Misplaced Pages

talk:Policies and guidelines: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:48, 2 April 2010 view sourceDank (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users133,970 edits →Need some eyes: same question← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:39, 5 January 2025 view source SuperMarioMan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators60,992 edits Adding {{pp-protected}}Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Policy-talk}}<!--
{{Metatalk}}
-->{{talkpage|search=yes}}<!--
{{Talk header}}
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 12 |counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(180d)
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--
-->{{Auto archiving notice
|small=yes
|bot=MiszaBot
|age=7
|days=days}}<!--
-->{{archive box collapsible|
* ] - most text before March 2004
* ] - February 2002 - April 2002
* ] - March 2004- January 2006
* ] - January 2006- May 2007
* ] - June - Aug. 2007
* ] - Sept. 2007
* ] - October 2007- December 2007
* ] - January 2008- May 2009
* ] - May 2009 - the recent past
}} }}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Policy talk}}


{{old move|date=25 March 2024|destination=Misplaced Pages:Guidelines and policies|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1215849995#Requested move 25 March 2024}}
== "Do not summarize, copy, or extract text" ==


== Copyedit ==
Does this really match practice? A lot of our policies make direct reference to statements in other policies, and they often quote each other. It seems to me that this is the best way to ensure that they all say the same thing and do not conflict. ] (]) 19:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:That doesn't match practice, agreed. Do we want to be more careful in some way to keep track of the overlapping text? I'm not sure; this might just add an extra level of things to argue over, but I've often been attracted to the idea. - Dank (]) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


@], I'm not sure about all the changes you're making. Off hand, here are a few that stood out to me:
::Yes, I think it should be removed, or perhaps re-worded to explain the problem (bad summaries badly maintained).
::Additionally, most of that bullet item is exactly counter to both common practice and effective practice. I've personally added "'''Except for citations'''" repeatedly to ], and I plan to go on repeating the fact that ] are not ] until editors finally quit asking whether EL has banned their reference. So far, I think we're up to half a dozen separate repetitions, most of them involving bold-face text. It seems to have been a mostly successful strategy: We get many fewer such questions now, although we haven't quite eliminated them.
::The bottom line, IMO, is that pages need to be useful, and if repetition makes them more useful, then we should repeat things (especially for sections commonly linked separately, like ] or ]). ] (]) 20:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


* "a summary of the most pertinent principles": We specified that that ] is a "popular" summary, to be clearer that it's not an "official" or "complete" one. 5P is IMO an excellent summary, but it's also just a five-point re-write of ] to sound more formal and avoid some slang. There's nothing magical about it.
:::The reason why I think the current language is wrong is that I see a lot of policy statements that are based upon statements made in other policies... and they often end up being slowly edited to the point where they no longer agree with eachother. I think direct reference and even quotation is the best way to resolve that. If a statement at WP:NOR is based upon something said at WP:V, we should note that fact (using language such as: "As noted at WP:V: <nowiki><quote taken from WP:V></nowiki>"... This tells editors "this is based on another policy... please don't change this unless you also change the policy where we took it from." ] (]) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
* "Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices": We specified "pages" here because there are multiple meanings of policy. This paragraph is specifically talking about the written pages, rather than standard practices. (Consider, e.g., "our country's foreign policy": you don't expect that to be a single document with the word "Policy" in a fancy box at the top.) The written pages do this; the actual policies ("a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions") is what editors do at RecentChanges or AFD, not what we write on the page.
::::If we quote them then even a minor change makes them no longer agree with each other. It's not like these are static documents. I don't think it's bad advice, I think that people need to understand that all policies and guidelines don't exist in a vacuum. "Newbifying" the policies by making them very redundant with each other seems like a bad idea to me, which is why I do think this line is sound advice. Obviously we shouldn't slavishly follow it. But would any of you disagree with ? Extensive quoting or summarizing of other policies is something I believe we should avoid. ] (]) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
** This is partially a consequence of our ] approach. Misplaced Pages uses a style closer to the ] than to the ]. That is, what matters is the principles that we support, rather than the exact wording. US law occasionally makes decisions based on the presence or absence of a comma. Misplaced Pages is more concerned with the overall effect: Does this help us improve or maintain Misplaced Pages? If yes, then that's what we want. If not, then ]
** Another way of looking at this: ] is Misplaced Pages's policy, but it's not a {{tl|policy}}.
* "Additionally, ]; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page.": The problem of people misinterpreting the ] shortcuts is perennial and significant. For example, there are ] of shortcuts that start with WP:NOT but don't point to ]. On occasion, we'll even see people arguing that WP:THIS requires us to do this, and WP:NOTTHIS requires us to never do this ...and they're pointing at the same section of the same page, only the editors didn't know this, because they were just guessing that the shortcut matched the rule, so they never bothered to actually read the rules.


This is not an exhaustive list, but I also want to say that I ''don't'' object to every change you've made. What would you like to do to resolve some of my concerns? ] (]) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes... exactly right... even a minor change will make them no longer agree... which will mean it will be far easier to catch and correct discrepancies before they become significant. If I am reviewing a change, and notice that it involves something that is a quote... I would immediately check both policy pages, figure out where the discrepancy originated and highlight it to the other editors on both pages in an effort to sync them back together. This isn't about "Newbifying" polices... its about ensuring that our policies don't contradict each other. ] (]) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


:Thanks for the kind and lengthy feedback. Here is a list of changes I will make later, based on your suggestions:
Here's what we've got:
:*Reintroduce ''popular'' as descriptor
<nowiki>== Content ==</nowiki>
:*Reword the page–attitude distinction to be clearer
Policy and guideline pages should:
:*Re-add "shortcut is not the policy" with clearer wording
:] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


== Venue ==
* '''maintain scope, avoid redundancy.''' Both purpose and scope must be clearly provided in the lead, and not merely as an aside. Content should be within the scope of its policy.<ref>Suppose that some of the content from a dispute resolution page was copied into ] as a great example of consensus building. Though it may be a great example, it is not a general community standard – yet several clarifying edits later, it may seem as if it were being presented as such. Or perhaps an edit is made to ] to clarify how it should be applied within a notability guideline on music. Perhaps ] is 'summarized' and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves.</ref> Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves.<ref>The same redundant statement may change in one place and not in another, and though this is often not a problem in articles, with policy it lead to confusion, contradiction, and verbosity.</ref> Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders.<ref></ref>
{{reflist}}


I've seen a couple of claims, during the last year or two, that proposals for ] should happen at the village pump, instead of on the talk page for the affected policy/guideline/similar page. It is generally poor practice to do this deliberately, as one sometimes has Group A making a decision about Page B, and then totally surprising Group B when Group A implements the changes. There are, however, times when it makes sense (e.g., when multiple guidelines could be affected, you don't necessarily want to pick one talk page over the others) and other times when it's just what happens (e.g., a discussion takes an unexpected turn). I wonder whether we should make this more explicit. Something like "Changes to a single guideline or policy should normally be discussed on the talk page for that guideline or policy"? ] (]) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
So that's one sentence fragment (in bold, and without the grammatically necessary conjunction), followed by five sentences. IMO, the whole thing needs to be re-written. Here are my thoughts, by numbered sentence:
# "Purpose and scope ''must'' be" in the lead? Nonsense.
# This sentence effectively prohibits placing advice in the proper context (e.g., ] saying that different rules apply to ]d sources, or WP:BLP and WP:V pointing to each other). The first footnote is a dreadful examplefarm.
# The third sentence has the same problem with contextualizing as the second. It also forgets (again) that this advice is supposed to apply to guidelines and essays, not just official policies. Additionally, it (and the second footnote) are widely flouted; actual practice is exactly opposite this advice.
# The failings of the fourth sentence are outlined above.
# In addition to assuming that an editor can magically know exactly what each and every editor "needs" to be reminded about, the linked example in the third footnote does not provide any indication of being a "needless" reminder.


I've never been very fond of this section. It has always struck me as a collection of a single editor's theoretical notion of the "right" way to write these pages. While I think this could be re-written to accurately reflect the community's practices, I wonder whether wholesale removal might not be the better choice. What do you think? ] (]) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) :I really don’t think the ''venue'' of a policy discussion matters - what DOES matter is that as many editors as possible know that the discussion is taking place, and where to go to participate in it. So, leave lots of neutral notifications (everywhere you can think of) clearly linking to the discussion. ] (]) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::We say "Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page......start a request for comment (RfC) about your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page. Include the {{tl|rfc|policy}}..." Should we be more blunt? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::I think that policies should be able to state their purpose for existing, without constantly adding caveats that they don't negate every other core policy. How many policies have some summarized form of WP:BLP in them now? Most of them? Same with WP:V. It should be implicitly understood that no policy exists in a vacuum. Instead of creating this tangled web of cross-referenced summaries and digests, we should just have each policy talk about its own core message.
:::Yet, WP:Village Pump (policy) says that ''it'' should be “'''used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing ].'''”
::I think WP:V is a good example of a policy that avoids excessive summarizing and quoting. We could have a section in there talking about how we have higher standards for WP:BLPs, or how even verifiable information might violate WP:UNDUE, but we don't. Those other policies are quickly namechecked in a sentence at the bottom, but it makes no effort to summarize or quote or defer. I think that's a good role model for policies that we should aspire to. ] (]) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::So… I can see why people are confused. Especially if you think there is only one “correct” to do things. I don’t. I don’t think the location of an RFC ''matters'' as long as max people are notified a) ''that'' it is taking place, and b) ''where'' it is taking place.
:::I think the reason ''why'' WP:V avoids excessive summarizing is that it was one of the first to be created (I believe NPOV actually came first, but V came shortly there after) ... so WP:V tends to be the one that most of the others quote. The fact is, you are correct in saying that our polices don't exist in a vacuum... they overlap and influence each other. This is especially true for the core policies. I think we would do better to acknowledge and draw attention to where they overlap, and where they influence each other... because a change to one can mean we need to change others. That isn't always implicitly understood. ] (]) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::If at VPP, notify the P/G page. If at the P/G page, notify VPP. Simple. ] (]) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::People should defer to existing policies and guidelines over administration pages. How long has this been there at the village pump? Village pump should be there to direct people to the right page not be the page itself in my view as outline in our policy page "The RfC should typically be announced at the policy and/or proposals village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups". Should be fixed as per ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's not quite as simple as that. Usually, you need to defer to the most specific information. For example, WP:V says that "Reputable newspapers" are reliable sources, but MEDRS says that they're not reliable for biomedical information. You defer to MEDRS because it's more specific, not because guidelines inherently outrank policies. ] (]) 01:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Please see ] about adjusting the wording of the sentence at the top of WP:VPP. ] (]) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)


::OK... to get the ball rolling, I have been bold... I think is more in line with practice. Your thoughts? ] (]) 13:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


<div style="float:right;width:19em;margin-left:1em;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;padding:0.6em; clear:right;">
:::It may be that many policies summarize other policies but I've seen it lead to problems. If they are summarizing or copying a bit because it is not straightforward then it is liable to be changed. If it is summarizing a bit that is straightforward people will be aware of it or infer it from the five pillars anyway so it is redundant padding. However I'm a bit ambivalent about this point as it is covered by be brief and I believe this policy itself should follow its own advice.
'''Venue'''
:::On the business about the lead ''must'' give the scope and purpose of a policy I fully agree and fail to see why that is nonsense. Even this policy was racked with problems till recently because the scope wasn't clearly stated. The nutshells in particular have I believed saved a lot of trouble. In ordinary articles I've also noticed editors battling over the contents whilst leaving alone an anodyne leader that anyone can read any way - they haven't figured out what the topic or scope of the article is. A policy is not a policy if it cannot summarize its scope and purpose. ] (]) 14:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree that a policy should clearly state its scope and maintain it... my pet gripe about the PSTS section of NOR is based on scope (I don't disagree with what PSTS says, but I think it moves the policy beyond the scope of "No original research" - and no, I am not trying to reopen that particular debate... just using it as a personal example). I think the real issue at hand is how to deal with policy overlap. What to do when a particular policy sub-topic falls within the scope of two different policies. ] (]) 15:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:Anybody happen to notice that the entire paragraph Blueboar put up and that is being discussed violates just about every point that it itself is trying to make? The bolded sentence fragmant is a summary, but it tells you to avoid summarizing; it states to avoid repetition and needless reminders, yet the three footnotes pretty much are repetition and have needless reminders. I know this particular paragraph/section has been around for sometime and maybe it was written seriously but it seems almost like it was a joke the way it is written. But anyways- there shouldnt be a "right" way to write a policy or guideline and there should be quite a bit of leeway and latitude (needless repetition!) in how each should be written based on what problem it is that the particular policy is addressing. I agree however that perhaps codifying into policy regarding what to do about overlap between policies is a good thing but I hope that we can avoid setting down strict "rules" about how policies should be written like the particular section Blueboar correctly pointed out.] (]) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::In case anyone's curious, it was added , and has been shortened significantly since then. ] (]) 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


* For small-to-medium discussions affecting a single page: Prefer the '''talk page''' for that policy, guideline, or other page.
::Blueboar, I don't actually object to your changes -- it's a bit of an improvement, I guess -- but we're still writing it as if only the four big-deal content policies (BLP, NOR, NPOV, and V) exist, and that no guidelines or essays exist. Did you really want to tell the folks at ] that they're only allowed to "briefly" refer to ]?
* For small-to-medium discussions affecting multiple pages: Start the discussion at the '''talk page''' for one of the affected pages or at the ]. Notify the other pages about the central location.
::Try thinking about the content of a related set of pages -- say, ], ], ], and ] -- and seeing whether a literal interpretation of this section would actually improve those pages. Personally, I don't think that APPEAL can be made intelligible without its frequent re-capping of BLOCK, but perhaps other people would come to different conclusions. ] (]) 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
* For long discussions: Create a '''separate page''' (e.g., {{fake link|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/YOUR SUMMARY HERE}}) or as a '''subpage''' of the policy or guideline (e.g., ]).
:::Essays and guidelines tend to be a bit looser and more explanatory than policies, TE is an essay and APPEAL is a guideline. If editors don't like something in a guideline they are a lot freer to just ignore it. And if they do check up and find a difference it is normally pretty obvious which one takes precedence. However with policies like VANDAL or BLOCK one needs to be a bit more careful. Have you any particular cases where you think they obviously don't try an be brief in their references or don't make it obvious what takes precedence? ] (]) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
</div>Maybe a note like one of these? Or maybe this is overkill?
::::It depends on what you mean by "they". Does "they don't try to be brief" exclusively refer to policies, or is it an inclusive term? Verbose essays are a dime a dozen. ] (]) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
:::::I meant the references from the policies to other policies. I think they should all aspire to brevity but it doesn't really matter as much for the guidelines and essays. ] (]) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
|+Recommended venues –
Do your best to notify other relevant pages
!Expected discussion
!Talk page
!Village pump
!Separate page
|-
|Short
|{{tick}}
|{{tick}}
|
|-
|Long
|
|{{cross}}
|{{tick}}
|-
|About one page
|{{tick}}
|
|{{tick}}
|-
|About multiple pages
|{{tick}}
|{{tick}}
|{{tick}}
|}
] (]) 23:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


::re: "''Did you really want to tell the folks at ] that they're only allowed to "briefly" refer to ]?''"... No, of course not... but I would like to tell them to "be brief" (or at least as brief as possible) ''when'' referring to WP:V. There is a difference. ] (]) 01:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) *I still think you are overthinking it. But I don’t object. Key is to leave notifications. ] (]) 23:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
*Since I am always clearly right, I always expect short discussions. - ] (]) 04:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
*:<small>Then we must always agree, because I too am always right!</small> ] (]) 01:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*I think it is a bit of overkill. I agree with Blueboar that leaving notifications at the relevant pages is the most important guidance. The location of the discussion is flexible and can be moved to a separate subpage on an as-deemed-useful basis. ] (]) 14:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Love it.....we need to keep things simple for new editors. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== Universal Misplaced Pages Policies and guidelines, or individual English Misplaced Pages Policies and guidelines, or both? ==
::::::So why are we saying something different from what we supposedly mean? The section says, "Policy '''and guideline pages''' should:", not "Policy pages should do this, but other advice pages will have to look elsewhere for stylistic suggestions". ] (]) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


The name ''Misplaced Pages: Policies and guidelines'' suggests that the accompanying project page informs about the universal policies and guidelines valid on all Misplaced Pages language editions. In other words: all rules approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees with 'power of law' on all Wikimedia Projects, including all Misplaced Pages language editions. The text however does not make clear what the global policies are. The text doesn't inform either about the specific policies and guidelines valid for the English language edition Misplaced Pages community, established by that community within the borders of the universal WMF Policies and guidelines. The project page is made available in over 100 other languages, which also gives the impression that the page offers information about the universal policies and guidelines with validity on all Misplaced Pages projects - which it does not.
== Nutshell ==


I've made the observation that mountains of misunderstandings do exist around the broad and rather complex topic ''Wikimedia Movement Policies and guidelines'' and the project page does not excel in delivering clearity here. The friendly suggestion therefore is to expand the text with:
Any thoughts on Wolfkeeper's edit today? One thing I like about it is, we're not looking for the "best of all possible worlds" (is that from ]?) here, we're looking for rules which seem to work on Misplaced Pages as it actually is ... and saying that we're trying to expand on 5P rather than saying that we're trying to do what's "right" may help to get that across. OTOH, I don't remember anyone saying that we're limited to the goals in 5P on our policy pages. - Dank (]) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
:Yes it would be a better phrasing I think if policies actually were limited to developing the five pillars. However some procedural ones in particular seem to have little to do with anything except being an agreed way of doing things. I didn't like the old sentence but I'd never figured out anything better. Needs someone good with words I think. ] (]) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
::We're not trying to develop the ''pillars'', we're trying to follow the principles that ''are'' the pillars. The Wiki is at the end of the day, just a server with some software on it that could be used for anything, it's the principles that we follow that make it an encyclopedia, and the policies and guidelines are there to help you follow these principles, including sorting out interactions between people and so forth.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I think we rather overexaggerate the would-be fundamental nature of these "pillars". They're a reasonably successful summary of our aspirations and methods, but they aren't some god-given mission statement.--] (]) 09:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::They're certainly not ], they're laid down by ] ] as a ]. I think if we as editors decided that we were going to be, say, a TV company or the next YouTube instead and deleted all the articles, then I think the monarch would be ] about this.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::No they were set up by wikipedia editors. I think you're thinking of the ] (]) 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::(The foundation principles don't meet this description either. I don't know where these myths sprang up - perhaps it's a symptom of some inherent human need for a belief system based on "ancient wisdom". Where ancient in the Misplaced Pages context means 10 years or so ago.)--] (]) 14:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::Partly it was written by wikipedia editors, but it has ''considerable'' royal backing, and he employed people like Larry Sanger that did a lot of the heavy lifting.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Actually, if you look at the history, we had several of our core policies in place well before the five pillars were conceptualized. That does not diminish the 5P... but let's not rewrite history. ] (]) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Yup. But if you compare the five pillars with: ], they're actually quite close, pretty much the same thing.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 13:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Check the edit histories; this is partly right and partly wrong. - Dank (]) 14:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::It really doesn't matter at all. The point is whether they constitute a value system. If they don't then what is our value system?- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It's like the ] - unwritten.--] (]) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Bit of a myth, the British Constitution is at the very least, mostly written down.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Exactly, ''in many different documents'', not in a centralized "five pillars".--] (]) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:The point is that ultimately the Misplaced Pages is held together by values; and you have to point to what the values are when you formulate policy. It's not enough to 'do good', you have to say what ''good'' is, and 'good' is defined here by the five pillars. It doesn't actually matter where they came from, so long as they are being followed here and are influencing policy/guidelines/editing.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::Good is not defined by the five pillars. What has spurred you do engage in this edit war when you can see that people don't agree with you? I won't revert any more, but if someone else does, I hope you'll have the good sense to leave it alone.--] (]) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I've just no idea where you're coming from. What are the values of the Misplaced Pages? If they're not the values, what things are considered to be ''good''?- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Well the "community" decides by "consensus" what's good. 5P does a pretty good job of summarizing the main points, but it isn't the source that defines "what's good". A policy can quite reasonably have motivations that aren't set out in the five pillars; in fact, since 5P seems to consist mainly of links to other policies and guidelines, I presume its wording has tended to follow other policies and guidelines rather than the reverse; that's why it does its job well.--] (]) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::The community decides what's good, and writes it in the 5P. 5P isn't a policy, it's principles, it's a value system. If the motivation in a policy runs counter to 5P, then it would presumably be removed from the policy; the motivations are supposed to follow the principles.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 15:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Or can you give me an example of something that is a generally agreed Wikipedian value, that isn't in 5P?- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything about, say, avoiding unreasonable harm to living subjects there. But we don't say that ] doesn't apply because ] doesn't explicitly endorse the values behind that policy.--] (]) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::IMO that comes under NPOV. It's not that we avoid unreasonable harm at all, it's just we're particularly tough on NPOV when the subject is BLP. I mean if something was true, but caused hurt, we still cover it. That might be worth adding to NPOV though; but that's the point, even if you found something, we would just add it to the principles.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::That's basically my point as well - we update the principles page to keep up with the policy. The former is not always the source for the latter. --] (]) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think BLP comes under NPOV. It is done more for legal reasons than anything else. ] (]) 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::BLP just says you really, really need to employ NPOV and verifiability on BLP articles. It's not generally considered to be purely legal reasons, there's also moral considerations.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 16:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Principles always come from people thinking them up, writing them down and other people agreeing on them.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 16:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


* a section containing a general introduction to the legal ecosystem in which all Wiki'''m'''edia projects, including all Wiki'''p'''edia projects, are operating, with some milestones from Nupedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia governing history;
Blueboar has offered an edit as a compromise ... I think it's pretty accurate, in addition to working as a compromise, that is, a statement recognizing important points on all sides of the debate. Just my opinion. - Dank (]) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
* a summary of the most important actual valid universal Wikimedia Foundation Policies and guidelines, with 'rule of law' on all Misplaced Pages projects, like the WMF ], ], ] and ] (see: ], ])
:'Expressed' sounds unspecific enough for me. I like having the five pillars up front so newbies click on it rather than reading through this policy. ] (]) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
* a section explaining the actual valid policies, guidelines and best-practices on the English language Misplaced Pages edition.
:It's OK, it's better than what was there before.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">]</span></small> 18:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:All right, if it has the effect of preventing newbies reading this page, I suppose that makes up for the other failings.--] (]) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::HA! :>) ] (]) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


This will have a global effect because I did notice by reading through some of the other language project pages, that other communities simply did translate this page as being the rules valid on their Misplaced Pages edition. Unaware of the possibility that every individual community has, to establish their own specific policies, so long as these are in conformity with the framework of global policies.
== Not contradict each other ==


Thanks for your attention, ] (]) 12:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
As a side note about , I have deliberately not made any statement about policies taking precedence over guidelines. I have three reasons for this:


:Welcome to the English Misplaced Pages, @]. When you say "This header" in your first sentence, what header are you talking about? ] (]) 20:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
# The community's actual view takes precedence over everything.
::Thank you @] for the swift reply, welcome and question. It's about the header "Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines", pointing out to Misplaced Pages in general, not only the English language edition (I've changed the sentence so others will understand). The webaddress is admittedly: "en.wikipedia.org", but that doesn't mean that the content only refers to the English language version; compare it with the lemma ] on the English language version.
# There is nothing magical about a policy page that makes it immune to getting screwed up on occasion (and if this clause is relevant, then ''something'' is screwed up).
::My suggestion is to write on a page with this name about the general situation, and on another page "English Misplaced Pages: Policies and guidelines" about the Policies and guidelines that only are 'in power' on the English language edition / for the English language project community. Alternative: write both sections on this page, clearly divided. In case it turns out not to be easy for experienced Wikipedians to untangle the policies and guidelines in a section with global validity and a section with validity on the English language version, I would be happy to assist in figuring that out, when whished. Keep up! ] (]) 06:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
# ] explicitly works the other way around. (The specific naming conventions, which are "guidelines", normally take precedence over the general rules, which is a "policy".)
:::If you are concerned about the page title at the top of the page, which looks like this:
:::{{fake heading|Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines|level=1}}
:::then the "Misplaced Pages:" part indicates the ], and we can't actually change it on this page.
:::We could change the first sentence to say "<u>The English</u> Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are developed by the community". ] (]) 16:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)


:The individual Misplaced Pages editions in different languages are separate from the Engliah Misplaced Pages. As it says in the introduction to this policy "This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Misplaced Pages. It does not cover other editions of Misplaced Pages." If you click on languages near the top right you get the nearest equivalent to the page in other languages, most have not achieved the level of bureaucratification of the English version 😃 ] (]) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Consequently, I think that a label-neutral "y'all fix it", rather than "blindly accept whatever's on the policy page" is the right approach here. ] (]) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
:I don't have any problem with the edit, but I do think something needs to be added either on this page or at ], and I'd appreciate input. In any organization that relies on volunteer labor, there's conflict between the volunteers and the people who are perceived by those volunteers as calling the shots (who are also volunteers, here). I get the sense that some guidelines pop up and wither like weeds, and some are regularly and deliberately flouted ... which is sometimes okay, that's how an ] works, but I often think that we don't pay enough attention to the downside: uncertainty is very bad for training and retention of volunteers such as newpage patrollers because the answer to the question "Which pages should I report?" is "It depends on which admins wander by"; it changes the job from one of doing stuff you're comfortable with to one of attempting to understand and follow the opinions (sometimes the whims) of the people you perceive as "above" you, and that's not something people like to volunteer to do, that's the kind of thing you put up with at work because you're getting paid to put up with it. Content, deletion and enforcement policies all seem to me to be stable enough to help with the job of retaining our volunteer labor force; guidelines, sometimes yes and sometimes no. - Dank (]) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


== Input on a search parameter in our policy template ==
::I'm not sure how we would go about addressing that concern. ] (]) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure either. I was originally thinking of some edit at ], but now I'm realizing that admins are likely to want to treat different areas differently and there's no one-size-fits-all solution. I'm currently most worried about ], so I'll keep an eye on ]. - Dank (]) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Pls see ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
== Need some eyes ==


== PAG precedence ==
] needs some other editors to watch it. We've currently got an editor who is determined to introduce wildly inaccurate statements, like "Most Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines directly contradict each other."


Currently, we have a commonly accepted precedence for determining which PAG we should defer to (Manual of Style < Guideline < Policy < Core Policy), but this isn’t formalised. I think it would be helpful to do so, as our policies should reflect practice, and it will avoid wikilawyering on the issue.
This has been going on for almost three days now, so it's not just an April Fool's Day issue. ] (]) 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


As a rough draft, I would suggest changing ] from
::Hmmm... The problem is that the statement is only ''partly'' incorrect... the fact is, many of our policies and guidelines ''do'' contradict each other. We obviously try to fix such situations when we discover them... and doing so often leading to long and drawn out debates. For example, there is currently a debate at ] concerning a contradiction between that policy and ] over using non-neutral names as a title.
{{tqb| If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.<p>
::Question... is the ] essay really needed? Does it offer our editors a viewpoint that is not already expressed in this page? ] (]) 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, ] says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and ] recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand.}}
::Same question. I have a feeling that essay is going to draw fire ... not that that's a bad thing, I don't mind arguing those questions, but the (marginally) greater ''gravitas'' of this page may (or may not) make resolution on these questions easier here. - Dank (]) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
To:
{{tqb|If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice.

More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, ] says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and ] recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes.

Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand. When doing so, editors must defer to the advice with the highest level of consensus:
*Core policies (highest)
*Policies
*Guidelines
*Manual of Style (lowest)
}}

] (]) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:The MOS banner states that those pages are a guideline. Do they really need their own level?
:Whats an example of a "core policy", and how are these different than policies?
:As you can probably tell from my questions, my mental model of PAG only has three levels: policy > guideline > essay / not classified. And I would hesitate to add additional levels as it would enable wikilawyering, which is undesirable. –] <small>(])</small> 04:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::], <s>]</s><u>]</u>, and ] are the core policies.
::They are the policies most central to making Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages, and making it the trusted resource it is - I think we should make this importance, and the level of consensus they hold, clear.
::I think it would also be beneficial to reflect the generally accepted stance that style guidelines are considered less important - to have a lower level of consensus - than guidelines generally.
::However, I don’t mind too much if we simplify this down to "guidelines < policies", as this will formalise most of current practice. ] (]) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::: In the list of core policies, ] should be replaced by ]. This is in line with the explanatory essay ]. Historically, ] was created as a place to provide further explanation for which sources satisfy ] and that relationship still exists. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: You’re right, corrected. ] (]) 05:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think a blanket statement that all manual of style guidelines have less consensus than other guidelines is reasonable. There are a lot of guidelines out there, and the amount of discussion each received varies a lot. ] (]) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:I don't agree with the premise that introducing formal levels of guidance will better reflect practice and avoid wiki-lawyering. Part of the reason the community has difficulty in setting rigid levels is because in practice, it's not rare for the community to reach consensus agreement to allow exceptions for various cases. Additionally, establishing a fixed hierarchy would lead to endless debates on the appropriate level for a given collection of guidance. The second issue could be mitigated by a different decision-making method than the current consensus-based method with a "consensus can change" tradition, but that would have to come first. The first issue, though, is practically inevitable with how guidance is developed on English Misplaced Pages, with large group conversations amongst a changing set of participants, so maintaining consistency is unrealistic. It's endless work to try to codify all guidance to avoid exceptions, as they have a fractal nature: the closer you look into different scenarios, the more variations become apparent. ] (]) 06:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:The long-ago wording: {{tq|Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence.}} But then ] to {{tq|Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence.}} But then ] to: {{tq|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.}} I'd like a return to the long-ago wording but disclose that In March I was in an argument where I with the weakest wording, and wish I could have quoted the long-ago wording. ] (]) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::If memory serves, the idea of "precedence" started when there was some concern about WP:RS saying something that didn't quite align with WP:V, and an editor decided to boldly solve the problem by saying that the policy trumped the guideline.
::The problem with declaring My Policy Always Trumps Your Mere Guideline is that I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. For example:
::* The WP:V policy says that "reliable sources include:...Reputable newspapers"
::* The WP:MEDRS guideline says that newspapers aren't reliable sources for biomedical content.
::IMO there's no true conflict here, as MEDRS doesn't say that newspapers are completely unreliable for all content, but editors occasionally claim that there's a conflict, because they want to cite "Study says cigarettes don't cause lung cancer after all" in ''The Daily Slop'', and if they have to follow MEDRS, they won't be able to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.
::] wasn't really about ]; it was about whether ] is still a rule in practice. If RSCONTEXT is not a rule, then you can blindly (or defaultly) blank all uses of a newspaper that has been designated as ]. If RSCONTEXT is still a rule, then you have to slow down long enough to ask yourself whether or not ''The Daily Slop'' is reliable for a sentence that says "The movie critic at ''The Daily Slop'' gave it two bananas". ] (]) 21:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
:::You aren't being exact about what your memory serves or about what WP:MEDRS says, so I'm unable to address that. In the discussion I linked to the argument was whether "WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS". Context was mentioned in but not for that specific argument. ] (]) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I thought NOTCENSORED was irrelevant. ] movie reviews don't involve "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so". Here is . He removed a sentence saying {{xt|"] of the '']'' gave the film two out of five, stating that the animated film "greatly expands on the kids' book on which it's based in a clever and engaging first half. But the second half leaves a foul aftertaste.""}} The edit summary says that the source is (in his opinion) unreliable and therefore mentioning the movie review is ]. I don't see anything "objectionable or offensive‍" in the removed sentence, and I suspect you don't either. Invoking NOTCENSORED sounded to me like someone throwing some ] spaghetti against the wall to see if anything would stick.
::::But if you want to follow that line of thinking, then consider a ]-headed wikilawyer saying "We must include this exceedingly ] per NOTCENSORED! No, I don't happen to have a reliable source for the offensive material, but that doesn't matter. NOTCENSORED is a policy, and all policies override mere guidelines, so having a reliable source is unnecessary". ] (]) 18:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll do my best to ignore your accusations and say what I thought that argument was. Material was being removed based on the "generally unreliable" objection (and the example you picked had those words). I was saying that regardless whether an RfC re RS misinterpreted, it could not suppress expressions of opinion without running into the policy which quoted {{tq|The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views.}}, which is not about obscenity and had nothing to do with what's in WP:Offensive material, which is not a policy and was not mentioned in the argument or any edit summary that I noticed. A reviewer's opinion is allowed, the policy is relevant, the claim that the policy does not override the guideline was met by the reference to a weakened wp:polcon. ] (]) 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::A movie critic's comment is not the kind of ideas that the university president was talking about, and NOTCENSORED itself, in the first sentence, says that it's about objectionable or offensive content, which this isn't.
::::::Besides, the edit summary gave a policy-based reason: A view presented in an unreliable source is ], and therefore the inclusion was a policy violation. You were arguing that the NOTCENSORED policy ought to trump the NPOV policy. ] (]) 16:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's just another false statement about me, I'll again do my best to ignore your accusations. If anyone wants to comment about what I actually said, or even wants to address the thread topic, that might be better for the tone here. ] (]) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:I also disagree with making the levels more formal. We don't really need put down arguments if an editor says that they feel that a lower level is more applicable. Saying a policy normally takes precedence is enough, if they still have a problem it should be discussed. Editors have discussed things at all levels. ] (]) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with the general principle, but think that further codifying the hierarchy in this way isn't helpful. Guidelines often address exceptions / edge cases or provide more detail than we would want in policies, and for these specific areas can represent a higher level of consensus than applying the higher level policy by default. Asking editors to use their judgment (through consensus building) is sufficient. ] (]) 06:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::Policies and Guidelines should support each other. In the rare cases when a Policy and s Guideline appear to be in conflict, the solution is to resolve the conflict… not to argue about which “takes precedence”. The issue needs to be raised on both pages (linked to a central discussion). It may be that ''both'' pages need to be amended.
::That said, it often turns out that there IS no actual conflict… but simply a disagreement over how the language of one or the other page should be interpreted in a specific situation. ] (]) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree, which is why asking editors to use their judgement in the not so obvious cases, rather than simply referring to the pages position on the ladder is the best course for this text. ] (]) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

== New PAG discussion location ==

Currently, the guideline says that we should hold discussions on creating a new PAG at said PAG’s talk page.

This seems odd to me; for such creations we should have broad community consensus, meaning it would be better to hold the discussion at ]. This would also align with practice where we hold discussions to modify PAGs at VPP.

Is there a reason we don’t do it this way, and if there isn’t should we change it? ] (]) 07:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::: ], just wondering, what is a "PAG"? My best guess is "policy '''or''' guideline." But that is just a guess. - ] (]) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} Your guess is correct ] (]) 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:My ] on this topic apply. Personally, I feel as long as appropriate notifications are provided at the expected locations, the location of the discussion can be flexible. ] (]) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Notification, not location, is the important part. Also discussions on modifying PAGs doesn't ''have'' to happen at VPP, it's just a place where they can happen. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear, if you feel something isn't getting enough attention additional and more prominent notification is the solution. If you list it at CENT, notified all the common noticeboards and post to the village pump, then editors will see it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to me that the underlying question is: is it preferable to nudge editors (through notification) to engage policy talk pages that are new to them, or is it better to encourage editors (also through notification) to shift their attention to centralized discussions like VPP.
:I believe that the former is clearly better for the project, because it encourages more diversity and less entrenchent of perspectives on policy pages. The latter encourages waves of participation in centralized discussion in a way at much higher risk of BATTLEGROUND effects, and abandons the gains to be had from editors learning how diverse domains of the project actually understand guidelines and get work done. The ''quality'' of consensus is therefore likely to be lower if we force everything to centralized discussions (which we could probably measure using the rate of "per X", brigade-like voting at centralized venues). ] (]) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::Why do you think they are more battlegroundy?
::It does tend to draw in a more diverse range of editors, which can make it more likely that there will be two groups who strongly disagree with each other, but isn’t a diverse range a good thing? ] (]) 14:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::To answer your question, there are different kinds of diversity among editors, and I don't think they all have equal value.
:::One form of diversity is '''knowing less vs. knowing more''' about a policy/guideline topic and its history. I am not convinced that this form of diversity is especially valuable in decision-making in P&Gs (though it is sometimes helpful in RFCBEFORE). So, for example, the relatively large number of editors to be found at Village Pump, etc., who think the ] applies to everything because they are unfamiliar with the history of SNGs (including their post-2017 history) - I don't think the !votes of these editors on notability topics are especially valuable, especially when thei4 contributions take the form of a vote "per X".
:::On the other hand, another form of diversity is '''knowing about diverse aspects''', e.g., of article creation and development within enwiki. So for example, bringing together editors interested in BLPs concerning, say, athletes ''and'' academics ''and'' political figures ''and'' literary figures ''and'' entertainment figures, is likely to bring additional perspective to discussions of biographical notability more than if only those interested in a single biographical genre arw involved. And I think this is the case even if the specific proposal only concerns one type of biography.
:::So I guess my shorthand would be that soliciting the opinions of editors who know less (and aren't motivated to learn) is generally unhelpful to P&G development, but soliciting the opinions of editors who know about diverse aspects related to P&G development is helpful. Which I believe supports the practical suggestion I made above that it is better to entice editors into well-informed discussions on Talk pages, and encourage diversity that way, than it is to create a "public arena" that could facilitate knee-jerk reactions, agonistic displays, and waves of canvassed input. TL;DR: increasing thr input of editors who are uninterested in learning the background and ''status quo'' within which a question is posed, and the most likely impacts of the options presented, is unlikely to encourage outcomes that are better for the enwiki project and comminity. ] (]) 15:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::My issue with this is it reads like you are seeking to minimise the input of editors with a different view on SNGs and GNG than your view. I don’t think this is aligned with our policies on ]. ] (]) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm really not promoting a particular view. I have my own specific understanding of notability on enwiki, just as North8K has theirs and WAID has theirs. History demonstrates that none of these editors holds the same view or reaches identical conclusions on the varied issues that arise with notability.
{{Cot|extended content on notability discussions, and a conclusion therefrom}}
On the specific relationship between SNG and GNG, there was a long-discussed, well-participated RfC on the topic, with a thoughtful (and uncontested) close, that gave rise to the text of ], so in this case at least there is good documentation for what the ''status quo'' is. Each of the editors I've mentioned, and many others, recognize this status quo while having different ideas about what would make better notability policy than what we have. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd be surprised if any of us were trying to "minimise" the input of editors who want to change or evolve notability policy. I know I'm not.

But I would point to what almost inevitably happens in discussions of notability, which is that editors who are inexperienced in P&Gs enter discussions assuming that there is one essential standard of notability, namely the GNG, and that the community shares this view. In the course of discussion, they learn that their view is one of many, and that other standards of notability exist that are understood to apply to certain domains, in various ways. After they learn this, some of these editors retain the assumption that other standards ''should'' not exist, although they do; some reconcile the GNG with SNGs for themselves using varied reasoning; and still others become convinced that it is beneficial for different standards to exist depending on the domain. But all editors who participate in these discussions come to recognize that, in the ''status quo'' within the community, there is no one universal standard of notability.

Based on this example, there is benefit to the community from having new editors come to these discussions, learn about the issues, and develop perspectives of their own that interact in varied ways with the ''status quo'' (whether to tinker with it or to overhaul it). But there is no clear benefit to the community in having waves of editors participate without coming to understand the policies as they exist and as they currently work (or don't work). As I pointed out earlier, this is especially true when an editors' only participation in a policy discussion consists in brigade-like "per X" !votes unaccompanied by evidence of reading and reflecting on the policy topic.
{{Cob}}
:::::To paraphrase something I pointed out , there is a salient difference between seeing community consensus as an emergent property of active discussion among all who want to participate, and seeing it as a mirror of the views all members of the community happen to hold at a point in time (regardless of their familiarity with the topic and its context). My sense is that enwiki has consistently held a community view of consensus much closer to the former imaginary than the latter. ] (]) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Discussions on a page should be held on its talk page unless there is a very good reason not to. The main example is that deletion discussions should be held elsewhere, because if the page is deleted, so it the talk page, and we want records of deletion discussions.
:For a proposal, the proposal talk page is blindingly obviously the right place for discussions. The two are watchlisted together. The talk page will follow the proposal page through any future renames. Queries about the proposal will obviously go first to the talk page. Talk pages have archives that all Wikipedians can understand. Village pumps and other dramah boards have overwhelming and confusing archiving, including the tendency for the archives to host thread copies out of chronological order. ] (]) 11:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:This would cause bloat at VPP and make it more difficult to link the policy and the proposal:
:*Editors would have to find the link hidden the RfC statement to read the proposal instead of clicking the "Project page" tab.
:*The discussion about the proposal would then be hidden away in the VPP's vast archives, instead of conveniently in the archives of the proposed policy's talk page. A link could (and should) be provided to the archived discussion at VPP, but this is still confusion from an administrative point of view.
:If notification is provided at VPP, and that is pretty standard, than I see no benefit to moving the whole discussion there.
:As Newimpartial pointed out, discussion at the Village Pump tend to get more BATTLEGROUNDy. ] (]) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::The benefit is a notification is easily missed. A discussion, which will repeatedly show up on watchlists, is far less so.
::As for the rest, why do we treat the creation of PAG’s differently to the modification of them? All the arguments you present apply equally to each. ] (]) 14:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think we do. Most changes to policy and guideline pages are minor and undiscussed/]. Most of the discussions happen on their own talk pages. Only a small minority of discussions about changing a single policy or guideline are intentionally started anywhere else. The village pumps are most likely to host general discussions ("I have identified a problem..." – these sometimes turn into, but are not necessarily intended to be, discussions about changing a single policy or guideline) or multi-page coordination ("...so either we need to make small changes to both WP:A and WP:B, or we need to make a big change to WP:C").
:::For reference, the WP:PROPOSAL that prompted this discussion is ]. It is currently more than 250K long, with about 400 comments. It is three times the current length of ]. Adding a discussion of that length to a page with other active discussions makes it difficult for some people (especially on mobile devices) to participate in any discussions on that page, which means that we'd be frustrating editors who want to participate in unrelated discussions and thus interfering with the main purpose of the page (i.e., to let editors participate in a variety of discussions). We've been talking during the last year about intervening to split VP discussions off when we think they're going to have 100+ comments, so "at the village pump" very likely would have ended up being on a separate page anyway. ] (]) 21:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*] nice chart .<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:it is very reasonable to first discuss a idea for a new policy or guideline at the ideas page. That discussion might be a bit extended if the basic idea has problems. But after that gets off the ground the talk page for it is the right place for discussions I believe so the reasoning can be found easily when people think of changing anything. Quite enough editors will find an RfC on policy and put it on their watchlist ifinterested. ] (]) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Deletion of MoS navigation template ==

Can we get input from those actually familiar with this..]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:39, 5 January 2025

YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Policies and guidelines page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

? view · edit Frequently asked questions
I can't find proof that this guideline was adopted as an Official True™ Guideline through the WP:PROPOSAL process. Does that mean it's not legitimate?
The WP:PROPOSAL process itself was adopted in late 2008. It was based on the processes used for Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Pages tagged as guidelines or policies before 2008 generally did not follow any consistent process. The older the page is, the more likely it was marked as a guideline or policy as a result of off-wiki discussions (especially in 2003 or earlier) or through a normal discussion on its talk page.
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.
On 25 March 2024, it was proposed that this page be moved to Misplaced Pages:Guidelines and policies. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Copyedit

@Ca, I'm not sure about all the changes you're making. Off hand, here are a few that stood out to me:

  • "a summary of the most pertinent principles": We specified that that WP:5P is a "popular" summary, to be clearer that it's not an "official" or "complete" one. 5P is IMO an excellent summary, but it's also just a five-point re-write of WP:Trifecta to sound more formal and avoid some slang. There's nothing magical about it.
  • "Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices": We specified "pages" here because there are multiple meanings of policy. This paragraph is specifically talking about the written pages, rather than standard practices. (Consider, e.g., "our country's foreign policy": you don't expect that to be a single document with the word "Policy" in a fancy box at the top.) The written pages do this; the actual policies ("a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions") is what editors do at RecentChanges or AFD, not what we write on the page.
  • "Additionally, the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page.": The problem of people misinterpreting the WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts is perennial and significant. For example, there are hundreds of shortcuts that start with WP:NOT but don't point to WP:NOT. On occasion, we'll even see people arguing that WP:THIS requires us to do this, and WP:NOTTHIS requires us to never do this ...and they're pointing at the same section of the same page, only the editors didn't know this, because they were just guessing that the shortcut matched the rule, so they never bothered to actually read the rules.

This is not an exhaustive list, but I also want to say that I don't object to every change you've made. What would you like to do to resolve some of my concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind and lengthy feedback. Here is a list of changes I will make later, based on your suggestions:
  • Reintroduce popular as descriptor
  • Reword the page–attitude distinction to be clearer
  • Re-add "shortcut is not the policy" with clearer wording
Ca 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Venue

I've seen a couple of claims, during the last year or two, that proposals for WP:PGCHANGES should happen at the village pump, instead of on the talk page for the affected policy/guideline/similar page. It is generally poor practice to do this deliberately, as one sometimes has Group A making a decision about Page B, and then totally surprising Group B when Group A implements the changes. There are, however, times when it makes sense (e.g., when multiple guidelines could be affected, you don't necessarily want to pick one talk page over the others) and other times when it's just what happens (e.g., a discussion takes an unexpected turn). I wonder whether we should make this more explicit. Something like "Changes to a single guideline or policy should normally be discussed on the talk page for that guideline or policy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t think the venue of a policy discussion matters - what DOES matter is that as many editors as possible know that the discussion is taking place, and where to go to participate in it. So, leave lots of neutral notifications (everywhere you can think of) clearly linking to the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
We say "Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page......start a request for comment (RfC) about your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page. Include the {{rfc}}..." Should we be more blunt? Moxy🍁 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yet, WP:Village Pump (policy) says that it should be “used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.”
So… I can see why people are confused. Especially if you think there is only one “correct” to do things. I don’t. I don’t think the location of an RFC matters as long as max people are notified a) that it is taking place, and b) where it is taking place.
If at VPP, notify the P/G page. If at the P/G page, notify VPP. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
People should defer to existing policies and guidelines over administration pages. How long has this been there at the village pump? Village pump should be there to direct people to the right page not be the page itself in my view as outline in our policy page "The RfC should typically be announced at the policy and/or proposals village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups". Should be fixed as per WP:POLCON. Moxy🍁 00:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not quite as simple as that. Usually, you need to defer to the most specific information. For example, WP:V says that "Reputable newspapers" are reliable sources, but MEDRS says that they're not reliable for biomedical information. You defer to MEDRS because it's more specific, not because guidelines inherently outrank policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#The header for this page about adjusting the wording of the sentence at the top of WP:VPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)


Venue

  • For small-to-medium discussions affecting a single page: Prefer the talk page for that policy, guideline, or other page.
  • For small-to-medium discussions affecting multiple pages: Start the discussion at the talk page for one of the affected pages or at the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Notify the other pages about the central location.
  • For long discussions: Create a separate page (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/YOUR SUMMARY HERE) or as a subpage of the policy or guideline (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/First sentence).

Maybe a note like one of these? Or maybe this is overkill?

Recommended venues – Do your best to notify other relevant pages
Expected discussion Talk page Village pump Separate page
Short checkY checkY
Long ☒N checkY
About one page checkY checkY
About multiple pages checkY checkY checkY

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Universal Misplaced Pages Policies and guidelines, or individual English Misplaced Pages Policies and guidelines, or both?

The name Misplaced Pages: Policies and guidelines suggests that the accompanying project page informs about the universal policies and guidelines valid on all Misplaced Pages language editions. In other words: all rules approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees with 'power of law' on all Wikimedia Projects, including all Misplaced Pages language editions. The text however does not make clear what the global policies are. The text doesn't inform either about the specific policies and guidelines valid for the English language edition Misplaced Pages community, established by that community within the borders of the universal WMF Policies and guidelines. The project page is made available in over 100 other languages, which also gives the impression that the page offers information about the universal policies and guidelines with validity on all Misplaced Pages projects - which it does not.

I've made the observation that mountains of misunderstandings do exist around the broad and rather complex topic Wikimedia Movement Policies and guidelines and the project page does not excel in delivering clearity here. The friendly suggestion therefore is to expand the text with:

  • a section containing a general introduction to the legal ecosystem in which all Wikimedia projects, including all Wikipedia projects, are operating, with some milestones from Nupedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia governing history;
  • a summary of the most important actual valid universal Wikimedia Foundation Policies and guidelines, with 'rule of law' on all Misplaced Pages projects, like the WMF Bylaws, Terms of Use, Universal Code of Conduct and UCoC Enforcement guidelines (see: summary 1, summary 2 by the WMF)
  • a section explaining the actual valid policies, guidelines and best-practices on the English language Misplaced Pages edition.

This will have a global effect because I did notice by reading through some of the other language project pages, that other communities simply did translate this page as being the rules valid on their Misplaced Pages edition. Unaware of the possibility that every individual community has, to establish their own specific policies, so long as these are in conformity with the framework of global policies.

Thanks for your attention, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the English Misplaced Pages, @Kevin Bouwens. When you say "This header" in your first sentence, what header are you talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @WhatamIdoing for the swift reply, welcome and question. It's about the header "Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines", pointing out to Misplaced Pages in general, not only the English language edition (I've changed the sentence so others will understand). The webaddress is admittedly: "en.wikipedia.org", but that doesn't mean that the content only refers to the English language version; compare it with the lemma Misplaced Pages on the English language version.
My suggestion is to write on a page with this name about the general situation, and on another page "English Misplaced Pages: Policies and guidelines" about the Policies and guidelines that only are 'in power' on the English language edition / for the English language project community. Alternative: write both sections on this page, clearly divided. In case it turns out not to be easy for experienced Wikipedians to untangle the policies and guidelines in a section with global validity and a section with validity on the English language version, I would be happy to assist in figuring that out, when whished. Keep up! Kevin Bouwens (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
If you are concerned about the page title at the top of the page, which looks like this:
Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines
then the "Misplaced Pages:" part indicates the namespace, and we can't actually change it on this page.
We could change the first sentence to say "The English Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are developed by the community". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The individual Misplaced Pages editions in different languages are separate from the Engliah Misplaced Pages. As it says in the introduction to this policy "This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages of the English Misplaced Pages. It does not cover other editions of Misplaced Pages." If you click on languages near the top right you get the nearest equivalent to the page in other languages, most have not achieved the level of bureaucratification of the English version 😃 NadVolum (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Input on a search parameter in our policy template

Pls see Template talk:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines#Search parameter like our MOS template?. Moxy🍁 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

PAG precedence

Currently, we have a commonly accepted precedence for determining which PAG we should defer to (Manual of Style < Guideline < Policy < Core Policy), but this isn’t formalised. I think it would be helpful to do so, as our policies should reflect practice, and it will avoid wikilawyering on the issue.

As a rough draft, I would suggest changing WP:POLCON from

If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.

More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand.

To:

If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice.

More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes.

Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand. When doing so, editors must defer to the advice with the highest level of consensus:

  • Core policies (highest)
  • Policies
  • Guidelines
  • Manual of Style (lowest)

BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The MOS banner states that those pages are a guideline. Do they really need their own level?
Whats an example of a "core policy", and how are these different than policies?
As you can probably tell from my questions, my mental model of PAG only has three levels: policy > guideline > essay / not classified. And I would hesitate to add additional levels as it would enable wikilawyering, which is undesirable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:RSWP:V, and WP:NPOV are the core policies.
They are the policies most central to making Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages, and making it the trusted resource it is - I think we should make this importance, and the level of consensus they hold, clear.
I think it would also be beneficial to reflect the generally accepted stance that style guidelines are considered less important - to have a lower level of consensus - than guidelines generally.
However, I don’t mind too much if we simplify this down to "guidelines < policies", as this will formalise most of current practice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
In the list of core policies, WP:RS should be replaced by WP:V. This is in line with the explanatory essay WP:COPO. Historically, WP:RS was created as a place to provide further explanation for which sources satisfy WP:V and that relationship still exists. Zero 05:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
You’re right, corrected. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think a blanket statement that all manual of style guidelines have less consensus than other guidelines is reasonable. There are a lot of guidelines out there, and the amount of discussion each received varies a lot. isaacl (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with the premise that introducing formal levels of guidance will better reflect practice and avoid wiki-lawyering. Part of the reason the community has difficulty in setting rigid levels is because in practice, it's not rare for the community to reach consensus agreement to allow exceptions for various cases. Additionally, establishing a fixed hierarchy would lead to endless debates on the appropriate level for a given collection of guidance. The second issue could be mitigated by a different decision-making method than the current consensus-based method with a "consensus can change" tradition, but that would have to come first. The first issue, though, is practically inevitable with how guidance is developed on English Misplaced Pages, with large group conversations amongst a changing set of participants, so maintaining consistency is unrealistic. It's endless work to try to codify all guidance to avoid exceptions, as they have a fractal nature: the closer you look into different scenarios, the more variations become apparent. isaacl (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The long-ago wording: Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence. But then Kotniski weakened it to Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. But then WhatamIdoing weakened it further to: 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. I'd like a return to the long-ago wording but disclose that In March I was in an argument where I quoted WP:POLCON with the weakest wording, and wish I could have quoted the long-ago wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
If memory serves, the idea of "precedence" started when there was some concern about WP:RS saying something that didn't quite align with WP:V, and an editor decided to boldly solve the problem by saying that the policy trumped the guideline.
The problem with declaring My Policy Always Trumps Your Mere Guideline is that I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. For example:
  • The WP:V policy says that "reliable sources include:...Reputable newspapers"
  • The WP:MEDRS guideline says that newspapers aren't reliable sources for biomedical content.
IMO there's no true conflict here, as MEDRS doesn't say that newspapers are completely unreliable for all content, but editors occasionally claim that there's a conflict, because they want to cite "Study says cigarettes don't cause lung cancer after all" in The Daily Slop, and if they have to follow MEDRS, they won't be able to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.
The discussion you linked to wasn't really about Misplaced Pages:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays; it was about whether WP:RSCONTEXT is still a rule in practice. If RSCONTEXT is not a rule, then you can blindly (or defaultly) blank all uses of a newspaper that has been designated as WP:GUNREL. If RSCONTEXT is still a rule, then you have to slow down long enough to ask yourself whether or not The Daily Slop is reliable for a sentence that says "The movie critic at The Daily Slop gave it two bananas". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
You aren't being exact about what your memory serves or about what WP:MEDRS says, so I'm unable to address that. In the discussion I linked to the argument was whether "WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS". Context was mentioned in the thread but not for that specific argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought NOTCENSORED was irrelevant. WP:NYPOST movie reviews don't involve "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so". Here is an example of the objected-to edits. He removed a sentence saying "Kyle Smith of the New York Post gave the film two out of five, stating that the animated film "greatly expands on the kids' book on which it's based in a clever and engaging first half. But the second half leaves a foul aftertaste."" The edit summary says that the source is (in his opinion) unreliable and therefore mentioning the movie review is WP:UNDUE. I don't see anything "objectionable or offensive‍" in the removed sentence, and I suspect you don't either. Invoking NOTCENSORED sounded to me like someone throwing some WP:UPPERCASE spaghetti against the wall to see if anything would stick.
But if you want to follow that line of thinking, then consider a WP:POINTY-headed wikilawyer saying "We must include this exceedingly WP:Offensive material per NOTCENSORED! No, I don't happen to have a reliable source for the offensive material, but that doesn't matter. NOTCENSORED is a policy, and all policies override mere guidelines, so having a reliable source is unnecessary". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll do my best to ignore your accusations and say what I thought that argument was. Material was being removed based on the "generally unreliable" objection (and the example you picked had those words). I was saying that regardless whether an RfC re RS misinterpreted, it could not suppress expressions of opinion without running into the policy which quoted The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views., which is not about obscenity and had nothing to do with what's in WP:Offensive material, which is not a policy and was not mentioned in the argument or any edit summary that I noticed. A reviewer's opinion is allowed, the policy is relevant, the claim that the policy does not override the guideline was met by the reference to a weakened wp:polcon. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
A movie critic's comment is not the kind of ideas that the university president was talking about, and NOTCENSORED itself, in the first sentence, says that it's about objectionable or offensive content, which this isn't.
Besides, the edit summary gave a policy-based reason: A view presented in an unreliable source is WP:UNDUE, and therefore the inclusion was a policy violation. You were arguing that the NOTCENSORED policy ought to trump the NPOV policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That's just another false statement about me, I'll again do my best to ignore your accusations. If anyone wants to comment about what I actually said, or even wants to address the thread topic, that might be better for the tone here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I also disagree with making the levels more formal. We don't really need put down arguments if an editor says that they feel that a lower level is more applicable. Saying a policy normally takes precedence is enough, if they still have a problem it should be discussed. Editors have discussed things at all levels. NadVolum (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the general principle, but think that further codifying the hierarchy in this way isn't helpful. Guidelines often address exceptions / edge cases or provide more detail than we would want in policies, and for these specific areas can represent a higher level of consensus than applying the higher level policy by default. Asking editors to use their judgment (through consensus building) is sufficient. Scribolt (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Policies and Guidelines should support each other. In the rare cases when a Policy and s Guideline appear to be in conflict, the solution is to resolve the conflict… not to argue about which “takes precedence”. The issue needs to be raised on both pages (linked to a central discussion). It may be that both pages need to be amended.
That said, it often turns out that there IS no actual conflict… but simply a disagreement over how the language of one or the other page should be interpreted in a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, which is why asking editors to use their judgement in the not so obvious cases, rather than simply referring to the pages position on the ladder is the best course for this text. Scribolt (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

New PAG discussion location

Currently, the guideline says that we should hold discussions on creating a new PAG at said PAG’s talk page.

This seems odd to me; for such creations we should have broad community consensus, meaning it would be better to hold the discussion at WP:VPP. This would also align with practice where we hold discussions to modify PAGs at VPP.

Is there a reason we don’t do it this way, and if there isn’t should we change it? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, just wondering, what is a "PAG"? My best guess is "policy or guideline." But that is just a guess. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Butwhatdoiknow: Your guess is correct BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
My previous comments on this topic apply. Personally, I feel as long as appropriate notifications are provided at the expected locations, the location of the discussion can be flexible. isaacl (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Notification, not location, is the important part. Also discussions on modifying PAGs doesn't have to happen at VPP, it's just a place where they can happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, if you feel something isn't getting enough attention additional and more prominent notification is the solution. If you list it at CENT, notified all the common noticeboards and post to the village pump, then editors will see it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that the underlying question is: is it preferable to nudge editors (through notification) to engage policy talk pages that are new to them, or is it better to encourage editors (also through notification) to shift their attention to centralized discussions like VPP.
I believe that the former is clearly better for the project, because it encourages more diversity and less entrenchent of perspectives on policy pages. The latter encourages waves of participation in centralized discussion in a way at much higher risk of BATTLEGROUND effects, and abandons the gains to be had from editors learning how diverse domains of the project actually understand guidelines and get work done. The quality of consensus is therefore likely to be lower if we force everything to centralized discussions (which we could probably measure using the rate of "per X", brigade-like voting at centralized venues). Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think they are more battlegroundy?
It does tend to draw in a more diverse range of editors, which can make it more likely that there will be two groups who strongly disagree with each other, but isn’t a diverse range a good thing? BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
To answer your question, there are different kinds of diversity among editors, and I don't think they all have equal value.
One form of diversity is knowing less vs. knowing more about a policy/guideline topic and its history. I am not convinced that this form of diversity is especially valuable in decision-making in P&Gs (though it is sometimes helpful in RFCBEFORE). So, for example, the relatively large number of editors to be found at Village Pump, etc., who think the WP:GNG applies to everything because they are unfamiliar with the history of SNGs (including their post-2017 history) - I don't think the !votes of these editors on notability topics are especially valuable, especially when thei4 contributions take the form of a vote "per X".
On the other hand, another form of diversity is knowing about diverse aspects, e.g., of article creation and development within enwiki. So for example, bringing together editors interested in BLPs concerning, say, athletes and academics and political figures and literary figures and entertainment figures, is likely to bring additional perspective to discussions of biographical notability more than if only those interested in a single biographical genre arw involved. And I think this is the case even if the specific proposal only concerns one type of biography.
So I guess my shorthand would be that soliciting the opinions of editors who know less (and aren't motivated to learn) is generally unhelpful to P&G development, but soliciting the opinions of editors who know about diverse aspects related to P&G development is helpful. Which I believe supports the practical suggestion I made above that it is better to entice editors into well-informed discussions on Talk pages, and encourage diversity that way, than it is to create a "public arena" that could facilitate knee-jerk reactions, agonistic displays, and waves of canvassed input. TL;DR: increasing thr input of editors who are uninterested in learning the background and status quo within which a question is posed, and the most likely impacts of the options presented, is unlikely to encourage outcomes that are better for the enwiki project and comminity. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
My issue with this is it reads like you are seeking to minimise the input of editors with a different view on SNGs and GNG than your view. I don’t think this is aligned with our policies on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm really not promoting a particular view. I have my own specific understanding of notability on enwiki, just as North8K has theirs and WAID has theirs. History demonstrates that none of these editors holds the same view or reaches identical conclusions on the varied issues that arise with notability.
extended content on notability discussions, and a conclusion therefrom

On the specific relationship between SNG and GNG, there was a long-discussed, well-participated RfC on the topic, with a thoughtful (and uncontested) close, that gave rise to the text of WP:SNG, so in this case at least there is good documentation for what the status quo is. Each of the editors I've mentioned, and many others, recognize this status quo while having different ideas about what would make better notability policy than what we have. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd be surprised if any of us were trying to "minimise" the input of editors who want to change or evolve notability policy. I know I'm not.

But I would point to what almost inevitably happens in discussions of notability, which is that editors who are inexperienced in P&Gs enter discussions assuming that there is one essential standard of notability, namely the GNG, and that the community shares this view. In the course of discussion, they learn that their view is one of many, and that other standards of notability exist that are understood to apply to certain domains, in various ways. After they learn this, some of these editors retain the assumption that other standards should not exist, although they do; some reconcile the GNG with SNGs for themselves using varied reasoning; and still others become convinced that it is beneficial for different standards to exist depending on the domain. But all editors who participate in these discussions come to recognize that, in the status quo within the community, there is no one universal standard of notability.

Based on this example, there is benefit to the community from having new editors come to these discussions, learn about the issues, and develop perspectives of their own that interact in varied ways with the status quo (whether to tinker with it or to overhaul it). But there is no clear benefit to the community in having waves of editors participate without coming to understand the policies as they exist and as they currently work (or don't work). As I pointed out earlier, this is especially true when an editors' only participation in a policy discussion consists in brigade-like "per X" !votes unaccompanied by evidence of reading and reflecting on the policy topic.

To paraphrase something I pointed out elsewhere, there is a salient difference between seeing community consensus as an emergent property of active discussion among all who want to participate, and seeing it as a mirror of the views all members of the community happen to hold at a point in time (regardless of their familiarity with the topic and its context). My sense is that enwiki has consistently held a community view of consensus much closer to the former imaginary than the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussions on a page should be held on its talk page unless there is a very good reason not to. The main example is that deletion discussions should be held elsewhere, because if the page is deleted, so it the talk page, and we want records of deletion discussions.
For a proposal, the proposal talk page is blindingly obviously the right place for discussions. The two are watchlisted together. The talk page will follow the proposal page through any future renames. Queries about the proposal will obviously go first to the talk page. Talk pages have archives that all Wikipedians can understand. Village pumps and other dramah boards have overwhelming and confusing archiving, including the tendency for the archives to host thread copies out of chronological order. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
This would cause bloat at VPP and make it more difficult to link the policy and the proposal:
  • Editors would have to find the link hidden the RfC statement to read the proposal instead of clicking the "Project page" tab.
  • The discussion about the proposal would then be hidden away in the VPP's vast archives, instead of conveniently in the archives of the proposed policy's talk page. A link could (and should) be provided to the archived discussion at VPP, but this is still confusion from an administrative point of view.
If notification is provided at VPP, and that is pretty standard, than I see no benefit to moving the whole discussion there.
As Newimpartial pointed out, discussion at the Village Pump tend to get more BATTLEGROUNDy. Cremastra (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The benefit is a notification is easily missed. A discussion, which will repeatedly show up on watchlists, is far less so.
As for the rest, why do we treat the creation of PAG’s differently to the modification of them? All the arguments you present apply equally to each. BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we do. Most changes to policy and guideline pages are minor and undiscussed/WP:PGBOLD. Most of the discussions happen on their own talk pages. Only a small minority of discussions about changing a single policy or guideline are intentionally started anywhere else. The village pumps are most likely to host general discussions ("I have identified a problem..." – these sometimes turn into, but are not necessarily intended to be, discussions about changing a single policy or guideline) or multi-page coordination ("...so either we need to make small changes to both WP:A and WP:B, or we need to make a big change to WP:C").
For reference, the WP:PROPOSAL that prompted this discussion is Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. It is currently more than 250K long, with about 400 comments. It is three times the current length of Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Adding a discussion of that length to a page with other active discussions makes it difficult for some people (especially on mobile devices) to participate in any discussions on that page, which means that we'd be frustrating editors who want to participate in unrelated discussions and thus interfering with the main purpose of the page (i.e., to let editors participate in a variety of discussions). We've been talking during the last year about intervening to split VP discussions off when we think they're going to have 100+ comments, so "at the village pump" very likely would have ended up being on a separate page anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
it is very reasonable to first discuss a idea for a new policy or guideline at the ideas page. That discussion might be a bit extended if the basic idea has problems. But after that gets off the ground the talk page for it is the right place for discussions I believe so the reasoning can be found easily when people think of changing anything. Quite enough editors will find an RfC on policy and put it on their watchlist ifinterested. NadVolum (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of MoS navigation template

Can we get input from those actually familiar with this..Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Template:Manual of Style. Moxy🍁 21:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)