| Revision as of 22:59, 20 March 2009 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Flag as historical: respond← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:12, 7 January 2025 edit undoFavonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,694 editsm Reverted edit by 196.191.61.180 (talk) to last version by Untamed1910Tag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Policy talk}} | ||
| {{tmbox | |||
| <!-- | |||
| |image=] | |||
| |textstyle=text-align:center; font-weight:bold; | |||
| |text={{shortcut|WT:IAR}}{{big|This is the page for discussing the ] ].}} | |||
| {{hlist|]|]|]|]|]}} | |||
| This box: | |||
| -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{consensus|The ] page is frequently ] in ]. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 19 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(20d) | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} |
}} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| -->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive index | |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive index | ||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive <#> | |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules/Archive <#> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 26: | ||
| |indexhere=yes | |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Old MfD|date=26 March 2008|result='''Speedy keep'''|page=Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules}} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | author = Lui | |||
| | date = 2013-05-11 | |||
| | url = http://simulacrum.cc/2013/05/11/why-wikipedias-millionth-russian-page-is-worth-celebrating/ | |||
| | title = Why Misplaced Pages's Millionth Russian Page Is Worth Celebrating | |||
| | org = Simulacrum | |||
| | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130609203844/http://simulacrum.cc/2013/05/11/why-wikipedias-millionth-russian-page-is-worth-celebrating/ | |||
| | archivedate = 2013-06-09 | |||
| | accessdate = 2013-06-09 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|auto=long|index=/Archive index|*]<br>{{center|''']'''}}|bot=MiszaBot II|age=90}} | |||
| == Legal Concerns regarding how the policy is laid out == | |||
| {{archives|index=/Archive index|<center>''']'''<hr>This page is '''automatically ]''' by ]. Any sections older than '''20''' days are automatically archived.</center>}} | |||
| *'''Note to admins considering protection''': Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy. | |||
| ---- | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Demotion to guideline == | |||
| I think that this page should only be a guideline, and NOT policy. Who's with me? ] ] 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the policy that set me free and convinced me that I could be productive here. It has a Zen-like simplicity that is typically hard to interpret until you finally "get it" - then it is utter simplicity. Misinterpretation of the policy sometimes causes problems, not the policy itself. And it is . | |||
| :For those reasons, count me out. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not just a policy, it is the most important policy. I think it should be policy. Past discussions on this subject have supported it remaining policy too. ] 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Brevity. == | |||
| This policy page is too short. Surely it must be longer - examples, for example? I only understand it from seing someone paraphrase it to - ''Use common sense.'' | |||
| Also, can anyone see a particular point in time where this can come into play? That would be a useful addition. This article needs expanding. --] (]) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, if you want long, take a walk back through this talk page and its archives :) You will find lengthy discussion on why exactly this policy is best kept to its stripped-down 12-word essential. Basically, if we include an example saying "this is where you would ignore all rules", someone will take the example as meaning "in this case, I should always ignore rules", which is not true. To aid in your understanding though, you can have a look at the linked essays, ] and ]. | |||
| :As for a point in time where IAR comes into play, when your own understanding tells you it's time, it's time. Until then, watch how other people interpret the policy and how successful they are at doing so. ] (]) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::WIARM would produce that problem, but UIAR would not; it lays out the principles and the working methods of IAR instead of approaching it as a "laundry list".--] (]) 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Agreed. I don't see any reason for maintaining WIAR as a separate page from IAR at this point, especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off ]. The nutshell summary is fine, but reducing the ''whole article'' to that summary seems to be a rather poor compromise. ] - ] 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um... "''especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off ].''" Where are you finding such first-time readers? People who read IAR and then go off and so something stupid on account of it are in a vanishingly small minority - I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing happen. Can you cite any example based on experience of people's misunderstanding of this page, showing that any harm has actually been caused by it? -]<sup>(])</sup> | |||
| I like how it is. People seem to get it well enough and if they don't we will just hit the magic revert button. ] 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Related link == | |||
| I am '''not''' a lawyer, but there are Misplaced Pages policies with legal considerations. These rules are firmer than the regular policies. There might be needed clarifications. Thank you - ] - ] 20:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know if this is appropriate for the policy page, but explains nicely the reason why IAR is important.--] (]) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree! This is an excellent talk. --] (]) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Websites that start playing sounds when loaded are really annoying. ] 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very. ] (]) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Remember that we only apply this policy in situations where a policy/rule is preventing us from ''improving'' an article. A edit that breaks a law would not be an ''improvement'', and so IAR would not apply. ] (]) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Change == | |||
| ::Also, wouldn't, "Crimes are not permitted on Misplaced Pages." apply to all articles, policies, guidelines, and so on? I can't think of a way to note this that wouldn't be superfluous. ] (]) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Mention an exception about the License, Disclaimer etc. My idea? ] (]) 00:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Prevent or hinder == | |||
| <div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Consensus is not to change long-standing policy. ] (]) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Consensus is not to change long-standing policy. ] (]) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div> | |||
| Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. ] (]) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> | |||
| :I don't see why. I can sort of see an argument for "hinders" instead of "prevents", because of the slightly different meaning. However my understanding about the consensus for this page is that we want the English, and the logic, very simple. I don't think anyone wants this page to be used for subtle legalistic arguments about relative inconveniences. Switching "improving or maintaining" to "bettering" means you remove "maintaining", which is however vitally important. You would also once again switch to more unusual wording. I prefer plain everyday English wherever possible.--] (]) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ::Adding "your ability" would also empower the more novice editors, and who knows, maybe the veterans as well. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::Based on your comments, I would leave it at this: | |||
| I changed the rule to: | |||
| : If a |
::* If a rule hinders you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, '''ignore it'''. | ||
| ::What do you think? @] | |||
| from its previous wording: | |||
| ::: | |||
| ::] (]) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think adding "your ability to" is a good idea either, based on the same reasoning I mentioned above about keeping the English and the logic simple. --] (]) 09:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems ] (]) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.--] (]) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think that's the point... It relies on community oversight and consensus to manage potential misuse. ] (]) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Andrew. 'Hinder' and 'better' (as a verb) are relatively uncommon words and the simplicity of this policy is its strength. I'm also not sure that the intention behind switching 'prevents' to 'hinders' is correct. IAR is a safety valve for bad rules or bad applications of rules. Rules like ], ] or ] make it more ''difficult'' to improve the encyclopaedia without preventing it, for good reason, so they shouldn't be ignored for that alone. – ] <small>(])</small> 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The intent of IAR is to allow editors the flexibility to improve Misplaced Pages even when rules might pose obstacles. It is not meant to encourage ''']''' for important policies. | |||
| ::If a rule hinders but doesn't completely prevent improvement, editors can assess the situation to determine if ignoring the rule is justifiable. ] (]) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It also empowers editors to improve Misplaced Pages effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to ''fundamental policies and ethical standards'' (see also ]) ] (]) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Trying to cover all of those nuances would turn it into a big complicated page, the opposite of what has been accepted and wanted. . And those are already taken care of by how this policy operates, and interacts with the fuzzy Misplaced Pages ecosystem. It currently has the strong, brief, simple widely accepted language. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''. | |||
| :I agree with Andrew, Joe, and North. The policy is simple and direct. It serves its intended purpose as written. I don't think the proposed rewrite is an improvement. ] ] 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). ] (]) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that a good argument? ] (]) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| in order to emphasize the fact that IAR should be interpreted in the light of common sense. There might be some resistance to this change, though, and I personally don't have any investment in whichever wording is adopted. Does anybody have any thoughts or comments on this? – ] 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Shu ha ri == | |||
| :Common sense is sense that other people commonly share with you. If the sense was common there would be no need to ignore the rule, people would agree. Sometimes it is sense that you have that is not common that shows the need to break the rule. Common sense is not a requirement, only that the action be improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. I like the spirit of the addition, but I think IAR goes beyond common sense. ] 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Seems like folks missed the link with ]. ''( "follow the rules, break the rules, transcend the rules" )'' | |||
| :: I think I follow your logic. The policy could do with a little clarification, but I agree with you that "common sense" is perhaps not the best possible phrase. – ] 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I figured surely it must have been discussed at least, but I couldn't find mention in the archives so quickly. | |||
| :::Long discussion has pretty much always ended up just keeping the canonical twelve words though. The danger is that any additions to this actual policy page intended to clarify it will lead editors to interpret the policy by the strict wording, which is not the intent. At least IMO, it's deliberately intended to be vague. It's an exhortation to do what you think is right, the community will tell you right smartly when you're wrong - but it's not meant to be restrictive. Common sense is among the several linked essays which attempt to provide some understanding of what IAR means, but none of them qualify (''pace'' FG) for inclusion in the policy itself. You would have to choose very carefully any proposed change of wording. ] (]) 04:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> | |||
| :Not sure that it is really connected… but… whatever. ] (]) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Flag as historical == | |||
| == or not == | |||
| <div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: Consensus is not to change long-standing policy. ] (]) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">Consensus is not to change long-standing policy. ] (]) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)</span>}}</div> | |||
| can this be used to violate the three reverts edit warring rule ] (]) 01:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| I propose this "policy" be flagged thusly. Discuss. -]] 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The full article reads - | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''' one of the founding policies of wikipedia. The policy is still very much in active use today, so historical doesn't really apply. —] (]) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''. | |||
| :* It's not really a "policy" though is it? If it was, it would sort of claim to trump NPOV, which is ] be a fundamental concept, or ], which some people might like a lot. IAR is more of an essay, rather than a policy. -]] 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide an example where violating the three-revert rule would improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? - ] (]) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good faith reverts to remove vandalism is one example (however, since this is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a “violation”). ] (]) 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* OK, fair enough. I'll ask that my response to n12 above be taken as a kind of "rationale." I had thought the reasons would be obvious, but I will of course answer any comments you can think of. -]] 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Does this rule apply? == | |||
| :It is a policy, it has been since the beginning, it is the policy that prevents the other policies from bogging us down. Something does not need to trump NPOV to be a policy. It is policy because it represents our best practices. ] 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh and '''Oppose'''. Throwing away one of our most important safety valves is not a good idea. ] 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I was going to add to an article from the corresponding article on the Spanish WP, but the Spanish article only cited two sources throughout. I felt that I shouldn't translate any information over to the English article because of lack of citations. Should I have just added the info? The article in question: ]. ] (]) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' ] of course must be used with common sense, but it is a tenet of Misplaced Pages that makes this place not operate like a bureaucracy. ] (]) 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the right venue for your question.....the article talk page would be the best spot. But, as a quick note, there's a rule against adding un-sourc'''able''' material, there isn' a categorical rule agains adding unsourc'''ed''' material. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 22:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we '''please close this discussion?''' it was recently unarchived for the second time (meaning added three times) and does not appear to be a reasonably calculated to improve the main page for which this page serves as a discussion forum. In my last edit summary I called it "trolling disruption" which may have been harsh. But the editor nominating this article for deprecation has been here seven years, and surely knows the score. Is this a joke? Is it some kind of ironic ] about ]? For anyone unfamiliar, the policy to "ignore all rules" is one of the ] of Misplaced Pages, and as such it cannot be undone by simple consensus. It does not mean what the title implies; rather, it is an admonition to use common sense so as to always act in the best interest of a good encyclopedia rather than applying strict or bureaucratic enforcement of rules for their own sake. A proposal to mark it as "historical" could be taken literally as a proposal that we should indeed forgo common sense in favor of rules. A proposal to do away with such a significant foundational principle of Misplaced Pages would deserve a thoughtful explanation and extended discussion at the highest levels of Misplaced Pages. It cannot reasonably be initiated by a simple several word proposal to delete it. However, this does not seem to be what is proposed. The nominator, at the time, was on a roll of ignoring rules and warnings, as a "criticism of Barack Obama" article he favored was deleted (it had been speedily deleted several times already). He eventually took the issue arbitration (see ]). Although his underlying point is not clear, his complaint seems to be that the rules are being applied too strictly or in a wiki-gaming way to ensure that the encyclopedia has a bias in favor of the American President, ]. Such a concern has been voiced offwiki, and occasionally here, by editors claiming that we should insert matter ranging from fringe conspiracy theories to opponent's disparagement of the president. As such, the proposal could also be taken as a comment that consensus has now turned against common sense, so this policy should not incorrectly imply that Wikipedians are using common sense. Or in other words, Misplaced Pages obviously has a liberal bias so we should stop pretending we are simply following rules. Whatever it is, a number of relatively junior editors (compared to to the nominator nearly everyone here is a junior editor) have taken the bait, gotten needlessly worked up, and responded seriously to what does not appear to be a real proposal. If the nominator truly wishes to suggest we have a discussion somewhere about whether overly strict rule interpretation has resulted in a pro-Obama bias, he may have found a home for that discussion in arbitration. If he wants to talk about that more generally, I am not sure this is the page but let him say in a straightforward, literal way, what he wants to talk about. ] (]) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :@] In the future, general purpose questions tend to get pretty good answers on ] and ]. I also agree with ] that ] is a better place to discuss this. {{pb}}Regarding translating un-cited material, people do that a lot and really it just depends on the article and the content. In this case, I see hard facts in the geography section that are verifiable even though they are not cited. Citations would improve that content, but it likely meets ] without them. Compare it to a section like ] where the citations are absent, but it's all hard facts that can be checked. {{pb}}Further down I see things like, "{{tq|Si por algo se caracteriza el pueblo de Herrera es por las infraestructuras deportivas (más abajo detalladas) y por la amplia participación ciudadana en el deporte y la cantidad de eventos que se realizan la categoría que poseen.}}" which probably needs a citation and in-text attribution (who says this characterizes the town?). Good luck, ] (]) 04:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well yes, 9000 edits indeed makes me ''relatively'' junior, but I disagree with your characterization as having "taken the bait" and getting "needlessly worked up". The OP hasn't been here fanning flames, no-one is flying off the handle. I'm agnostic on hatting it or leaving it open but please leave your wars elsewhere. "Trolling disruption" was indeed unduly harsh and the editors getting worked up here seem to be those carrying a dispute with StVert across to here. Thank you, but please feel no need to protect us from ourselves. ] (]) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was uncalled for. I stand by my observation, so no need to attack me for it. The original poster took an issue here and was fanning a flame; as for flying off the handle I would say that an active arbitration case proves the point. Closing pointy discussions before it gets to that is a way of avoiding acrimony and dispute. 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 7 January 2025
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | ShortcutThis is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. This box: |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. |
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||
Index
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Legal Concerns regarding how the policy is laid out
I am not a lawyer, but there are Misplaced Pages policies with legal considerations. These rules are firmer than the regular policies. There might be needed clarifications. Thank you - Writehydra - talk page 20:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Remember that we only apply this policy in situations where a policy/rule is preventing us from improving an article. A edit that breaks a law would not be an improvement, and so IAR would not apply. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, wouldn't, "Crimes are not permitted on Misplaced Pages." apply to all articles, policies, guidelines, and so on? I can't think of a way to note this that wouldn't be superfluous. Rjj (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Mention an exception about the License, Disclaimer etc. My idea? Luhanopi (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Prevent or hinder
Firmly believe that NEW ver. better reflects the intent of IAR. JLCop (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why. I can sort of see an argument for "hinders" instead of "prevents", because of the slightly different meaning. However my understanding about the consensus for this page is that we want the English, and the logic, very simple. I don't think anyone wants this page to be used for subtle legalistic arguments about relative inconveniences. Switching "improving or maintaining" to "bettering" means you remove "maintaining", which is however vitally important. You would also once again switch to more unusual wording. I prefer plain everyday English wherever possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Adding "your ability" would also empower the more novice editors, and who knows, maybe the veterans as well.
- Based on your comments, I would leave it at this:
- If a rule hinders you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.
- What do you think? @Andrew Lancaster
- JLCop (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think adding "your ability to" is a good idea either, based on the same reasoning I mentioned above about keeping the English and the logic simple. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems JLCop (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's the point... It relies on community oversight and consensus to manage potential misuse. JLCop (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think its better that way. Hinder is less clear than prevent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. With just one word different, it shouldn't cause any problems JLCop (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think adding "your ability to" is a good idea either, based on the same reasoning I mentioned above about keeping the English and the logic simple. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think? @Andrew Lancaster
- I agree with Andrew. 'Hinder' and 'better' (as a verb) are relatively uncommon words and the simplicity of this policy is its strength. I'm also not sure that the intention behind switching 'prevents' to 'hinders' is correct. IAR is a safety valve for bad rules or bad applications of rules. Rules like WP:BLP, WP:BRD or WP:COIEDIT make it more difficult to improve the encyclopaedia without preventing it, for good reason, so they shouldn't be ignored for that alone. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The intent of IAR is to allow editors the flexibility to improve Misplaced Pages even when rules might pose obstacles. It is not meant to encourage Reckless Disregard for important policies.
- If a rule hinders but doesn't completely prevent improvement, editors can assess the situation to determine if ignoring the rule is justifiable. JLCop (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It also empowers editors to improve Misplaced Pages effectively, even when faced with hindrances, while still adhering to fundamental policies and ethical standards (see also WP:COMMON) JLCop (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Trying to cover all of those nuances would turn it into a big complicated page, the opposite of what has been accepted and wanted. . And those are already taken care of by how this policy operates, and interacts with the fuzzy Misplaced Pages ecosystem. It currently has the strong, brief, simple widely accepted language. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew, Joe, and North. The policy is simple and direct. It serves its intended purpose as written. I don't think the proposed rewrite is an improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is that a good argument? Ethereal Whisper (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. The language on this page seems set in stone (and maybe will be, on a statue or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Shu ha ri
Seems like folks missed the link with Shu ha ri. ( "follow the rules, break the rules, transcend the rules" )
I figured surely it must have been discussed at least, but I couldn't find mention in the archives so quickly.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure that it is really connected… but… whatever. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
or not
can this be used to violate the three reverts edit warring rule 119.234.4.105 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- The full article reads -
- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.
- Can you provide an example where violating the three-revert rule would improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good faith reverts to remove vandalism is one example (however, since this is an exception to 3RR that is spelled out in that guideline, I suppose it isn’t a “violation”). Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Does this rule apply?
I was going to add to an article from the corresponding article on the Spanish WP, but the Spanish article only cited two sources throughout. I felt that I shouldn't translate any information over to the English article because of lack of citations. Should I have just added the info? The article in question: Herrera, Seville. BigChrisKenney (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't the right venue for your question.....the article talk page would be the best spot. But, as a quick note, there's a rule against adding un-sourcable material, there isn' a categorical rule agains adding unsourced material. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @BigChrisKenney In the future, general purpose questions tend to get pretty good answers on WP:TEAHOUSE and HELP:DESK. I also agree with North8000 that Talk:Herrera, Seville is a better place to discuss this. Regarding translating un-cited material, people do that a lot and really it just depends on the article and the content. In this case, I see hard facts in the geography section that are verifiable even though they are not cited. Citations would improve that content, but it likely meets WP:V without them. Compare it to a section like Jeep Cherokee (XJ)#Axles where the citations are absent, but it's all hard facts that can be checked. Further down I see things like, "
Si por algo se caracteriza el pueblo de Herrera es por las infraestructuras deportivas (más abajo detalladas) y por la amplia participación ciudadana en el deporte y la cantidad de eventos que se realizan la categoría que poseen.
" which probably needs a citation and in-text attribution (who says this characterizes the town?). Good luck, Rjj (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)