretation.

The OP suggests a color coding. That idea may have merit, however, I don't think these codes are helpful to newcomers. Color codes help when you routinely deal with the same things over and over again, but policy pages are simple documents meant for newcomers. Regular editors do not generally repeatedly refer to policy and guideline pages for their decision making. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar on this. I think you are misunderstanding what a policy is. It isn't a rule. A policy shows how we think about things. They are a codification of general principles. It is true that there are some process rules in the policy pages as for example this one - but in this case that is because otherwise we'd need a guideline page as well and one page is quite sufficient. This also explains why policy should normally take precedence over guidelines when there is a conflict. If a guideline saying what to do isn't in line with the consensus of how we think things should be done then we should do what we think should be done not what some rule says. That is in line with the 'Ignore all rules' policy. Of course there is also the general policy that we should just codify general practice which is the opposite of that but if there is an argument it shows there may be a problem with the rule for general practice which needs to be ironed out. In a shop a policy is not something which says 'You must say "have a good day" to the customer'. That is a guideline. A policy would be something that says you treat the customer with respect.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust you,

Dmcq, are disagreeing with the OP, not me. I also agree with Blueboar, and WAID, I dare say I do have an understanding of policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Blueboar to some extent, and completely disagree with Smokeyjoe. Dmcq's comment/ideas seems contradictory in itself/themselves. I guess you (the four of you) should reach an agreement on the terminology first: Does a policy contain some set of rules or principles.

Contrary to Smokeyjoe's claim, I am able to see "rules" both in Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Consensus. If there are words and statements in these policies, making them look like "rules/principles", they are not mere "advices" then. Logos (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can find rules, rules of various kinds are throughout both policies and guidelines. The difference is on how much interpretation may be needed in specific cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How about explaining what contradiction you see in what I said. I would say that a policy is more on the principles side but yes they can contain rules, they tend to be high level though. This one contains more low level detail than most policies as there are no relevant guidelines only essays associated with it. Those policies you pointed at though only have high level guidance illustrating the principles. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, what is being stopped by the lack of whatever you think is missing? Why should we bother spending our time on reaching some agreement on the disagreement you perceive between us?

Dmcq (talk

) 22:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to regulate how the article production is carried out, for the sake of quality. Regulation is achieved through some tools, some (or all) of which are policies and guidelines. Just like legal texts, policies and guidelines should be logically and mathematically consistent. Otherwise, the end product (for instance, it is justice, in case of legal texts) deteriorates in time, becomes lousy. Writing legal texts, devising laws is a serious business; there should be a consistent terminology. I don't know how your low level & high level adjectives matches with the description of policies and guidelines, but I am able to see so many "high level" rules/details in this

WP:PGE in this policy is quite improper, especially on top of the page. Logos (talk

) 18:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well since you like policies can I point you to

Dmcq (talk

) 19:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Normally, guideline should be revised to comply with the policy” — No. Actually, that was what an early version of that paragraph said, and it was discussed and rejected. When a policies and/or guidelines disagree with each other, then the one that is least like the communities actually practice should be changed. In some cases, all of them get changed.

"policies and guidelines should be logically and mathematically consistent” – That might be nice, but the advice pages aren’t “finished” any more than the articles are. I haven’t noticed a shortage of FACs recently, so we seem to be muddling through despite not having the sort of “perfect” policies and guidelines that would warm my inner bureaucrat’s heart. I’m reminded that

WP:NOTLAW is another shortcut to a section you’ve been referred to several times – a section in one of the most important policies, even. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a previous occasion where a rules and hierarchy focused person asked: What is the difference between policy and guideline. The most popular answer was mu. If you are asking that question, you don't understand Wikipedia. To the OP: What is the actual problem you are wanting to solve? Can you provide an example of where it was a problem? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

) 01:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:CANVAS because it isn't neutral. The link should have been to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status, so that people can decide for themselves which way to !vote. --Redrose64 (talk

) 12:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64, I know of the WP:Canvass guideline and I follow it; I didn't mean to direct people to the Oppose section. After voting in that section, I copied and pasted the link without thinking about it and then went to alert two appropriate pages (this one included) to that discussion. By contrast, the WP:Permalink shows that I redirected people to the top of the section. Redirecting people to the top of the section is what I meant to do for the live link. Since you've provided the appropriate link above, I don't see a need to change my post for that part. I will go ahead and correct the link at the other page: Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. I will also note my mistake at the aforementioned WP:RfC, under my oppose vote. Although I don't think that people seeing the Oppose section first would necessarily or significantly make them want to vote "oppose," any more than seeing the "Support" section, which comes first, would necessarily or significantly make them want to vote "support," I apologize for my mistake and I understand what you mean on that type of linking. I have sent "Opinions are needed on the following matter" messages in accordance with WP:Canvass before, and those were always neutral; for example, as seen in the WP:Lead case I linked at the aforementioned WP:RfC discussion.

On a side note: Since the WP:Policies and guidelines page/talk page is on my

talk

) 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

An election, similar to the process of choosing admins, should be made for formed groups that want to change certain guidelines on Wkipedia. It's pretty safe to say that a group will form that is supoortive of the Wikipedia's current guidelines BUT other groups may and will form and it will provide a good spectacle. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• No - the proposal misunderstands how changes to policy/guideline pages are made. Any one can edit... that means that anyone can propose changes to policy/guideline pages - and anyone can discuss those proposed changes and give their opinion. We don't form "groups" to propose and discuss changes... the "group" is the entire community. Blueboar (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There1&only (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No request made.

Dmcq (talk

) 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

PGBOLD

I've seen another instance of an undisputed change being reverted by someone who professes to have no opinion whatsoever on the merits, but just wants (yet) another discussion, with more bureaucratic hoopla.

How editors are permitted to respond to changes

Situation	Yes Recommended response	No Prohibited response
You agree with the change.	Leave it alone. Further refine it. Start a discussion about how to improve it.	Revert it.
You are neutral or uncertain about the change, and the change was not previously discussed, or that consensus was unclear from that discussion.	Leave it alone. Wait to see if anyone else has an opinion. Further refine it. Leave it alone and start a discussion. Revert it and start a discussion.	(All options are open to you.)
You are neutral or uncertain about the change, which was previously discussed, in a discussion that tended to show support for the change.	Leave it alone. Further refine it. Start a discussion.	Revert it.
You are opposed to the change, and the change was not previously discussed, or that consensus was unclear from that discussion.	Leave it alone. Wait to see if anyone else has an opinion. Further refine it. Leave it alone and start a discussion. Revert it and start a discussion.	(All options are open to you.)
You are opposed to the change, which was previously discussed, in a discussion that tended to show support for the change.	Leave it alone. Learn WP:How to lose.	Revert it.

Do you think this would be clearer? Even if it's clearer, do you think it would help reduce the bureaucratic problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, trying to spell out that response X is "valid" while response Y is "not valid" just makes for more argument and more bureaucracy. It may be frustrating to have to engage in discussion after discussion, but ... if someone requests further discussion, then engage in further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLICY. (And the page isn't even a policy; it's just a procedure page.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the proper response in that case is either

CCC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 16:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

From my experience, when someone reverts in the way that WhatamIdoing describes, what they are really saying is: "I challenge whether there actually is consensus favoring this change". The request for an RFC indicates that the challenger thinks that even if the change has a LOCAL consensus (ie agreement on the policy/guideline talk page between a limited number of "policy wonks" like us), it needs broader community input... to see if that LOCAL consensus reflects true community consensus. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right: I presumed that what WhatamIdoing was talking about was the general situation at an article page. In going back over this, I now finally cotton onto the fact that he's talking about consensus-making at a policy or guideline page (duh, self-trouting under way). Dispute resolution is not available for that. I don't think reverting a policy change a single time to challenge a purported non-RFC consensus is a good idea, but neither do I think that it's necessarily disruptive. Doing it multiple times is, however, not acceptable. If an editor wants to challenge a purported non-RFC consensus, then s/he needs to either ask for an AN consensus evaluation or file an RFC and publicize it as set out in the paragraph beginning "The RfC should typically be announced" of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Good practice for proposals. Best regards and sorry for the confusion, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that various experienced editors over the time have felt that the subject guideline "Wikipedia:Notability (awards)" should be revived. A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(awards)#Revival_of_this_guideline in that effect and you are invited to give your opinion there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Asrulascy 13:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 13:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Status of process pages as essays

There's been some back-and-forth over the addition of the bold-faced text below:

Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages,<ref>Many historical essays can still be found within [[:Meta:Category:Essays|Meta's essay category]]. The Wikimedia Foundation's [[meta:|Meta-wiki]] was envisioned as the original place for editors to comment on and discuss Wikipedia, although the "Wikipedia" project space has since taken over most of that role.</ref> WikiProject pages, or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards. These pages are not policies or guidelines, and are often classified as essays, although they may contain valuable advice or information.

My two cents on this is that these pages have the same policy/guideline effect as essays, i.e. none, but that they're only "classified as essays" in that very narrow sense. I'm not at all sure that we need further comment beyond the fact that they're not policies or guidelines, but if we do it should reflect on their effect not their classification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be content if the emboldened wording were changed to "and have no more weight than essays". We should also consider starting a new paragraph at "WikiProject pages...", so that it is clear precisely what "These pages" refers to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this revert by TransporterMan. I don't think we should be calling all these other pages "essays."

talk

) 18:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether we should or not, the question is about how we describe the current status quo, not what individuals think that the status quo should be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject pages and help pages are in a category of their own... They are not official policies or guidelines... But they are not "essays" either.
To the extent that they contain "guidance", that guidance should reflect what is stated in official "policy" pages (i.e., Policy and Guideline pages).
However, sometimes they carve out important exceptions to official Policy. the question of how much weight to give such exceptions really depends on which specific Wikiproject you are talking about... And which exception.
For a very large Wikiproject, the "guidance and instructions" expressed on a Wikiproject page can represent a wide consensus of hundreds of editors. For smaller projects, the guidance can represent the consensus of only a few editors. So we have to look deeper.
This is a problem that is not properly addressed by

WP:LOCAL... If hundreds of people participated in forming what is said in project guidance ... And only a few participated in forming what is said on a (potentially conflicting) page marked as an official "Guideline"... Which page actually represents "community" consensus, as opposed to "local" consensus? It isn't always black and white. Blueboar (talk

) 19:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There may have been more people, but they may also have been working outside the gaze of the wider community. If their guidelines are so good, they should have little trouble having them included in the (or recognised as an) agreed policy. There is precedence from Arbcom, who have decreed: "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is over the definition of "local" consensus in such situations. When a project page (or even an individual article) has held a wiki wide RFC about something it says, I don't think it is accurate to dismiss the resulting consensus as being "local." Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Define "wiki wide RFC". What makes a RFC a wiki wide RFC? Or are all RFCs wiki wide? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a few pages that deal with this old question and all say the basicly the same thing ...

WP:PROJPAGE (guidline) - Wikipedia:Essays#Types of essays (parent essay) and Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Moxy (talk

) 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, but the theory has been advanced — a theory with which I firmly disagree — that if there is a "large"^{{{definition?}}} amount of participation at any discussion that it can create a policy or guideline.

PROPOSAL to make it, first, mandatory, and second, precise, but, frankly, I'm afraid that's going to just turn into a firm-rules vs anti-bureaucracy drama and be a huge waste of my time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 21:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to resist the temptation to figure out which dispute is behind this, and just tell you all The Answer™ about WikiProject advice pages, as I understand it:

• If it's a WikiProject advice page, you can tell because the page in question is a sub-page of the WikiProject. If a page begins life in the WikiProject's "namespace", and gets adopted as a community-wide guideline, then that page must be moved (e.g., from "Wikipedia:WikiProject Stuff/Style advice" to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stuff").
• WikiProjects are (only) groups of people who want to work together. A handful of editors who work together to write down some advice are no more – or less – important than any other handful of editors who work together to write down some advice. Result: Whatever page my wikifriends and I write in WikiProject Medicine's "namespace" has exactly the same status as whatever my wikifriends and I write anywhere else. By default, that status is "nothing" (="essay"), unless and until someone makes a
  WP:PROPOSAL
  for the community to adopt it. (TransporterMan, PROPOSAL is now regarded as sufficiently normal that it might as well be mandatory. Therefore, I'm not sure that officially declaring it to be mandatory would add any benefit – unless we could somehow make it retroactively mandatory, particularly for subject-area style guides.)
• We have (unfortunately) set up a hierarchy that has policies at the top, guidelines in the middle, and essays at the bottom. We have done a very poor job of explaining how, or even whether, process pages (e.g.,
  Help:Help) fit into this hierarchy. We shouldn't need to do this, but the omission seriously bothers some editors. (This is probably the same type of editor who thought that "policy always trumps guideline, even if the guideline actually has the correct information on it" was a good idea.  ;-) I don't know how to solve this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guideline material

I don't know about this recent

:

Please also take note of

WP:Essay on a topical matter does not automatically make it guideline material. Many such proposals are found to conflict with more broadly established consensus. Much of the point of the proposal process is to normalize narrow preferences to encyclopedia-wide approaches, and, as needed, to adjust the latter to account for deficiencies addressed by the proposal rather than add yet another guideline. Another common failure of proposals to elevate essays to guidelines is that they are often not written in guideline tone and style, and may be a mixture of potentially guideline-worthy best practices that reflect consensus, and more idiosyncratic opinions, especially novel interpretations of and extrapolations from policy. Some essays simply are not guideline material by their nature, despite widespread consensus, because their content is not advisory but observational (e.g. WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), or what it addresses is optional or is contextually variable (e.g. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

).

(I do like the suggestion about integrating good ideas into existing pages, which is also in this diff.)

For example: "local consensus" is probably not a major issue; I'm not sure what "guideline material" is meant to be (there is such a variety); I don't believe that "tone and style" is a major factor in rejecting proposals; "observational" content is actually an excellent source for a guideline, and ATA would be a reasonable candidate (except that editors want to "violate" it); and "contextually variable" content could be very appropriate, e.g., guidelines on offensive material (although I have previously opposed the proposal to make

WP:BRD

a guideline).

There is probably something worth keeping here, but I suspect that more than half of it could safely be cut. What do the rest of you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with almost, but not quite all, of what's said in this text, neither is it particularly necessary, having been said or clearly implied in other places in this policy. Neutral on its entire removal, reserve my opinion on partial removal. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging

talk

) 07:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a lengthy dispute at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues regarding this particular addition to the Surface Book article:

The device had an issue where it failed to sleep properly, draining the battery very quickly.^[1] Microsoft developed a fix that was available on February 17, 2016.^[2]

This small bunch of text caused a spectacularly fierce dispute between two editors. One considers past software bugs as being excessive for Wikipedia, implying that it's

collection of information, whereas other editor insists on inclusion of the aforementioned quoted snippet, suggesting that it may shed light on a product's (past) issue, which may guide potential buyers, and also pointing to some other articles which have past resolved software bugs/issues documented.

There is still no consensus and notably the dispute is ignored by active regular editors, so after months of a slow edit war, administrators came to the discussion. However they do not provide any personal thoughts on the case, trying instead to find inconsistencies in both conflicting editors' statements (there are plenty). That's understandable, since there is no official position.

As far as I can see no official guideline regulating (present / fixed) (hardware / software) (issues / bugs), may I ask for an addition of a clear and precise official policy? I see a great necessity to have it. TranslucentCloud (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The possibilities are: 1) a guideline stating that such coverage is generally, or perhaps always, unacceptable. 2) a guideline stating that they're always acceptable. 3) continue to consider things on a case-by-case basis.

1) is flatly not going to fly. There are far too many articles (on a variety of topics) where analagous content is well accepted. Look, for example, at all of the product-related articles that detail recalls. Whatever you mean by "encyclopedic", the editors of this encyclopedia have voted with their keyboards that such content qualifies, at least where RSs show its significance. A history of problems and their fixes often adds insight into the article topic.

2) is obviously too broad. There are many cases where references are not sufficient to show the significance of a fixed problem.

3) is the only viable option. If inclusion would pass

WP:NOT

, etc., there is no reason to have an additional rule that says "oh, but if it's about a fixed problem, there's a higher standard for inclusion." (Nor, of course, is there reason for a rule that establishes a lower standard.)

Item 4 of

WP:NORUSH. We don't have to write a new rule to cover every finely-delineated type of content that comes up in an edit war. Jeh (talk

) 05:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This policy is about setting up and maintaining policies and guidelines, not the actual content of them. Wikipedia does not have clear and precise official positions on very much except ones required by the foundation for things like copyright. If you want to resolve a dispute

Dmcq (talk

) 10:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul Enforcement

I think we should consider re-writing this section:

This isn't "wrong", but I think it hits the wrong tone. Once upon a time, the overall feeling from this page was "Lucky you! You, the regular editor, are trusted to do what's right for the project. Sure, the written policies aren't perfect or complete, but they exist to help you, and your good judgment will fill in the gaps." Now, when I read this, it feels more like "We have multiple layers of police and punishment methods to force everyone to follow rigid rules, unless you want to spend hours in dispute resolution bureaucracy."

I'm not sure how to improve this, but I think we should consider it. If someone sees this and feels bold, then I'd be happy to see what changes you make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your characterization seems to describe the situation fairly. If there could be fewer dispute resolution stages and they had more teeth it would be altogether better I feel. And the people who are willing to spend hours n dispute resolution do get their way eventually by driving other editors away. The way to improve it would be to improve how dispute resolution is done - but any 'improvements' instead tend to just be added on as more layers of pain.

Dmcq (talk

) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'd rather like is if a content dispute has failed to find a resolution at RfC is is still going on then some five people chosen randomly from a group of arbiters, maybe admins or some other board that was elected, would come along and would have to decide in one day one way or the other and the decision would be absolute for the next three months.

Dmcq (talk

) 12:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, what you're talking about is some form of content arbitration. It's been proposed and discussed many times over the years and has always failed as being too much like voting and opposed to the consensus model of wiki. I mostly gave up on supporting such ideas long ago. I've been (very) slowly working on an idea that could be used voluntarily (the draft is

DRN in one dispute and it kind of worked.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of content arbitration as such but a means to reduce the effect of disputes by imposing a time out and leaving something vaguely okay in the article. Long term high level disputes without a break drive away good editors. Basically a longer term of page protect without stopping edits and leaving something that isn't completely wrong like can happen with page protect. Yes trying out something as a voluntary opinion is always a good idea if possible.

Dmcq (talk

) 21:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

TransporterMan, that's an interesting approach. One of the challenges is getting people who know something about the subject area. Knowing the arbitrator in advance would give editors a chance to decide whether it's the right person (experience, character, relevant knowledge, etc.). I like the way that you've solved that problem.

(While you're here, do you have any thoughts on the tone of the two paragraphs above?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any policy regarding WikiData? ((automatic) transclusions of data, references, citation needed, how to "flag" transclusions etc.) Christian75 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We have had several knock-down drag-out fights about it, but we have no policy on it. If you are interested in the subject, then you should probably watch Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There's been

) 12:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And before anyone accuses me of defending a body of inconsistent rules ;-) I'll point out that we do perform cleanup on policies and guidelines to make them consistent, and we do devote a lot of effort to it; but that happen as a by-product of consensus-building, not as a systematic approach to review our whole policy space. Diego (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see we need anything more about it. As this policy says 'Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation'.

Dmcq (talk

) 16:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we add such example to this policy, I'm asking for ideas of what can we do with it. Diego (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest not wasting your time arguing with someone who has done zilch useful work on Wikipedia. A certain amount of asking is fine but that discussion and the one one the 5P talk page is just too much. I think you are about to kiss your butt in bending over backwards to not bite newbies.

Dmcq (talk

) 16:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This not about responding to that particular newbie nor is a continuation of that conversation, that's why I posted it as a new section at a different page. This is about improving the description of our policies by writing down a piece of advice that one editor (who is not a newbie) thought that may be useful. Do you have anything to say about the actual question that I asked? If not, your comments are off-topic. Diego (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy will cause any meeting of minds and agreement at that discussion. I think there are quite enough essays already that one should have a halfway decent reason for adding to the mass. I view each addition to the mass as decrementing the usefulness of all the rest by turning them into a big haystack and overloading people who think they should read the things. I think there should be a good clear reason and a real improvement to offset that when increasing that mass. I hope that makes my feelings about the idea clear.

Dmcq (talk

) 20:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Diego but Dmcq is correct. I strongly support WP:IAR and have looked at the current fuss at its talk a few times, but there is nothing there except a waste of time from feeding a pointless discussion. People either understand things like IAR and NOTCENSORED or they don't, and layering on more words and essays and analogies does not help. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Two comments:

• I think your analogy would be helpful for people who have experience with whatever sport is being referenced. It'd be interesting to add it to something in the Wikipedia:Wikilawyering sphere of essays.
• Maybe we need to expand that point on concision: "Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation, but over-concision is guaranteed to be a disaster." WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

According to § Not part of the encyclopedia:

Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.
The policies, guidelines, and process pages themselves are not part of the encyclopedia proper. Consequently, they do not generally need to conform with the content standards.

The abrupt ending to the last sentence creates some ambiguity, in my opinion. Maybe it would be clearer that "content standards" refers to the things mentioned in the first sentence if the last sentence were worded "Consequently, they do not generally need to conform to the same content standards". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Since no one has objected in the last two days, I made the change pending further input. Full disclosure: a discussion I am involved in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch makes reference to this policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock|1= A friend of me used the account that i gived to him,k i will never give him again } — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyan67 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are able to post to this page, then you are not blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that policy pages sometimes seem to draw a distinction between the policies and the pages that describe them. For example, Template:Policy says "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy", not "this page is an English Wikipedia policy". This page's intro says "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices", not "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are its principles and best-agreed practices". This type of phrasing seems unnecessary and confusing, so I'd like to start editing it out.

But am I missing something? Is this a conscious choice? I don't know—perhaps it's meant to communicate the pages are just imperfect descriptions of the community consensuses that are the true policies? (That would be a very strange decision, though.)—

) 05:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not missing anything and that's a reasonable way of thinking about it. And we don't even have some sort of ideal perfect Platonic policies we're trying to describe as they are just the consensus of the time.

Dmcq (talk

) 08:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes,

you've guessed it correctly: The True Policy™ is what the community does. The words written on a page that has been tagged "policy" at the top may or may not accurately or adequately reflect the True Policy™. It is a conscious choice. If you want to read more about this, then search for what User:Jimbo Wales has said about the British constitution over the years. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 08:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

But policies are,

per the Consensus policy, the "established consensus" of the community. What The True Policy is is the "spirit of the rule." But this Policy policy (not a typo) says that policies should clearly state the spirit of the rule and "If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." Therefore, the written policies should be accurate statements of the established consensus of the community and, unless the written policy is doubtful or in flux, should be deemed to be accurate statements of the True Policy. Unless, of course, this Policy policy and the Consensus policy do not state The True Policy. But, of course, they're not doubtful or in flux. But ... damn. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 18:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The wording "this page documents an English Wikipedia policy" seems a sensible way of distinguishing between an abstract principle (the policy) and a literal thing (the page itself, as it exists on a screen, in digital memory, or hard copy). The statement "this page is an English Wikipedia policy" wouldn't account for the policy – whether held to be an unwritten rule or simply the sum of the words on the page – existing as a concept even if all copies of the page everywhere were destroyed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Neil, maybe it will help to think of it this way: Whatever government you're living under has "a foreign policy". Is that foreign policy necessarily written down and spelled out in detail? Is that foreign policy just "an informal norm" if it's not written down? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"X is just a guideline"

I have encountered this quote and its variants many times. It seems like a perennial issue: if a guideline goes against what an editor wishes to do, then the editor says it needn't apply because it is "just a guideline". Of course there may be exceptions to guidelines, but it may be insufficiently clear from the outset that such exceptions require explanation. This is addressed later in the Enforcement section,

Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that

an exception ought to be made

.

I'd like to convey a bit of this earlier in the policy, in the Role section. I propose (bolding to show diff):

Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply when there is consensus for making them.

Perhaps this can be refined, but that is the general idea. Manul ~ talk 13:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:PGE

.

Generally, I think that the whole section needs to be reconsidered. Guidelines often include more than just best practices (but some policies include that information, too); the {{guideline}} template says that they are "standard[s] that editors should follow", but we use that language to describe policies here; etc. It might be more accurate to say that the difference is merely reflective of editors' emotional reactions to certain ideas, or that guidelines usually provide more how-to information (except when they don't, e.g., WP:Notability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the section should be reconsidered too. However, Manul I don't think your change is accurate. Here's why:

• Consensus comes into play when there is contention so any content may require consensus not just a guideline. Adding "when there is consensus for making them" is then, redundant.
• Guidelines are meant to be more flexible than policies; they aren't policy, aren't as rigid as policy, they guide and so there can be opinion or in WhatamIdoing's words," reflective of editors' emotional reactions to certain ideas" on whether a guideline comes into play in any given situation. Adding, a specific requirement for consensus is more rigid than is needed. Editors know if there is contention there should be discussion and agreement for a change. Requiring consensus is a step too far towards rigidity that I don't believe is an aspect of a guide.
• The first sentence, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus" is also inaccurate so maybe that should be removed as well. Implied in all policies and guidelines is that the community in general agrees that there is consensus for those policies. We don't have to state that specifically for "guidelines" as if guidelines is somehow a special case.
• I believe that when we rewrite this we should consider delineating what guideline or policy is, then how it is implemented, is useful and how it should be used.

I am uncomfortable with the rigidity and redundancy of the change you made so will remove it for now. I believe it changes the meaning substantially. I would suggest a RfC to make that kind of change.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC))

• I urge caution in further obliterating the policy–guidelne distinction. Several editors have been trying for years to bring the definitions closer together, sometimes because there's a particular guideline that they'd like to see strengthened. In my view, the slow demise of the distinction has been bad for Wikipedia and one of the issues that has caused its decline.
  Instead of encouraging a proliferation of rules, we ought to maintain a small number of mandatory policies (supply reliable sources; try to be neutral, i.e. reflect the views of the secondary literature, not your own; be careful around living people; don't violate copyright; don't harass people), and a larger number of advisory guidelines that people are free to ignore, on the understanding that consensus will probably err in favour of the guideline if push comes to shove. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The first section is fine ("Talk first") is spot on, but the second section ("Or be bold") is terrible. it says

Or be bold. The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.

This advice "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views" is particularly toxic. I almost always revert substantive changes to rules pages made without prior discussion even if I agree with them and so should you (I make an exception for obvious improvements that no reasonable person would likely object to). The passage is even more generous to the person making the change than

, as it says it is up to the objector to open the discussion, and the objector to come up with a "substantive reason" to reject the change rather than the person wanting to make the change to come up with her argument for the change. This is even weaker protection against bold edits than articles have!

Editors sneaking or pushing substantive changes into rules on their own say-so is pernicious. Sure, anybody can revert, but some rules changes are not watched that much and anyway at any given time most of the page watchers may happen to distracted or absent. Or the repercussions of the change are not really realized, or there's an other edit soon after and it gets buried, or people make objection-type noises on the talk page but don't revert, and after awhile the discussion peters out with the change remaining in place, or any number of bad outcomes. I've seen this stuff happen several times, never with a happy result. I can't actually think of any good reason to encourage editors to make changes to rules and hope they sneak through.

Here's my proposed change:

While directly editing these pages without prior discussion is not strictly forbidden, editors are advised not to do so to make substantive changes (minor changes such as spelling corrections are OK), and watching editors are advised to strongly consider rolling back such changes on principle and asking for discussion first. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow

WP:0RR

standards.

What say you? Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Your concern, as I understand it, is that a bad change will fly under the radar on a lightly watched page, which you say you've seen a number of times. Would you please provide an example of one such time? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:MOSBIO

.

• Here on September 29, 2009 at the article Isaac Asimov an editor changed "Isaac Asmimov... was a Russian-born American author" to "Isaac Asimov was an American author" with an edit summary of "not technically correct" (it is technically correct: Asimov was born in Russia, although he spoke Yiddish and left when he was three, so it may not be important, which is different).
• Two minutes later, the same editor changed a
  WP:MOSBIO
  example from "Isaac Asimov was a Russian-born American author..." to "Isaac Asimov was an American author...", with an edit summary of "gives bad example, revise to match article" (meaning the Isaac Asimov article). (Back at the Isaac Asimov article, there was a lot of back-and-forth... boring and unimportant, but as of now the article says just "American".)
• Back at
  WP:MOSBIO, an editor rolled back the example to say ""Isaac Asimov was a Russian-born American author...", then it was restored, then rolled back again
  , with an edit summary of "MOS guidelines should not be changed unilaterally w/o discussion and consensus; WP:NPOV violation w/o"
• Taking a different tack, the original editor here warred back in just "American", and also added "Neither previous nationalities nor country of birth should normally be mentioned in the lead" -- which is step up from the Asimov case, since Asimov left Russia at age 3 and a case could be made that he didn't remember anything about it, so it's not important in his case. The new text flat prohibited mentioning "previous nationalities nor country of birth" for all cases -- even people who grew up in Russia etc. He made a couple of other edits to make minor changes.
• And that's it. The other editor who had been fighting him and insisting that he make his case and so forth gave up. And no other editors stepped up. People are busy, I don't know how many active page watchers there are, and these back-and-forths (commonly, happened here, confused by other editors inserting material elsewhere and editors making multiple edits to tweak entries) can be hard to follow and realize what's going on,.

During all this, there was a discussion, initiated I think (to his credit) by the original editor who made the change (it is here). It was attended by four people, with two supporting and two not supporting the change, and no decision (the editor who had been involved in rolling back the edits didn't participate). There was some interesting back and forth that possibly could have resulted in more nuanced guidance, but nothing happened.

In my opinion it's a mediocre rule on the merits -- it's silly to describe Patrick Byrne Magrane as just "American" for instance. He was born and raised in Ireland, and that matters. We also valorize technical citizenship too much IMO. Reasonable people can disagree. That it was pushed in by a single determined editor... this is not the best way to write rules.

In a normal environment, the person would have not have been able to push that rule through.

WP:BOLD

does help individuals who are relentless and determined to get their way. For articles, I don't know if that's all that bad... maybe. For rules, probably.

Yes sure, it says 0RR and 1RR and I guess we could have more running to the edit-war noticeboard... editors are reluctant to call the cops all the time though for various reasons. So as practical matter the current rule tends to encourage rule-change-by-the-most-determined to some extent. The above is one example; I've seen it other times.

By the way, over at

WP:BOLD is more sensible IMO. Describing best practice for Wikipedia namespace it says "In this case, 'bold' refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation. The admonition 'but please be careful' is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines" and so forth. Herostratus (talk

) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that, in your example, the end result would have been different if the original editor had gone to the talk page first, received equivocal results (as happened here), and then made the change anyway? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am dead set against people rolling back changes simply because they haven't been discussed. You should have a better reason than that. But yes I do think that BRD should be followed and it should not be up to the reverter to open a discussion - a reasoned edit comment on a revert is quite enough. So I agree with the substantive reason part but not the open a discussion part.

) 13:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with Herostratus that it's any more generous than

) 13:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK,

WP:BRD

, make your case on the talk page" and intend to keep doing so, sometimes (usually I give a more detailed reason).

I mean, there's just a huge difference between articles where you are, basically usually inserting (or changing or deleting) factual information, and rules pages, where you are changing a rule based on your desire, or opinion, or personal interpretation of another rule, or whatever. Just quite different situation, that should be treated quite differently.

There is an obvious advantage having

WP:BOLD

for articles: it enables a dynamic environment, and that's considered good overall (even if many bold edits are poor).

For rules, we don't want a dynamic fast-changing environment! What's the upside? It's different. We want careful consideration of all substantive changes, I think. With articles, you can get a fair amount of your basic point across with an edit summary. You can't really debate and adopt rules in an edit summary environment. Not well anyway. Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I support removal, without replacement, of "Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views." Policy stability is damaged by that rule and editors referring to the policy may easily be misled by something that's going to be removed as soon as discussion starts on it. Discussions over changes at

) 05:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFC

... which do you think is better, your proposal of just removing those two sentences, leaving this:

Or be bold. The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies.

or something like this version, which is even stricter:

While directly editing these pages without prior discussion is not strictly forbidden, editors are advised not to do so to make substantive changes (minor changes such as spelling corrections are OK), and watching editors are advised to strongly consider rolling back such changes on principle and asking for discussion first. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow

WP:0RR

standards.

The first is a little less change... it still says "Or be bold... most editors find advance discussion helpful... directly editing these pages is permitted". The latter is a complete rewrite and is even more restrictive ("not strictly forbidden", "editors are advised to strongly consider rolling back" etc.). I wonder which should be presented. Herostratus (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the simple removal to be preferable because, frankly, I'm okay with even bold substantive edits if they can be easily reverted for no discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "be bold" section as it relates to policy is poor advice and should be removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose removing that clause, as I consider it really good advice. In fact, I consider disruptive the kind of edits defended by Herostratus of reverting a change merely "because it has not been discussed"; not only because they are contrary to this policy, but because nothing is gained by rejecting a change if you happen to agree with it.

is a core policy stating that, if you agree to a change that was made, then it is supported as the new consensus. I don't think it's a problem that the policy is edited without first having a detailed discussion; policies and guidelines are descriptive, not normative, and if someone makes a change it may be because the guideline failed to describe some aspect of the behavior of editors in the community, which the old wording didn't take into account. And if you DO have a good reason why the change should not be made, then it is OK to revert it immediately. But not when you don't have a reason to oppose the policy as it stands after the change, and you revert only because you want to talk about it. You can also talk about it without reverting it, you know. Diego (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The majority of edits to these page are done by old timers without consultation. Has worked fine for a decade in this manner.....mass reverts based on a rule over do diligence is not the best way forward . The m:Namespace shift occurs as Wikipedians mature, thus are more likely to convey community norms and be accurate. Yes some pages suffer from inconsistent changes but overall the system works well. Most mass changes are noticed and talked about on IRC and if seen as problematic changes are brought-up at the pump or talk. --Moxy (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Suppose you happen to believe that we should adhere more closely to entities' own typography for their names -- we should write "Macy*s" instead of "Macy's", "TIME magazine" instead of "Time magazine" and so forth. Obviously most people are not going to support that, and the MOS says not to do that and always has. So what do to?

You could go to

MOS:TM

and propose a change, maybe advertise the discussion in a couple places. You might get a few people to support you, but the vote will probably be 4-7 against or whatever, and the change won't be approved, and you have to give it up.

But not if you have will to power! Forget the mewlings of the little people, it is the man with will who decides the course of history!

So go to

MOS:TM

and change "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting official" to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, unless the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting official" and swap the "avoid" and "use" labels on the examples.

It's not a very watched page. It has 178 watchers, but of course the great majority of those are inactive or retired. If you have a large watchlist, edits drop down your list within the day and drop off in few days. Maybe you misspell "unless", either accidentally or accidentally-on-purpose, and you make an edit to correct that, so if someone does see it, they just see the spelling correction unless they drill down.

So maybe only a couple-few people notice it, and one of them shrugs, and one of them, glancing at it, doesn't realize it's a big change, and one of them doesn't have time and energy today to formulate a rebuttal, and one of them objects but doesn't roll it back but instead opens a thread on the talk page to discuss it because that's how she rolls, but there's only a desultory conversation with two people on the thread and it does out, and another watcher does roll it back, but you roll that back, and the person doesn't want to escalate and go to ANI or whatever and just moves on. And that's it: no more watchers.

You're in!

So after n months this is the stable version, and then you start changing all instances of "Walmart" to "Walmart*", and this is hard to refute because after all it is the rule, and some editors are inclined to support whatever the rule is. So then it finally goes to discussion, and the vote is 7-4 to change it back to how it was, but the closer decides there's no consensus, so the current stable version is kept.

So thus we end up with a bad rule that most people don't support.

And I can't believe I'm hearing "And a good thing too! Yes! That's how it should be done!".

Also... because that's obviously poor, as a practical matter, few people are board with you on this, and I'm not the only editor who rolls back these kinds of changes on principal. Since it's generally done, it should be codified, since rules mostly codify accepted practice. So this is not just a bad rule on the merits but also because it's just false. It gives bad advice to "be bold" when in practice people are not going to let you be bold (and a good thing too). Rules should not give bad advice and state false things. Herostratus (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite your doomsday scenario, the unlikely sequence of events you describe wouldn't represent a failure of the process. Wikipedia is

WP:Not a bureaucracy, and its policies and guidelines do not constitute a body of law. Our rules are only as good as the support they get from the community; if there is not enough people supporting a written rule, and a significant number oppose it, it won't have effect on day to day editing - if only because few people know about it, and they can't follow what they don't know. A rule like in your example which had so little influence, with no one watching it and no substantial majority reinstating it even after attracting attention through an RfC, won't be enforceable. Which *is* a good thing - the written letter of a policy should not be used for someone to wikilawyer their way into enforcement, when a large percentage of editors don't agree with it. And a small group of editors should not be allowed to filibuster against attempts to change a guideline when someone tries to update it and make it reflect current widespread practices. Diego (talk

) 14:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It's also funny that, in your above example, the main problem is caused by people rejecting change for the sake of keeping everything stable in the current version, i.e. those "editors inclined to support whatever the rule is". More the reason to support the rule that defends allowing editors to evolve the guideline through

WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and prevents people from stalling progress by death from discussion at the talk page. Diego (talk

) 14:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with simply: "Or be bold. Please follow

) 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question - for those who oppose an edit summary saying "Revert - undiscussed bold edit"... would "I would like to discuss this change first, because I am not sure that it reflects consensus" be an acceptable edit summary for a revert? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you then immediately go to the talk page and explain in what ways you don't think it reflects consensus then yes, because it means that you have other reasons beyond it not being discussed. If your only reason for the revert is that you want to discuss it for the sake of having discussion, then no. You can have the discussion without the revert. Diego (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment At the end, what the "be bold" clause says is "explain why you think the guideline shouldn't change"; I doubt anyone will deny that this is good advice. Merely stating "this should be debated first" is not conductive to debate, since the editor whose changes have been reverted won't have any idea why the change was not accepted.

Conversely, it only takes the reverting editor to say "I think the previous version was giving better advice than the new one" to comply with the guideline; that *is* a valid reason for the revert according to the rule, much better than "this wasn't discussed enough"; as doing this at least explains the position of the reverting editor, and avoids paradoxes like "I agree with the change, but I revert it nonetheless", which is what the proposed change encourages. Diego (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If that's all that's needed to satisfy the requirement, a glib assertion that the previous version may be better (or, by extension, that the new BOLD version isn't good enough), — and I'm not disagreeing that it's enough, because I agree that it is — then the requirement merely advances form over function: You don't really have to have anything to back it up, it's more important what you say than what you really mean or feel, and it's therefore not really a substantive editing requirement but an empty bureaucratic "magic words" hoop to jump through and a "gotcha" to beat on people who aren't policy wonks and haven't yet learned to say the magic words. (Hell, I am a long-standing policy wonk and didn't know about it until this discussion.) As such, it needs to be removed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think Herostratus' proposal is better than the current version. Better yet (or so I think since a couple of years) we should address what I believe is the underlying problem that Herostratus is trying to solve. Which is: "how do I know that the policy version I am reading is actually the policy desired by the community at large, and not some change by a loud minority that slipped by?". Well.. I don't know if they have that perception, but I know I do :-) I think that policy pages should have citations to the source of the policy, in a similar way to articles. That may mean a link (a <ref> ?) to a discussion, or a explanation of the reasons for the change, or addition, or removal. It sure needs more thought, off course, but the main point is: source non trivial changes. - Nabla (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me like an open invitation to office rules martinet types who cause trouble about a coffee machine or fridge. If what you read doesn't sound reasonable and you'd like to do something different may I suggest you check by querying on the talk page or the help desk or the talk page of the article where you disagree about it? And if it really is so you might find that others agree that you can just use your common sense instead?

Dmcq (talk

) 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That idea rejects the concept of consensus by silence, at least in regards to policy and guidelines. To say that differently, lets say that user X makes a BOLD substantive change to a policy and no one objects to or reverts it for a long time. Should we presume that the change slipped under the radar or should we presume that everyone who was interested saw it and though it was acceptable? Let's say that the rule is that BOLD edits are going to be presumed to have slipped under the radar, not been adopted by consensus by silence. And let's say that several layers of BOLD edits get encrusted onto a policy and stay there for months before someone notices them. Are we then going to revert back to some long-ago former version of the policy and say that all decisions which have relied on the policy in the interim are illegitimate? That's a recipe for chaos. No, BOLD edits to policy should be able to be challenged and reverted simply for lack of discussion (and thus consensus) for a reasonable period of time after they have been made. Changes which aren't reverted fairly promptly become part of the policy, with "fairly promptly" being determined by the importance (and thus number of watchers) of the policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines at large should be broad in their language.....in cases where an RfC has promoted a change the RfC should be linked. Policies should not contain examples in most cases in my view.....thats best left to guidelines. So really the main problem here is with the MOS pages. I think links (not a ref section) for MOS pages linking to discussions would be good idea as with template document pages . Good example of a policy that is to specific is Wikipedia:Image use policy....lots of formatting crap here like |thumb|upright=....that the MOS should and does handle. I guess the proposal would help slow example creep in policy pages.--Moxy (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Like

:

Wikipedia does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its

raised and discussed first

to best formulate their implementation.

The admonition "but please be careful" is especially important in relation to

discuss potential changes first

. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed.

If it's what we're saying on the page dedicated to the concept of BOLD, why aren't we saying the same here? --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI comments welcome Template_talk:Wikipedia_how-to#Requested move 11 July 2017

) 17:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Interchangeability of "policy" and "guideline"

The "Role" section distinguishes "policies" and "guidelines" from each other. However, often many people decide to use "policy" and "guideline" interchangeably. One user refers WP:Canvassing as a "policy", but it's marked as a guideline. Do many users disregard and ignore the "Role" section? If not, why else do they use the terms interchangeably? --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Editors often use policies and guidelines interchangeably because they both enjoy project-wide consensus, and a wilful breach of a guideline is just as serious as a wilful breach of a policy. The distinction in the Role section is demonstrably inaccurate because it define policies as "standards" and guidelines as "practices". Such a distinction is wishful thinking by whoever sought to oversimplify a quite complex relationship between the two concepts. You only have to look at Wikipedia:List of policies to see that the first policy, WP:Article titles, is clearly a documentation of best practice, not a standard (as there are so many competing considerations and exceptions documented at that page). Similarly, WP:Disruptive editing has none of the claimed characteristics of a guideline. Nor, for that matter, is it "best practice" to avoid WP:Plagiarism – it's an absolute requirement that you don't claim the work of others as your own. In truth, both policies and guidelines document our accepted practices and standards on Wikipedia, and policies are actually guidelines that site-wide consensus has agreed to call "policies". --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... if the "Role" section is inaccurate, why not propose changes to the section to reflect the complexity? --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would put it like this: Guidelines reflect majority consensus... Policies reflect overwhelming consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I would suggest that there's better things to worry about in life than someone on the internet mistakenly calling a gudeline a policy.
  Dmcq (talk
  ) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• as a general rule of thumb the subjects covered by guidelines might be the sort of thing for which exceptions might make sense more often than the subjects covered by policies .
  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk
  ) 03:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 of september 2017

This edit request to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Marisolcontreras80 (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please help me Rizzarizzo55 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:Autobiographies, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Reliable sources, generally make it a bad idea to try to write an article about oneself. Those are not likely to change any time soon. —C.Fred (talk

) 15:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Diagramme of hierarchy?

A diagramme showing the hierarchy within Wikipedia of editors, administrators, etc would be useful. Thanks. 81.131.172.3 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There's different roles but they don't form a hierarchy.

Dmcq (talk

) 19:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia:Administration#Human and legal administration.--Moxy (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote an essay at

.

I posted an explanation on the talk page. Comment there if you like. In short, an "Act of Wiki" might be required to set a guideline, but maybe not, and also, no one should expect that an "Act of Wiki" is a requirement for anything less than a guideline.

I would like to request feedback on whether anyone else has seen anyone else define a similar concept. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: As far as I know, Wikipedia does not yet have a formal process for amendments to its policies and guidelines. Since Wikipedia's policies are only semi-protected, they are potentially vulnerable to conflict-of-interest editing and vandalism. Jarble (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jarble: Yes, I think there is no process. I expected that there was and when I failed to find one I drafted out that page. I did not propose a process, but only proposed that the process be called an "act of wiki". If anyone ever does have a process or the need arises then at least there is that page to read to confirm that no one has articulated a process and to start a conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that the problem with imposing a formal process is that so many changes are so minor. I changed the formatting on a guideline a few days ago. Should that need An Act of Wiki? I moved stuff from one guideline to another. Should that need An Act of Wiki? Most of us think that those changes require no process at all, but if you go down the route of There Must Be Serious Process, then someone will declare that even those small changes Must Have More Process.

We had pretty significant problems a few years back with people reverting small changes on policies because "It wasn't discussed" – and then showing up on the talk page to say that they supported the changes that they had reverted! I think we need more attention on the product than on the processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at Wikipedia:Press pass, which is an information page that hardly has had discussion.

On 8 July 2018 user:Septrillion changed the article to add {{guideline}} to the page. 12 days later this user got blocked. I cannot understand their behavior. They seem experienced and see good edits throughout their log, and in their edit log, I do not seem them doing similar questionable edits around the same time.

The issue I want to raise is that our infrastructure might not be adequate to trust that something labeled as policy or guideline actually is. The authority seems to be Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. However, there is no process in the talk page or in the edit log there of confirming how something came to be on that page.

We have no quick way to reconcile the members of categories, pages with templates, and items in that authoritative list actually match. There will be no alert if any page mistakenly gets a label that it is a policy.

I wonder if we have anything labeled as a guideline and being argued as such, but which is actually controversial or still in debate? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the section on good practice for proposals in this policy?

Dmcq (talk

) 19:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the name for something like a guideline but not community confirmed?

We have a framework for Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays.

"Essays" are often opinions. I would not say that an essay develops into a guideline.

Guidelines are instructions. If they are community confirmed guidelines, we treat them with respect and are slow to challenge them. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is an example of a guideline.

Is there a name for something written like a guideline, but which may not ever get community confirmation? Instructions on a niche topic could fit into this scheme, because maybe the issue does not merit broad community review but might work for a small area.

I need a content tag for the top of Wikipedia:Press pass. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I read it and thought it seemed like an essay. But to answer your question, you may want to consider the templates in Category:Proposal header templates to see if something strikes you. --Bsherr (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I would call it an “information page”. That said, the information it provides relates more to our sister project, Wikinews, than to Wikipedia. So... I am not sure if Wikipedia is the right venue for the page. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A question for the experts on changing policy/guidelines

When there are discussions on changing aspects of the larger policy documents - such as things like deletion policy, is each change required to meet the higher level of consensus/stability for it to considered a "policy", rather than a "guideline"?

Logically one of three things should occur:

1. No Change should be accepted unless they demonstrate the higher requirements (and lack of likely exceptions) of Policy, as opposed to Guidelines;
2. If any aspect of a Policy has a "Guideline-level" paragraph added, the document should be relabelled as a Guideline
3. All non-policy level changes should be only added to a sub-page, which can have a different status added to it than the primary page.

I've not seen any example of 1 in the various discussions held (and obviously not 2). Very rarely option 3 comes up (though I think this may be somewhat coincidental - i.e. it got a subpage because that made sense, rather than a policy/guideline consideration). However, most often it seems that additions are "promoted" to policy status which they shouldn't inherently get.

I was hoping for some thoughts of others, given both a relatively short tenure and a focus in only 3 or 4 areas - is this the case? Is this the case, but it's just accepted as preferable to a split status within documents? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are asking... could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) Policy pages do not include "guideline level" (whatever that means) text. If text is added to a policy page it becomes policy. (2) As a practical matter the bar for adding text to a policy page (and policy "sub-page" (whatever that means)) is high and, in most cases, higher than the bar for adding text to a guideline. (3) Policies can and do have exceptions. Hence,

WP:Policies says that policies "describe standards that all users should normally follow" (emphasis added). Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 02:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be expecting too much from these labels. It's not "logical". What you do is, you start a discussion (see the

WP:PROPOSAL policy for what some editors would call guideline-level advice on how to do that) on the talk page, in which you say "This is called this thing, and I think it ought to be called this other thing instead". If enough people agree, then you change the label. Editors will then express quite firm, and usually contradictory, opinions about what "should" be on a page with your proposed label, but none of that actually matters. Pages get the labels that editors want them to have. (No consensus means no change.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Quorum for a consensus?

I hope this hasn't been documented somewhere, but if so, I can't find it. Also, I hope this isn't opening a can of worms or restarting an old debate, but...

Is there any standard on how many people have to be involved, to establish a consensus on policy/guideline changes? In other words, it there some expected quorum? I have the impression that only a small number of editors follow the policy and guideline pages meticulously. So I could imagine a fraction a percent of the community coming up with something, forming a consensus among themselves, and making it a policy, all without the vast majority of editors ever hearing about it. Are there some accepted practices to prevent this? Fcrary (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, many policy and guideline pages are watched by quite a lot of editors. Nonetheless: If your concern is an ongoing discussion that does not seem to draw much participation, a solution might be

Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and further discussion, including an RfC, may be appropriate if doing so would not be disruptive. But there is no requirement for a certain amount of participation to reach consensus. Indeed, a single editor can comprise a consensus; see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. --Bsherr (talk

) 21:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about a particular, current discussion. I mostly edit for content and clear presentation, and I keep running into people citing guidelines I've never heard of and which don't really make sense to me. So I wondered how we make sure the consensus on new guidelines really is a widespread, community consensus. As opposed to the consensus of one or two people with some obscure concern.

The article you referenced, on "Silence and consensus" is just an essay, so it isn't really more than an opinion piece. But it does have a link to another essay, Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. The thesis of that essay is that, unlike regular articles, policies and guidelines affect the entire community, and therefore "[o]nly when a proposal has been discussed by a significant number of editors can it be said to have had the proper community attention." By that logic, no, a single editor can not comprise a consensus in this case.

Many or most discussions of policies and guidelines may involve "quite a lot of editors", but there are a truly huge number of Wikipedia editors. For a typical discussion, I'd call a hundred participants quite a lot. But Wikipedia:Wikipedians gives 128,690 regular, registered editors, about 12,000 "eligible to vote in the Wikimedia Stewards Elections" (if you like that criteria) or about 5000 who make more than 100 edits per month. That's a whole lot of people actively affected by new policies and guidelines, and a consensus among a hundred could be under a percent of them. Most of us do not follow policy pages, because we're interested in content and have a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia. So, I guess my question is really how we assure the consensus for policies and guidelines really reflects the consensus of the community. Fcrary (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This policy describes what is needed in the section on content changes and in the subsection of that about substantive changes. What in particular do you see as a problem with what is described there? You seem to think that 1% participation is small for a consensus. That is wrong. It is not a referendum. If people find a problem or think something that is generally done should be better documented they participate, if others use the policies without problems they are consenting. If you think that some high percentage of people should participate before changing a policy there is the

Dmcq (talk

) 11:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, if you think this is wrong, why is there an essay, Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies? I didn't write that, and most of the comments on its talk page support the idea. Second, I do have a problem with 1% or less of the editors dictating rules to the entire community. They would be, in my opinion, those with far more free time than the average editor or those with an interest in making rules rather than adding content. That's unrepresentative and, worse, discourages people from getting involved. There is nothing more discouraging than making well-intentioned improvements to an article, only to have someone revert them and simply point to some obscure guideline. Especially if that guideline doesn't really make sense and was probably added at the whim of a small number of people. You are quite correct to say we do not currently have any policy, practice or mechanism to prevent this. But it's a problem, and I think it's reasonable to ask what we could do to solve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Silence. —SmokeyJoe (talk

) 08:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is *not* just an essay. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Information pages are the functional equivalent of essays. See Wikipedia:Project_namespace#How-to_and_information_pages. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're technically correct. it's a "explanatory supplement" not an "essay." But it's not a policy or guideline, and is something that any user can freely edit. I guess that was my point. In addition, as written, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is focused on editing of articles in the encyclopedia, not on policies and guidelines. I would think it is obvious that the same standards should not apply to both, since policies and guidelines affect the entire community. There should be something to make sure the broader community is at least aware of a proposed change to guidelines and policies. If changes can be made without their knowledge, you can't honestly call that a consensus. And, no, just telling people to follow all the policy pages isn't the answer. Most (virtually all?) editors have have a limited amount of time to spend on wikipedia and are more interested in improving the quality of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Project namespace#How-to and information pages makes quite clear that information pages and supplements are only similar to essays to the extent that both are not necessarily supported by the heightened consensus and weight that guidelines have. Essays are supposed to be opinions and advice, which is quite different than supplements and information pages, which are supposed to provide additional explanation. And I'm sure we all know that there are some essays that have as much respect as guidelines here. But, as described below, one doesn't need to discount Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies for being an essay to distinguish it from Wikipedia:Silence and consensus as applied to guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

specifically for policies and guidelines too. I sympathize with the situation you describe, making what one thinks are good edits only to find that there's a contradictory guideline, and then to have to spend time to get consensus to improve that guideline before going back to work, but I also have to invoke Butwhatdoiknow's maxim below. The only consolation I can offer is that there are a lot of folks here, me included, who are eager to check out the issues you find in the policies and guidelines so you can focus on spending your time doing what makes you happy in the article namespace. (You might be surprised to know there are many, many editors who enjoy spending a chunk of that—as you rightly observe above—limited Wikipedia time in the project namespace so we can have sound and sensible guidelines to keep our content authors humming along and our pages looking consistent and credible, which is important work too.) --Bsherr (talk

) 18:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As is said of democracy, the Wikipedia process to determine consensus is the worst, except for all the others. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In re If changes can be made without their knowledge, you can't honestly call that a consensus.

Yes, actually, we can, and we do. What matters is whether they agree with (or at least don't object to) the change – not whether they were notified of the change in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Brogo13, why did you remove the word that in all these sentences? I agree that it's not necessary among native English speakers, but it is also not grammatically wrong, and putting all the implied words into the sentence is helpful to some people who don't read English easily, or who are reading this page through machine translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Whenever I spot a word that I can remove "safely", i.e. the sentence could still say precisely the same thing without it ... Meanwhile, millions of far better editors than I are watching. --Brogo13 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, rather less than a million editors. As one of the few editors who's watching, I'm saying that removing this word is, at best, a pointless change, and at worst a change that makes it harder for English language learners to understand the page. Would you please self-revert that change and stop making that change to policies, guidelines, and other pages that are intended to help editors understand what to do and how to do it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No. --Brogo13 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a highly unproductive response. I believe the guideline is to make no stylistic changes based purely on personal preference. I don't think there is any problem with the occasional, extraneous "that". Are you worried about saving Wikipedia the disk space required for those four bytes? Fcrary (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I spotted an extraneous that—seven times in one article—and did something about them. Nearly two months later, they're still gone.

Kthxbai p.s.

Get over it. (Whom? I?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogo13 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed these changes because I think they are unhelpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Supplement#Template supplement. I don't have a strong opinion either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.177.11.129 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

t/c

) 13:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Research on rules

People interested in policies in general might be interested in an upcoming presentation. The m:Research Showcase on 17 October 2018 is about m:Research:Teahouse group dynamics, and the way people respond differently to two different kinds of "rules" (written rules vs what you see other editors doing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing Haikoman (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Self-referential failure in the guidelines

I note this text in the "Content" section of the guidelines "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification.". Is "more clear" really the most concise? I'm pretty sure "clear", as an adjective, has regular comparative and superlative forms, and M-W lists "clearer" as the comparative of "clear", so someone who can edit the guidelines should fix that sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.106.61 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed a change to the icons/colors used for policies and guidelines at Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines#Colors because the colors are too hard to distinguish from each other, even for normally-sighted people. I'm hoping the change could be fairly easy to implement (navbox and a couple of other templates used on individual policy and guideline pages, though I haven't dug that far yet). Comments invited. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Discussion now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy and guidelines icons. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines regarding guidelines and the notability of shopping malls.

Question: Should existing guidelines be clarified (or a new guideline created) to provide more guidance between what is considered routine run of the mill coverage and what coverage will establish notability?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have two questions, the first is where can I find the shortcuts for changing my Wikipedia user page?. The second is how can I find the complete rules of Wikipedia? --ItsObjectiveee (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsObjectiveee, try this link to edit your local user page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ItsObjectiveee#/editor/all

Life isn't long enough to read the complete rules. However, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines might help you find the relevant rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I mean, it was going to be "Sandbox", thank you anyway. ItsObjectiveee]— (talk)]— 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've already edited it, thank you. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Style of policy and guideline pages. The section "things to avoid" has some points that i think we should add. "

1. Ineffective rules. Do not add rules that are moot or unenforceable.
2. Weak rules. Avoid rules expressed as conditional statements if there is no condition, weak modal verbs if there it is a mandatory rule, and rules of limited applicability to the subject at hand.
3. Weak language. Avoid wikispeak, legalese, and terms of art, unless necessary to clearly convey a rule. Do not nullify rules with wishy-washy language. Avoid mixing rules and rationales in the same section, and unnecessary
   self-reference
   .
4. Redundancy. Avoid saying the same thing twice in one page, even if phrased differently. Also avoid rules that duplicate the effect of other rules, saying the same thing in both positive and the negative, laying out a class of things as a general principle than enumerating the individual items partly or fully, and repeating rules and descriptive text from other policy or guideline pages.
5. External authority. Avoid quoting rules from outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline articles, except to endorse that they apply here. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wakelamp, it's a good idea, except that it'll never fly. So:

1. Sometimes an "unenforceable" rule exists to set expectations and communicate what we hope for. These have community-building value even though they are facially pointless.
2. Some editors think that weak rules are a more polite way to communicate. It's a problem if someone writes a rule that says "It sure would be nice if people could avoid copyvios" and then we beat up the innocent folks who didn't understand that "sure would be nice" means "We will insta-block anyone who does that", but there can be some value in starting softly, especially if the situation isn't clear cut when you're writing the rules. If you see gaps between what's written and what's done, then one or the other needs to be adjusted.
3. Weak and sloppy language is often a case of
   WP:NPOV
   without them." Someone who wants to violate the rule is going to be stuck either saying that NPOV is unimportant, or that they can magically write an article about Alice Expert, using only sources written by Alice herself, and still give a balanced view of Alice.
4. Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions
   . People mostly read one section, which they reached through a shortcut or by using ⌘F to find a keyword. If the key instruction isn't in that section, they won't see it.
5. I mostly agree, but our opinion isn't widely shared. People often feel more confident saying that "
   Strunk and White says that ain't grammatical" than just saying "I say that ain't grammatical" on their own authority. In other cases, people want to change the typical (sometimes thoughtless) convention, so they look for an external authority to prove that their goal is correct and not merely their private, personal opinions. You'll see this in a lot of LGBT- and suicide-themed style discussions. "I propose that we ____ because it's recommended as the best practice in the AP Stylebook
   " sounds a lot more professional and objective than "I propose that we ____ because otherwise we'll hurt people's feelings."

(Please ping me if you need me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I've slightly modified today's edit from WhatamIdoing to the relevant section. Even if a guideline or something similar uses words like "do not" or "must not", it is understood that this is not an absolute prohibition. Guidelines are just that, with frequent exceptions which must be made on a case by case basis. Fcrary (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

WOuld it be fair to say that we should avoid all absolutes? - no best practise just good practice, no "do not" just "could" or "may" Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There are absolutes. Wikipedia:External links is "just a guideline", but what it says against adding links from the spam list is not something you can ignore. The software will always prevent you from saving your changes to a page if you don't remove blacklisted spam links first. That's pretty absolute, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fcrary, I think it would be helpful in that sentence to give the specific example of "do not". Some editors easily accept a "positive" imperative ("Always place the ref tag after the punctuation") but think that you cannot say the same thing in the opposite form ("Do not place the ref tag before the punctuation"). I'm not sure how to fit that into the current wording, but that exact phrase is one that some editors believe is banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think having simple p and gs mean that new editors are on a more equal footing. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

So stronger rules, would mean that people who do not see nuances would be more likely to abuse them. Thank-you. I was trying to understand discretionary guidelines and failing, and your comment now makes sense of this Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

When a practice is aggressively enforced, then we should write the rules to reflect that level of enforcement. When the practice is inconsistent or half-hearted, then we should write the rules to reflect that level of enforcement. When the practice is complicated (e.g., why we might include content about a juvenile crime in this BLP but not that BLP), then we should write complicated rules to reflect that. Having accurate policies and guidelines should help put new editors on a more equal footing. Having simple written rules for complicated and nuanced situations might not help them so much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The article does not mention the scope of the article - do the policies and guidelines described here rule all wikipedia-editions or only the english language version? The edit request is, to make that clear in the header. Thanks, keep up WillTim 2001:16B8:11E0:6700:9944:CFE0:4EF2:1719 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

All the different language editions of Wikipedia are independent of each other. None of the rules that we make here are binding on any other independent community, and none of the rules that they make at their projects are binding on us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This used to be specified, but @

Dmcq removed it in this edit. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of "developed" in PGBOLD

The recent edit

WP:PGBOLD

added the sentence

Wikipedia is now over 20 years old; its policies are developed and often the result of years or even decades of discussion, compromise, and collective experience.

Reading this, my initial parse takes developed as the verb, as in "its policies are developed over years or even decades", making it a bit of a Garden-path sentence (at least for me). developed is meant as the adjective, in this case meaning "mature" or "established", right? I went to change it BOLDly to "mature" or "established", but I decided I wasn't sure which word (if either) would be considered suitable. —2d37 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the editor who added this text did, in fact, mean "mature" or "established." However, the question is temporarily moot as the addition of this sentence and other text has been reverted pending the outcome of the discussion below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Restrictions on Bold editing of policy pages

This discussion relates to these changes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question, @2d37. There were three changes to the policy recently. Here is the list of additions:

1. Bold editors should first check relevant talk archives to see if the change they intend to make has been proposed before, and if it was rejected consider whether the reasons for its rejection are still relevant.
2. However, a bold edit that has been reverted with a substantive reason given should not be reinstated without consensus. The burden of demonstrating consensus for a change to policies and guidelines is on those wishing to introduce the change.
3. Whilst policies and guidelines may be boldly edited, such bold edits should aim to improve the documentation of existing consensus and community practices. Wikipedia is now over 20 years old; its policies are developed and often the result of years or even decades of discussion, compromise, and collective experience. Accordingly, bold editing is not a suitable method to change established processes and norms; instead, a
   request for comment
   should be used to gather community input on the change.

In order:

1. It is not normal for people to check the archives before making a change. We should not impose this rule now. That change is, in fact, a violation of the rule that policies should flow from established practice rather than being imposed by one bold editor.
2. Th second change replaced a sentence that emphasized the need for the reverter to justify the reversion: "Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views." The net result is anti-bold and effectively making BRD (whose first sentence says that it's an "optional" method) be a mandatory process.
3. I have no objection to the "improve the documentation of existing consensus and community practices" part, although it is redundant with other parts of the policy. But the "we're old and already know everything" bit is IMO inappropriate, and in my experience, RFCs should not be used for most changes to policies and guidelines.

I suspect that the editor who wrote all of this was thinking about major changes to core policies (e.g., NPOV), and not to the everyday normal updates to 99% of the policies and guidelines. To give an example, this edit to the guideline IMO would not have benefited from an RFC, even though it is technically a change to practice. This long discussion, though not the only discussion we've had on that subject over the years, nor (if memory serves) advertised as an RFC, led to a substantial revision of one section of the guideline. I don't think that advertising that discussion would have resulted in a different outcome, so why would we mandate the use of an RFC for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To perhaps be a little more concrete, if someone makes a change to a policy, the responses we want are:

• Oh, good idea, thanks.
• Unfortunately, that's a bad idea/contradicts another page/doesn't apply to every situation/etc., and I'm reverting because it's a bad idea/etc.
• That's maybe not quite it, but would my bold tweak help?
• Let's talk about it.

The response that we don't want is:

• You didn't say
  Mother May I?
  /read the archives/run an RFC first, so I get to revert you, and nyah nyah nyah, you're the bold editor, so you aren't allowed to revert me!

IMO these proposed changes tend to encourage the latter response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Sorry I didn't see this sooner, as you didn't ping. People shouldn't be using policy pages as a method of trying to push through their disputed views that would have no chance in an RfC, which is what some people continually do. This is, I think, a generally accepted position that bold editing PAGs with obvious non-consensus views is not acceptable. In the same way that I didn't notice you reverted the change, many people won't notice some of these changes. They slip under the radar, but get quoted in administrative or content discussions as if they're consensus. If you have a better wording to prevent these issues I'm all ears. PAGs are not normal pages, however. If a change is reverted with a substantive reason given, it's for the bold updater to justify their remarks and seek consensus. They cannot keep their updates forced into policy while the chug of consensus moves and explicitly affirms that the non-consensus change was, indeed, non-consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some examples of what I mean: this event and this one too. I accept that social communities can't be boiled down into a set of processes everyone should follow and then everything will work out just great, and sometimes this method is the best way to force people to come together and find some kind of solution. But I don't think it's entirely sustainable; neither of those two RfCs was even close to affirming the text that was boldly added, yet it remained for months/years (even after failing to get talk consensus) and was cited as if it was. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @ProcrastinatingReader. I apologize for not pinging you last time.

I think it might be useful to separate these two cases:

• Alice and Bob are in a dispute; Bob boldly edits the guideline during the dispute so that the guideline supports his view.
• Bob believes that he knows what the consensus is, and he boldly edits the page to match his understanding of the consensus.

The first scenario is a bit underhanded, even if Bob is correct. The second is a problem only if Bob's view doesn't actually align with consensus.

I think it's also useful to remember that our response to such changes need not be limited to "keep" or "revert". In particular, the {{disputed tag}} is useful for alerting editors that the bit being quoted against them isn't necessarily accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The first scenario is already

WP:GAMING

. There's a third scenario:

• An editor knows what the consensus is, but he disagrees with it and knows his views won't gain support. He edits the PAG page anyway and hopes the change sticks; people assume the text is consensus because it's a a "policy or guideline" page, without questioning when it was added and with how much discussion, and suddenly the view that never had consensus becomes enforced as if it is.

PAG pages are meant to represent consensus, but they're quoted as if they are consensus itself. If there is no evidence that a change has consensus, and it's being disputed, it should be removed until the proponents evidence consensus exists for their proposal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are improper bold edits to policy pages, but how many actually survive for a substantial period of time? Yes, it is a pain to have to deal with such edits, but what is the alternative (other than changing the "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" pillar and eliminating bold edits?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader raises legitimate concerns regarding bold edits whether made to policy pages, guidelines, essays, or substantive articles. However, improper bold edits are unlikely to be prevented by whatever we say at

. If I'm right about that then the only thing we will accomplish by laying down barriers to bold editing will be to discourage legitimate bold improvements. That said, I'd be okay with adding text along the lines of:

Wikipedia is now over 20 years old. Its policies are often the result of years or even decades of discussion, compromise, and collective experience. If you make a bold edit that changes a major policy and another editor raises a substantive objection then you should be prepared to discuss and defend your change on the talk page.

Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing: while person A is allowed to make a bold edit, person B is ALSO allowed to make a bold edit ... and that second bold edit may completely negate the bold edit that person A made. So who’s bold edit has more legitimacy? My answer would be “neither”... both editors should be prepared to discuss their edits (as should everyone else. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both @Blueboar (bold edits need not be kept) and @Butwhatdoiknow (rule breakers won't follow these rules, either).

I think that what would ultimately be most effective is in @ProcrastinatingReader's reply: If we built a culture that was more about consensus and producing good content, and less about rule-following, we wouldn't have this problem. This is hard, and it is not efficient in the short term. But if everyone really understood that the thing that matters is the widespread current community practice, and that the written documentation is only meant to be a shortcut to understanding that practice, then we would have less difficulty there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to say that Wikipedia is now over 20 years old, etc. I have had a slightly weird feeling during the last few months about a page I wrote, and that informs my view on this subject. I started Wikipedia:Biomedical information a few years ago, in the hope of solving a perennial and sometimes perhaps strawmannish argument about MEDRS. The scope is unclear, so our anti-woo warriors tend to blank unwanted content "per MEDRS" when they probably ought to blank it "per NPOV". This leads to disputes about whether MEDRS really says what it says, etc., and my goodness, according to MEDRS you can't even write that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that US cyclists died in collisions last year, because their report is not a peer-reviewed review article published in a respected medical journal!

With the pandemic going on, this (essay/supplement) page has suddenly caught the attention of a lot more editors, especially those who serve in gatekeeper roles on wiki. I feel like the page is only about two-thirds done, but it's getting quoted like it's the absolute truth. I'm glad that it's proving useful, but I worry that the current version is being enshrined as the One True™ Version, and that improvements will be difficult to make in the future. We need the policies and guidelines – even the core policies – to adapt as the community practice changes over the years. Anything that says "We already thought of everything, so your idea is probably wrong" isn't going help us in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My experience is that wording in policy pages can work. I disagree with Yes, there are improper bold edits to policy pages, but how many actually survive for a substantial period of time? -- in the change I linked, a bold edit was made in 2019, disputed mid 2020, discussed extensively on talk, failed to even get 50% support, yet was forced in. When it went to RfC, almost 2 years after the addition, the clause was overwhelmingly rejected. In the second I linked, I think the change at

WP:N

stuck around for quite a few months as well, and barely lasted a week before it was disputed, yet was edit-warred in and an RfC had to be drafted to get consensus to remove it. In the meantime these bold changes mislead casual readers reading the PAG. This method also shifts the burden onto those trying to restore the status quo, rather than those trying to introduce the change. To be clear, the intention is that if a proponent wishes to make a change to a PAG, and another person disputes it and claims it doesn't reflect consensus, then it should be on the person wishing to introduce the change to provide evidence that their change has the appropriate level of consensus. Presently, it's often the other way around; those wishing to remove the change need to get affirmative consensus to remove a change that was completely illegitimate in the first place. That can't be right. We can scrap the 'PAGs are developed' part which I sense you object to, but the three key changes I'd like to see are:

1. Bold editors should first check relevant talk archives to see if the change they intend to make has been proposed before, and if it was rejected consider whether the reasons for its rejection are still relevant.
2. A bold edit that has been reverted with a substantive reason given should not be reinstated without consensus. The burden of demonstrating consensus for a change to policies and guidelines is on those wishing to introduce the change.
3. Some variation of: Whilst policies and guidelines may be boldly edited, such bold edits should aim to improve the documentation of existing consensus and community practices. ... Bold editing is not a suitable method to change established processes and norms.

If you disagree with the three principles above, it'd be helpful to know why. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, if you look above to my comment on 29 April, you will find a numbered list of why I object to those points.

Also, I hope that you see the irony here. You want to declare that other bold editors should be reading all the archives and never boldly edit the policy to change established procedures, but you didn't follow those rules yourself when you boldly added these rules to this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I couldn’t parse your concern clearly then, I suppose. I see your objection to how established PAGs are, but not the rest. I’d appreciate you repeating your objection to these three specific points. I did follow those guidelines; I checked the archives, I believe it represents existing consensus, and I haven’t reinstated the change after you disputed it.

talk

) 12:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your second point turns a message whose main point is "Don't revert without saying what's wrong with the content of the edit" into "If I revert you, then you don't get to revert me back". These are different messages, and yours is not one that I think this policy should emphasize. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying what’s wrong W/ edit applies everywhere. Claiming That it doesn’t accurately represent consensus is a valid reason to revert, cos pags are meant to represent consensus.

talk

) 08:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that the prior, "status quo" version actually has consensus. However, we know that our written policies and guidelines differ from actual consensus/what experienced editors do in practice. I don't think we want to privilege a long-standing but inaccurate page over a newer and more accurate version, especially if the rationale is as flimsy as an editor asserting, without proof, that the old version has consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Principal 2. I propose we start with proposed principal 2 (above). I, for one, fully agree with the first sentence. And I'm comfortable with a "tie goes to the status quo" rule. However, there can be no tie without (a) a substantive reason for the change, (b) a substantive reason in opposition, (c) good faith discussion, and (d) a lack of consensus to change. If we say that then I'll support all of principal 2. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, the first sentence imposes mandatory, eternal 1RR on all policy and guideline pages. It sets us up for this scenario:

• You notice that a guideline does not accurately reflect actual practice, and you attempt to correct it.
• I revert you and say that your version is "unclear" (to me).
• I refuse to discuss it. Nobody else cares. Your attempts to engage us in discussion are unsuccessful.
• You – and all future editors – are permanently prohibited from ever making that edit again, because nobody can reinstate it "without consensus" (by which the author presumably means "without written proof of consensus on the talk page" rather than "without the most common form of consensus, which is nobody bothering to re-revert your edit).

Is that an outcome you want to codify in this policy? Or did you mean something closer to "Seriously: policy and guideline pages are not the place to see if you can get away with edit warring" (a point I think we could all agree on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that "unclear" is not "a substantive reason given." And, I add, a failure to engage on the talk page can be construed as acquiescence. See

wp:SILENCE. Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A claim that a change is "confusing" (=unclear) is commonly accepted as a legitimate reason for reverting.

SILENCE isn't always considered consensus. Also, did you know that someone boldly tried to game that page during a dispute last year? The discussion (still on its talk page) says things like "It is common for at least one person to push a view that does not have consensus—do I have the burden of replying to their every comment because I disagree? No." (from Johnuniq). What one editor believes is a "failure to engage" is what another person might call letting the other guy have the The Last Word because he clearly needs to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, I do agree that this general subject should be addressed in this policy. My suggested wording is "Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That wording is toothless, I'd challenge. However, it seems you think mine is too strong and me yours too weak. So what's an alternative that can capture the issue I mention, and avoid the issue you do? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, where are the teeth in your version? "Teeth" means punishment. You prescribed none. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your dictionary, but toothless means "lacking genuine force or effectiveness". I think a clear rule is effective, and that wording such as "encouraged" is not, because as evidence shows it's ignored. Policies don't need to, and indeed most don't, prescribe punishment. Your proposed wording is actually a weaker form of what's already in the second. I'm still confused why the burden to prove a change accurately represents consensus isn't on the person introducing the bold edit? I thought this was generally accepted; surely, then, I can revert your revert and restore my bold edit? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, when was the last time you saw a 3RR violation at an actual policy (not a guideline, help page, etc., but an actual policy), involving any experienced editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s usually guideline pages where I’ve seen this be a bigger problem.

talk

) 08:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, when was the last time you saw a 3RR violation at a guideline, involving experienced editors? I have seen a significant number of disputes, but as a general rule, even when people are in a bare-knuckle fight, they don't actually get into serious edit warring. I took a quick trip through the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and during the last year, I found one policy and zero guidelines reported. That suggests that full-scale edit warring isn't a common problem in policies and guidelines.

To answer your earlier (28 May) question: Yes, if you have reason to believe that my explanation for reverting (which I'll probably put in the edit summary) is very poor, or if it suggests that I don't have all the facts, then I actually do think you should consider reverting my reversion. You might be sweet and explain it all to me on the talk page, and you might be slow so that you can see whether anyone reverts me for you, but I don't think you should feel like your hands are tied just because I didn't happen to like (or understand?) how you were trying to improve the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

That's essentially what has happened to me on an article page. I reverted someone's change, they re-inserted it, I opened a discussion, no one but the two of us engaged, I was unable to garner interest from the associated WikiProject (which was fully active with many participants), and so since I knew there was a dispute, the change remained locked in place for me. (Yes, I could have reverted back to the status quo, but because I feel someone has to de-escalate the edit-revert cycle, I don't like to do it.) This is part of the double-edged sword of the consensus-based dispute resolution process: you have to find enough interested persons to establish a consensus. This promotes stability, but it means many disputes will be hard to resolve.

Perhaps we should start encouraging editors to provide a citation trail for substantial edits to policy pages: in the edit summary, link to a discussion (or to a section on the talk page that links to multiple appropriate discussions) that establishes the consensus behind the edit. In cases where the edit was a distinct sentence or section, as opposed to various scattered changes, a citation could be provided inline. This won't address all of the existing text, but at least for new changes going forward, there would be a clearer starting point for any challenge to the change. isaacl (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:3PO, an alternative solution? Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting one third-party opinion isn't going to be very decisive for determining a consensus to change a policy. isaacl (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the change, and even on who's giving the third opinion. A randomly selected third editor's opinion would be less valuable than the opinion of an editor who thoroughly understands the specific subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree an opinion from an editor well-versed in the area is valuable, it's still a conversation between three people at that point with the Wikipedia:Third opinion request process, as suggested by Butwhatdoiknow. If the third party is able to convince both initial parties, great! Otherwise, relying on consensus means who's considered knowledgeable is in the eye of the beholder. We rely on more people showing up to evaluate strength of argument. isaacl (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We do sometimes have the problem of an editor who Really Ought to Know Better™ claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is merely offering an uninformed opinion and doesn't have any relevant experience or knowledge, and we will all think worse of that editor for the rest of his (possibly limited) remaining time on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try the simpler, less time-wasting process first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that using the third-party opinion process is any simpler. To initiate the process, the two parties will have to have already engaged in discussion on the talk page, so that cost is already paid. I'm also doubtful there are many discussions about policies where no third person will have already offered a view (the third-party opinion process is only targeted for discussions where there are only two parties involved). I agree that with edits of a minor nature it can be more efficient to minimize discussion, in terms of benefit/cost ratio. Unfortunately there isn't always agreement on what edits are minor. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl, if you look at pages such as Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia talk:External links, about half the sections have only one or two editors. I'm sure that it varies by page (WT:MOS probably averages far higher), but it's not unusual.

My point, though, was that we shouldn't try to get six or eight extra editors to comment if the problem could be resolved by one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if three editors can reach an agreement, that's great. My specific objection was to the suggestion that the third-party opinion process be used as mechanism to decide a dispute in policy. (Has anyone used the third-party opinion process for disputes on the neutral point of view policy? The external links page is a guideline.) isaacl (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen the Wikipedia:Third opinion process itself used for non-article disputes. However, I have been the 'third opinion' and benefited from the comments of a third editor many times in non-article discussions. NPOV itself doesn't get many disputes over the contents of the policy itself. Even editors who want to create what I believe are wildly non-neutral articles will generally profess to be following every jot and tittle in it. A typical discussion about a change to its text, rather than about its application, is Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 45#TRY?. This is also a good example of the third editor's contribution being the one that solves the identified (minor) problem. (Here is an example of a discussion at WT:NPOV about how to apply the NPOV policy generally: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 57#"in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 57#Proposal to remove newspapers and magazines as sources. and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 48#Neutral and proportionate point of view are suggestions that were rejected.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely all established editors understand that bold editing is part of a wiki, but bold editing on policy/guideline pages is dubious (although not prohibited), and bold editing while engaged in a dispute is absurd. Is there some need to clarify that? A rule prohibiting editors from devoting excessive time to arguing on PAG pages would be good. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, this policy already says that bold editors need to be careful (and not edit war), and it already warns against editing a policy to support your own argument during a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In a VPP discussion elsewhere we see another example of a (probably good faith) bold edit that misrepresented the preceding discussion and for years allowed an enforcement that never seemed to really have consensus to begin with. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

includes:

Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.

That's fine except for the implication that if someone changes a policy and I revert it with a substantive reason in the edit summary, then I have to also justify my revert on talk. That's a reversal of the normal situation where the person proposing a change needs to justify it. I agree that it is irritating to see an edit summary implying that an edit was reverted merely because it hadn't been discussed. Such reverts are silly IDONTLIKEIT—if you don't have a reason to revert, leave it alone. However, I'm not going to anticipate everything someone editing a policy might say and attempt to counter their views with a thoughtful essay on why I reverted the change. Why is this wording present? Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Support changing it. But as "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made", that's pig lips, of course you should. It's madness to say that attempts to make substantive changes to polices by some random driveby hobo on her own dime is how policy should be created.

The rule, without saying so, implies that it's up to page watchers to be vigilant. In theory, I could edit NPOV to say "POV is OK if it's against capitalists" on my own dime, and if nobody notices, well that's policy now. As a practical matter, you won't get away with that at NPOV, but there are hella rules here and not all are heavily watched. It's not a good look for a rule to be like "this crazy thing is allowed because in real life you won't get away with it." Why.

"Is madness" is a good reason for ignoring a rule I would say. I certainly revert substantantial edits to rules on grounds of "Don't have an opinion on the merits of the change, but rolled back on principle, go get consensus first" and I'm not likely to stop. How was that section added and by whom, and why?

The whole section should be removed, or rewritten to say the opposite of what it does. That's not going to happen, so I support your proposed small reform. But why didn't you just make the change and hope that no one noticed? That's what the page recommends, and you said that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus, do you really think that absolutely every change to a policy or a guideline needs to be preceded by a specific discussion about it? Even grammar fixes or adding links? Or other obvious improvements? And does that apply even to minor guidelines, or just to core policies?

I don't think that you should personally revert any edit that you believe improves a page. Ever. BRD fails if the guy who supports it reverts the bold edit. BRD, for those who recall the details, is meant to be a discussion "one by one" between the bold editor and the "Very Interested Person" – the person interested in the subject enough to have decided that the change was not an improvement to the page. If you revert with an "I dunno, I don't care, but somebody else would probably object, so I'm intervening to save the actually interested people the trouble of doing it themselves", then BRD will fail. I think you need to stop doing that. Let people stand up for their own views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's another way to look at this question. There have been (so far) 11 edits to WP:NPOV this year. Please go look at them. How many of those 11 edits, if you had been the editor who wanted to make that particular change, would you personally have first started a discussion, and then waited for editors to respond, so that you could say that you had written evidence of consensus for the edit, rather than just boldly adding the link, fixing the typo, changing the wording, etc.? Personally, I don't think I'd have asked for written permission in any of those cases myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Those 11 edits are basically minor, most adding see also links, shortcuts, changing wikilinks, etc. It's not like someone introduced a brand new section or clause with some novel idea, which would probably be quickly reverted. Nobody is talking about forcing editors to have a discussion before adding a shortcut. Heck, nobody is saying people need to start a discussion for a novel change. It's just that if it's reverted for a substantive reason, especially one that cannot be fixed by a BRD cycle (such as saying that the entire edit misrepresents consensus), then it should be for the proponents of the change to prove consensus exists, not for other editors to engage in lengthy arguments just to get the novel edit removed. I honestly thought this idea was uncontroversial... Maybe we need an RfC? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus said that "of course you should" revert bold edits to policy. But it appears that nobody in this discussion would actually have started a discussion before making any of those edits ourselves. We shouldn't create rules that we don't follow ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. How about changing the text to

Consequently, editors should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, they should give a substantive reason for challenging it. If the challenging editor has not already done so, the proposing editor should then open a discussion to identify the community's current views.

Does that do what you intend? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that addresses Johnuniq's concern. I think the idea is more like "You make a bold edit, I get to revert, but you can't expect me to spend two or three minutes starting a discussion. If anybody has to start a discussion, it needs to be you".

A line from

WP:BRD-NOT bears mentioning: "The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• A good rule of thumb that I (try to) follow: In any editorial conflict, if the other guy does not start a discussion, I should do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you are okay with my proposed text (above). Am I right? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Nope. I think we should say something along the lines of: You may boldly edit, but be aware that someone else can edit just as boldly to revert your change. When this occurs, do not engage in an edit war - go to the talk page and Discuss (it does not matter who starts the discussion, so it might as well be you). Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• The issue is not so much who needs to start a discussion after a reversion (similar to what Blueboar is saying, someone has to take that first step), but if there is no consensus, what is the status quo to restore? I don't think generic guidance can cover all cases. It's going depend on the specific history for the text in question (for instance, what is the last revision for which consensus support can be established), any relevant discussions that have taken place, and yes, how substantial the edits are to the policy or guideline being changed. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Another good rule of thumb... revert the article to whichever version will piss off the most number of people. This encourages a maximum number of people to engage in the discussion (which I started), and thus will help a consensus to emerge. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text re who should open discussion

Can we agree on the following wording?

Consequently, a change should not be removed solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion regarding the change before it was made. Instead, any revert should give a substantive reason for why the change is undesirable. The proposing editor should then open a discussion to determine whether the change should be made.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support with additional text. I'm good with the first two sentences. I would change the beginning of the third sentence to "If a discussion is not already open then the proposing editor ..." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Meh... a “revert” is simply another form of change (it just happens that the current text is changed back to a previous text). If the prior text can be changed without a substantive reason being given (per BOLD), then the current text can be changed (back) without a substantive reason being given (again per BOLD).

Alternatively, if we want to require substantive reasons to be given, then we need to be consistent... and require them for all forms of change - not just reverts. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. First, I think it's important to keep the emphasis on the word solely. Second, I disagree in principle with the idea that it always has to be the other guy who needs to start the discussion. It would be far better to say nothing about starting a discussion, or to say that any editor is free to start a discussion than to assign the discussion to a particular person. I repeat what I said above: The response that we don't want is: "You didn't say
  Mother May I?/read the archives/run an RFC first, so I get to revert you, and nyah nyah nyah, you're the bold editor, so you aren't allowed to revert me!"

  (Also: When did starting discussions quit being something that experienced, mature editors did because we knew how to solve problems, and start being something that experienced editors demand that other/lesser editors do, because we're all too busy and important to click over to the talk page and leave a note that says "Yo, John, if the edit summary's not clear, let's talk about a different way to address the need that you see"?) WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 21:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  My current view is that the end of the paragraph should be revised like this: Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it, either in your edit summary or on the talk page, removing and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  There being IMO no consensus for the current version, and no immediate objections to my proposed change, I've made that. I don't intend for this to foreclose any further improvements. If you're all satisfied, then that's fine; if this is merely a temporary "less wrong than before" option, then that's fine, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering whether, having directed editors to provide a "substantive reason" for reverting a non-article change, whether we might help them out by suggesting a couple of examples. I like to hope that the four examples in

), and perhaps something similar could be done here. What I mean is, instead of saying you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and leaving some editors thinking that we expect them to write dissertation-length explanations, that we could instead say something like you should give a substantive reason for challenging it, such as "conflicts with WP:EXAMPLE" or _____, so that people would understand that we're only asking for a general hint about the problem, and not a closely reasoned defense of the reversion. Two examples might be better than one, but I don't think we need a long list. Conflicting with another page, being confusing, see recent discussion at [[Link]] – what examples would you give?

(This question might interest @Butwhatdoiknow more than others.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I'm interested. It seems like a helpful addition to me. Given your stated goal, I suggest changing "such as" to "which might be as brief as." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So

• conflicts with
  WP:PAGE
• wrong page
• see
  WP:LINK
• confusing
• see talk page

What other very brief hypothetical summaries could we consider here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we only need a few. Your choice. To make your job more difficult, I'll offer: "violates

wp:NPOV, "unsourced," and "off-topic." If you use "see talk page," be sure to add that the reverting editor should start a discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 04:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking in the case of "see talk page" that there might already be a discussion underway. Not everyone checks the talk page before making an edit, even to policies and guidelines. NPOV and sourcing requirements shouldn't apply to policies and guidelines, but "off topic" has some possibilities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Make that "... the reverting editor should start a discussion if one is not already in progress." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, will you be making this change? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added two brief examples. Perhaps it will help, eventually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree with codifying examples of what a "substantive change" looks like, especially when those examples are just short wikilinked shortcuts to another page. Exhaustive lists also run into issues like Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Proposal_on_the_bases_of_harassment and other RfCs and ARCAs on (non-)exhaustive lists recently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, you disagree with giving examples of short explanations in edit summaries. Can you tell us the issues you see that give rise to your disagreement? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  I gave two reasons above. To be more clear on the first, I don't like the idea of codifying that it's acceptable to revert contributions that took effort to make with a short "

  WP:EGG" or some other link to an essay (and in many cases the link doesn't even say what the editor used it as). I think it just provides ammunition to wikilawyers. I see no need to codify what kinds of examples are permissible or not in policy. What kind of revert summary is acceptable will be dependent on the specific situation, the page linked to, and its applicability to the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

  ) 11:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  MOS:OVERLINK" and "off topic" revert edit summaries can be appropriate in the proper circumstances? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (@ProcrastinatingReader, I look forward to your reply to this post. Butwhatdoiknow (talk

  ) 17:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC))

  Yes, of course, in the proper circumstances. Not everything needs a long response, and sometimes changes are so obviously problematic that a simple link or two words makes the objection to the change clearly articulated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Another question, if you'll allow me: Which do you perceive to be a bigger problem: (a) editors leaving no or procedural (non-substantive) explanations or (b) editors attempting to leave substantive explanations but failing to hit the mark due to inappropriate brevity? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)@ProcrastinatingReader:, I look forward to your reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for delay responding. I'm not sure in practice. In my experience reverts are either substantive or they aren't. The ones that aren't can be just "rv change". They can also be long but a completely incorrect interpretation of a procedure which, in my mind, makes them non-substantive. I see both as equally problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please permit me to try the question again, this time without the "non-substantive" distraction: Which do you perceive to be a bigger problem: (a) editors leaving no explanations or (b) editors attempting to leave explanations but, by being too brief, failing to hit the mark? Butwhatdoiknow (talk)

I still don't really get the question. If the editor cannot convey a 'substantive' objection to the change, either because they just used an "rv" summary or because they linked to an irrelevant page, I see those as equally useless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

With appreciation for your patience, let me state the problem this way:

1. I think we both agree that (a) a "correct" edit summary is better than no edit summary and (b) a correct edit summary may, in the proper circumstances, be quite brief.
2. I posit that (a) a major reason reason editors don't leave edit summaries is that they think summaries must be elaborate and (b) they choose saying nothing over taking the time to explain their edits in prose.
3. If I understand what you are saying, you posit that brief summaries run a greater risk of incorrect summaries than do longer ones.
4. So the issue seems to be whether (a) the benefit of encouraging editors to leave edit summaries by stating that summaries can be brief is outweighed by (b) the risk that such information will encourage editors to abandon prose in favor of brevity and that will result in an increase in incorrect summaries.

Do you agree that this is the problem you and I are wrestling with? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader: please reply. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

1 is correct. I'm not sure about 2. Kinda to 3; longer summaries can also be flawed but they make clear a concrete objection which forms the basis for talk discussion. On 4, I think we've lost ourselves from the original point. My concern was in codifying specific examples[3] as it may encourage the proliferation of more bad summaries. Almost any change can be reverted as "off topic"; whether that rationale is really valid or not is very context specific. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! I think giving examples of brief edit summaries will result in fewer blank edit summaries. You worry that such examples will result in more bad summaries. Does that sound right? (Or maybe your concern has more to do with using "off topic" as an example. What if we changed "off topic" to "unsourced"?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much. But I don't often see blank reverts to policy changes (sometimes sure, but in those cases it's often reverting an LTA or a change so bad that it's obvious from looking at the diff what the problem is). So I think at best this change doesn't solve a problem, and at worst will encourage bad summaries. Examples of valid blank reverts may help convince me otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And, I hate to admit, you may have a point with regard to P & G pages (where editors interested in process dwell).

I wonder, would you also object to examples of brief edit summaries being given at

WP:FIES? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader: reply please. Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 05:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Your pinging doesn't seem to work, for some reason. Like this didn't ping me, but it did appear on my watchlist.

I don't know if examples help. I mean the point of an edit summary is to describe your edit, and if you're reverting then to describe why. An example in one case doesn't transfer to another. But I guess at

WP:INFOPAGE so I wouldn't really object personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 10:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Are we simply creating a new procedural battleground for wikilawyers to argue about?
  What Editor A thinks is a “substantive” explanation may not be deemed “substantive” by Editor B. I worry that this amendment to our policy/guidance will encourage these two editors to focus their time and energy in a pointless dispute over the “substantiveness” of the explanation, rather than focusing on the merits of the edit in question. We should be encouraging editors to focus more on the article text (and the sources used to support that text)… and less on the actions of their fellow editors. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar, I think we have some confusion about what's supposed to be "substantive" here.

  The reverted wording was (i.e., in the context that you're reverting someone else's change to a policy or guideline): "you should give a substantive reason for challenging the change either in your [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] (which can be as brief as "see [[MOS:OVERLINK]]" or "off topic") or on the talk page."

  @ProcrastinatingReader's edit summary and comment here began "disagree with codifying examples of what a "substantive change" looks like" and also says "I don't like the idea of codifying that it's acceptable to revert contributions that took effort to make with a short [link]".

  I'm not convinced that these objections are especially relevant:

  • We're not giving examples of a "substantive change". We were giving examples of a substantive excuse for reverting any change. (Why are we giving examples of how brief an explanation could be? Because when we tell editors that they need to give an explanation for reverting an edit, a few of them say that's far too onerous a task for them. They have time to click the Undo button all day long, and they will spend hours explaining why it's always the other guy who has to start the discussion, but they definitely don't have time to type a couple of words into an edit summary.)
  • How long it took Editor #1 to make the edit has no bearing on how much time Editor #2 should spend rejecting it. It's sometimes unpleasant to be disagreed with, I grant, but if the edit is bad, then the edit should be removed as quick as possible. All we're trying to add here is that it would be ideal if Alice, when reverting Bob, added something like "bad grammar" or "not true" or "conflicts with OTHERTHING" (or whatever the problem is) to the default "Undid revision 1034409210 by Bob (talk)".

  At this point, we have basically two choices

  1. You get reverted with an edit summary of "Undid revision 1034409210 by You (talk)"
  2. You get reverted with an edit summary of "Undid revision 1034409210 by You (talk) three-word explanation"

  The one about getting several paragraphs of explanation is not viable.

  I think that #2 is preferable to #1. How about you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Blueboar, I suggest the proposed examples will do the opposite of creating a new procedural battleground for wikilawyers. The existing policy says editors "should give a substantive reason." The examples show that editors can meet that burden with very brief edit summaries. which eliminates a wikilawyer argument that an edit summary is insufficiently lengthy. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) @Blueboar:, I look forward to your reply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think a substantive reason should be more than "a general hint": I feel there should be enough supporting detail to link Wikipedia's consensus guidance to the contested edit. I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that it's going to be very context-sensitive. In some cases, the talk page is a better place to provide this detail than the edit summary. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Consensus isn't always the main point. Sometimes the main point is that you've got the facts wrong, or that your "new" rule is redundant, or that your "grammar fix" introduced a grammar error into a sentence that was already grammatically correct. The common cases wouldn't benefit from linking to rules about consensus.

  In the instant case, I found ProcrastingReader's edit summary helpful. A link to Wikipedia:Consensus wouldn't have been helpful at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  If we here on this policy talk page can not agree on what constitutes a “substantive reason” (and we don’t), imagine how editors at a typical article will react… we will have lots and lots of arguments over whether the reasons given are substantive enough. (Imagine: “unrevert- reason given not substantive”). The proposal will end up causing more arguments than it resolves. It focuses on the process of editing, and not on actually making better articles. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I was specifically commenting on your first example, "see

  WP:Link". I feel there should be more explanation given to provide specific context (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking is a long page). (My use of the verb "link" may have been confusing; I did not mean "hyperlink" but "establish the relationship between the referenced guidance and the edit in question".) isaacl (talk

  ) 22:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ok… I can accept that you don’t think “see WP:Link” is substantive. But let’s take this to the next step… suppose you added something to an article, and it was reverted with an edit summary of “See WP:Link”, what would you do? Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  Given that the original problem statement was I am wondering whether, having directed editors to provide a "substantive reason" for reverting a non-article change, whether we might help them out by suggesting a couple of examples., where the purpose of introducing the concept of substantive reasons is to discourage reflexive reverts to changes to policies and guidelines, I'm not sure if my personal response to your proposed scenario is relevant. (Although it depends on context, generally I'd follow the

  bold, revert, discuss cycle.) isaacl (talk

  ) 00:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

So would I… so… let’s say to do that. Avoid debates about whether the reason given is “substantive” or not… just follow the BRD cycle. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, we can restart the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines § Proposed text re who should open discussion. That's a separate issue regarding whether or not any sample edit summaries should be given, though. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, in a dispute or argument people link essays which can easily be confused as policies/guidelines. In this context, essays are utterly useless and a waste of time/energy. So, my initial propose is to ban linking and referring to essays in such contexts. Another idea is that links to essays should include a warning such as "THIS IS AN ESSAY, NOT A POLICY OR GUIDELINE, AS SUCH IT CAN BE IGNORED".--Arw2 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Essays are often interpretations of policies and guidelines, and just a way to avoid having to repeat oneself over and over again by linking to a comprehensive argument. This isn't going anywhere. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that essays are misused and easily confused as policies/guidelines. So, the minimum is to have a warning in links to them (so that people don't need to waste their time and energy reading and accepting them as if they were guidelines/policies), and in things like templates that are based on essays.--Arw2 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:POLICY#Content are of a concern as well. They basically suffer from the same problem. I'm not sure at which point all of this started to happen but IMO it indicates of a significant evidence of project degradation. This may, however, be a temporary problem. Banning for mentioning essays is outright wrong and will not fix anything. The solution might be either to leave the project and let it rot or (another) to unite into a movement to make policies more specific (e.g. by upgrading essays to guidelines) and demand administrators to enforce them transparently and properly but this is impractical and time consuming. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑

09:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Essays say at the top "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". So anybody who confuses them for

talk

) 09:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Essays already have this exact warning. Did you not notice? The warning contains the exact same information you're proposing, except for the all caps, which probably violates style guidelines. MarshallKe (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#­Content begins with these words:

Policy and guideline pages should:

• Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms or dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something.

When we wrote this, we were trying to keep it brief. Years later, however, I'm still finding that many editors continue to believe that only policies are allowed to contain the word must, and that guidelines should limit their advice to things that editors should do. This is usually because editors prefer to think that guidelines such as

are merely describing best practices, rather than telling editors what to do and how to do it.

Reality: The main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page – which is officially a guideline – contains the word must 20 times. It tells editors do not 80 times. It uses the word never 19 times, and always 15 times. And that's just the main MOS page. Some specific MOS guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, have an even higher proportion of this kind of clear, unambiguous language.

I'm thinking about expanding this point to explicitly say that these words are acceptable in any type of page. Maybe something like "Even in guidelines, help pages, and other non-policy pages, do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something" or Do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something. Clear requirements and prohibitions, using words such as must and do not, are acceptable in any type of page, not just policies. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection during the last couple of months, I've expanded the policy today to say "Phrases such as do not and must not are not restricted to policies alone, but may be used in any type of page, explicitly including guidelines, how-to pages and documentation pages for templates."

Please ping me if you have any questions or concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not surprised to see you here. This and this show that this part of the policy is simply dead. Please don't reply, thank you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's a pet peeve of mine that within the MOS,
  WP:PAGs
  are very similar to Standards in their function).

The wrinkle with Wikipedia is that hovering over all is

WP:IAR

which effectively makes most provisions optional (but not all - NPOV for example is not negotiable). And then, like in ISO, there are external requirements - from WMF in this case, which need their own special word. Users really must not commit copyright violations or issue legal threats.

It would be interesting to decide the range of provision that the PAGs needed to express. What word is it (for example) that means "doing this thing is necessary for compliance with this policy"?

talk

) 10:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@

Alexbrn, I think the word you're looking for is must. If something is not realistically optional (except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances), then it must be done, even if theoretically someone could invoke IAR to get past it. At the FAC level, there is no material difference between "You must do this" and "Doing this is necessary for compliance with the MOS". WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help in explaining one detail in the rule

Hi,

We, on croatian wikipedia are translating this page to Croatian. We have doubts about meaning of this sentence:

To update best practices, you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change) ...

We have doubts about meaning of the phrase "change the practice directly". Does it mean:

• a) you can edit the rule directly
• b) you can start editing articles according to the rule you propose, deviating from the current rule, for the purpose of providing the example of how do you want to change the rule

Thanks in advance! --Argo Navis (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Substantive changes section immediately follows, it seems to me that "change the practice directly" means "boldly edit." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, please specify what did you mean by "boldly edit". Do you mean a) "boldly edit rule page" or b) "boldly edit content pages by following not the existing rule but what you think should be new rule"? --Argo Navis (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, that was a long time ago. The Substantive changes section has been edited since then (including the edit I just made) to make it clearer that both (a) and (b) are acceptable ways of seeking change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just amended the following chapter with B option Argo mentioned above, because it is useful, and IMHO the very reason that WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD exist - to allow the evolution of the practice, the guidelines and the policies. I hope you'll find it useful as well.  Imbe  hind 💊 11:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Argo Navis, "challenge the practice directly" includes breaking the rule (your "b" option). It also includes telling everyone else what a bad idea the old rule is and wouldn't it be so much better if we did diff, diff, diff like I just did". (You can self-revert, if you want to show people what you mean without worrying about an edit war breaking out.) Challenging the practice could also include standardizing something that is permissible, so that it becomes "normal" rather than "one of many options". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

After being re-listed multiple times, this eventually ended up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Wikipedia:HISTORICAL, which was closed as no consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of any disclaimers, "Explanatory supplement" gives the appearance of having some degree of official status, but it seems that the rules and practice are that any person can simply call their essay an "explanatory supplement". Is no review be needed to achieve "explanatory supplement" status? If not, should there be?North8000 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• As long as such pages are clearly marked as being an essay, I don’t mind them indicating that they were written to further explain some bit of Policy or guidance.

If a group of editors disagree with what the “supplement” says, they can always craft a counter-essay to share their explanation. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is an example of what North8000 is talking about. Typical of these sorts of articles, it is not clearly marked as being an essay. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that no review is required. But what is to be done? Setting up a new review process is one option, see this discussion. I'd vote for editing the {{Supplement}} template to clearly mark the essay as an essay intended to supplement a particular policy or guideline. Perhaps the change could be as simple as bolding "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Edited - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding the example, I definitely think it needs to be marked as an essay. Otherwise it is fine as amended. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I think clearer / more prominent marking as an essay in the template would be the simple solution. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• The only thing something needs to be marked as something is consensus for it to be marked as that something.
  b
  } 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus emerging here that "explanatory supplements" should be marked as essays. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Explanatory supplements should not be considered valid unless listed as an explanatory supplement on the page that it supplements. This would prevent backwater supplements going off the path. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. But the question here is a self-assigned moniker that makes it look official. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why not just make it clear its still an essay...This is an explanatory supplement... to This is an explanatory supplemental essay...--Moxy- 16:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason why not to do this. My only thought would be to make the text "This is an explanatory essay for ..." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that would be a template change. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that North8000 made the change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Back in the day, that template was at

Template:Supplemental essay. Do you think that moving it back to the longer title would help? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM nonsense

Please see my other post on another "What Wikipedia is not" talk page. I'm seeing NOTAFORUM tag and philosophy being abused by trying to label any discussion on Talk pages as trying to start a forum. I hope there is more talk about "What Wikipedia is" than "What Wikipedia is not." Wikipedia policy and guidelines are becoming too numerous that it is almost starting to stifle its content. I fundamentally disagree on this NOTAFORUM being used to remove entries on Talk pages as trying to start some kind of a "forum" 202.9.47.48 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've seen several editors claim recently that it's bad for policies and (to a lesser extent) guidelines to contain links to essays. This is wrong; basically all of the policies have linked to essays for years. I wonder if it would help, even though

, to have a sentence in this policy that says "It is okay to link to relevant essays in policies, guidelines, and other pages." Then, perhaps, we could have conversations that sound like this:

• "You can't link to that page. That page is only an essay, and this is an official policy."
• "PAG says you can link to essays in policies."
• "Oh, I didn't know that."

instead of the ones that I've been having recently, which feel more like this:

• "You can't link to that page here. It's only an essay, and this is an official policy."
• "Here's a long list of the other essays that are already linked in this policy, including a link to a different section of the same essay that you're currently objecting to."
• "Well, it's just terrible that someone would go around linking to unofficial pages like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or Wikipedia:Inline citation or Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read or Wikipedia:When to cite right here in an official policy. Essays should never be linked in policies because it's just wrong."

I'm sure that we all agree that most essays shouldn't be linked in policies (because most of them are irrelevant, or not sufficiently relevant to any given policy), and that no essay will (or should) stay linked unless editors think it's helpful; I'm not especially interested in trying to increase the number of links. But I do think that we are seeing enough of these conversations that we need to be even more direct about this point in this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be linking to essays from PAG when the text of the PAG infers that more instructions or information in depth related to that PAG can be found at the essay. Essays are fine to link to though when they are for clarification of already spelled-out language that is not being expanded upon more in the essay itself. We should still be careful of randomly linking to any essay willy-nilly, making sure any linked essay in high-profile PAG does represent the majority of editor viewpoints (eg there are essays like
  WP:NONAZIS that are sufficiently controversial to keep out of PAG). --Masem (t
  ) 12:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• IMO it's overgeneralizing to just call it all "linking". A "See also" link in a policy just confers a small amount of extra status to the linked essay. At the other end of the spectrum is a recent case where the line was in-line and in a context/ position which would give the linked essay near-policy status in that area. And in the particular case, the linked essay conflicted with a heavily established consensus in the policy where it enumerated something that consensus deliberately decided to not enumerate. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support adding a sentence in this policy that says "It is okay to link to relevant essays in policies, guidelines, and other pages." (Subject to copy editing the text after it is added.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I suppose it doesn't do much harm to have a short statement in this policy, but all of the short statements add up to significant bloat that detracts from the main point. It seems that we are getting more and more editors in recent years who can't just accept that
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I was thinking more about

  WP:MINREF

  without apparently noticing that the policy already linked to that essay in the lead. It has been something of a trend.

  I agree with you and North that the problem at the WT:N discussion is that the linked page is wrong, and that complaining about the tag at the top of the page is a distraction from the real problem. I hope that by adding some sentence officially permitting links to mere essays, we will end up with would-be bureaucrats getting straight to the (important) 'reasons other than "you shouldn't link to essays"'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Depends on the specific essay. Remember that one purpose of essays is to express and explain policy viewpoints that don’t have consensus (For example, someone could write a WP:Yes original research essay laying out their thoughts on when original research should be allowed on WP). It would be highly inappropriate to add such essays to a PAG (which are supposed to represent consensus). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  "one purpose of essays is to express and explain policy viewpoints that don’t have consensus" ← Another purpose of essays is to align perfectly with policy. It would be appropriate to link to such essays.

  talk

  ) 16:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Alexbrn here. We should link to policy compliant essays. Huggums537 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There are many trillions of rules that don't exist. IMO step the overall practice is when somebody invokes a non-existent rule they need to show where they got it from. I'm worried that and "it's OK to....." would have the reverse effect.....getting invoked to say "you can't stop me". North8000 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• There are several great essays that are entirely fine and enjoy wide consensus. Those are more than fine to link from policies. For example, linking to
  b
  } 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Or Wikipedia:Further reading. Or Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Or Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Or Wikipedia:Principles. Or Wikipedia:Tag bombing. And definitely not Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

  North, I'm curious why essays, in particular, worry you. Specifically, why are you worried about linking to an essay (which may or may not be carefully vetted by experienced editors – although I find that when they get linked in a policy, that vetting happens pretty quickly), but you are not apparently equally worried about pages tagged with {{

  WP:NOTAG

  at all, Help: pages, pages on other wikis (WP:NOT links to Meta-Wiki a lot) and articles in the mainspace?

  You say at WT:V that "Anything invoked by a policy statement needs to be a policy" (which would exclude even links to guidelines), but in practice you only complain about pages that are tagged as being essays. Why are you worried specifically about essays? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not worried in general about essays, quite the opposite. And, to emphasize the point, I'm in favor of selecting well regarded essays and putting them into the "see also" sections of policies and guidelines. What I'm against is elevating them to policy status by in-line linking in policy statements. This may sound ethereal, so to invent a silly but useful example. Let's say that they pass a law that heavy vehicles are not allowed on Main street. And then in the law they link to the Heavy vehicles essay. So the law says "Heavy vehicles are not allowed on Main street". So, that particular method of invoking of the essay gives the essay's definition of a "heavy vehicle" force of law. Which, being only an essay, 1 or 2 people could make up the rule or change it weekly. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't work like that. If the linked-to thing is an essay it won't have

talk

) 15:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

However, it often happens that essays linked in the main prose of a P or G becomes quoted as the P or G in various discussions by editors uninformed of the lack of enforcement related to essays. (Heck, I've seen the argument of not linking in various guidelines into policy as to avoid making the guidelines appear to have policy-level enforcement.

Essays included in P&G should be those that have been established by consensus for that P&G page. They should not be added willy-nilly by editors. Masem (t) 15:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Essays that don't have consensus will be eliminated most often sooner rather than later. Huggums537 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The links to disputed pages will be eliminated from the P&G page, even if the essay itself persists.

North, you have not answered my question. My question is why you are worried about, in your words, "elevating them to policy status by in-line linking" if the page has the {{essay}} tag but not if the page is called something else. For example:

• The first in-line link in WP:NOT is to an {{information page}}. You do not complain about this.
• The second link is to a plain old Wikipedia article. You do not complain about this.
• The third and four links in that policy are to essays on Meta-Wiki. You do not complain about these, either.

Everything you say about pages tagged with {{essay}} is equally true for these other pages. Why do you complain only about pages that have {{essay}} on them, and not all the other types of pages that have exactly the same limitations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the {{

19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter than it never redirected there (edit: see note below, I thought 'there' meant

b

} 19:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Note WP:PROPOSE redirects to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), so having a note on this page saying that it redirects here is wrong. From the edit that added the redirect template, I think they meant to say "WP:PROPOSAL", so I've changed the template parameter. If anyone feels that WP:PURPOSE should be specified, feel free to add it. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, well if it redirects to the village pump, then yes it doesn't belong here. PROPOSAL was what I was thinking of, yes.

b

} 20:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This policy says, “Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.” So I’m a little bit confused by the following template:

This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.

If an essay is the result of downgrading a failed policy change, and thus contradicts widespread consensus, then should it be userfied per “Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace”? An example is

which is a failed policy proposal that was downgraded to an essay. If it’s fine to have such essays that contradict policy, then should we edit the sentence of the present policy that says, “Essays…that contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Failed proposals should not be "downgraded to essays". Failed proposals should be preserved under the {{

failed

}} tag, and maybe WP:Moved to a dated title so as to not preclude a new proposal or essay at the title.

A proposal does not interconvert with an essay, and converting a failed proposal to an essay is a way of denying that the proposal failed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So should the template above be deleted? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would redirect it to

Template:Failed

, and take it to TfD to insist on this if anyone objects.

This is essentially what‎ User:Radiant! did 13:18, 12 December 2006‎, but since then {{

Rejected}} was redirected to {{Failed proposal}}. SmokeyJoe (talk

) 08:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI about an RFC

FYI, there’s an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies#Request for comment on putting a template at the top of this essay. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

ID-9999 / L6 MRC 169H 180/FBI 2A02:908:2541:4BA0:A80C:7224:7DAC:BD66 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I this a

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Right wing. Left wing are the socialist. Get your definition right.

Fascist per Webster dictionary: a member of the Italian organization formed to oppose Bolshevism, communism and socialism in all their form 24.236.71.39 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Raving content creator and promoter, who is popular for his tweets and memes on social media, Esomojumi Ayowale, fondly called WaleTheWave, has shared his journey so far in making efforts to add value to the entertainment industry.

He had revealed recently, during an interview, that his brand name was ‘stolen’ from a friend but his own brand seems famous than the real name that influenced his’. He was quoted as saying “I stole it from my friend whose nickname was labithewave and I thought mine would fit better.”

He, however, spoke how he managed to start and how he has been able to stand on his feet despite many creators online. His words: “Well, it’s all about hard work and being consistent. I always love to watch funny content and I thought to myself why can’t I create mine to make people laugh then I started the process.”

Of course, one would expect such a creative to come with some challenges. For WaleTheWave, he was first limited due to academic workload but gradually got his bearing. “When I was in school, I really didn’t have enough time to put in more effort on my social media and me as a music promoter due to the school demands. As a music promoter and content creator, who promotes and creates content for people, I also have to spend so much money to make myself visible for people to be able to do business with me.”

“Then, I used to make a schedule for posting and whenever I’m in class I use my phone but I do get in trouble sometimes when I was in school. I have also cultivated the habit of promoting where I have to keep pushing myself even if I have attained the goal I have set for myself.” Walethewave (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)