Wikipedia talk:List of policies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The problem here being that consensus and don't disrupt to make a point are both guidelines that are very much binding, while categories for speedy deletion (a policy), has been safely ignored at times. (with a recent arbitration committee descision denying a case in which it featured)

Also, this page fails to list the foundation issues at this point in time. Hmm.

Kim Bruning 15:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

True. I'm all for merging the summaries from Wikipedia:All Policies in a Nutshell into this one, wherever they're missing or whatever. The links to the actual policy documents really need to be retained though. I would certainly like to distinguish between different types of policies, but there seems to be little consensus on even what the term "policy" means, and there's always Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Stevage 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merging is a definite yes here. The Neokid 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my current plan is to move all guidelines from the bottom section of WP:POL to Wikipedia:List of guidelines. I don't know what exactly to do with Wikipedia:All Policies in a Nutshell as it and this page are basically each complete in themselves, but they have separate goals. That one seeks to paraphrase policy on a general level - this page paraphrases very specifically policy-by-policy. Stevage 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, both pages have the same goal of creating a central page that lists all policy in a convenient matter. I'm the one that started WP:NUT but I haven't found much time for it lately, so I'm happy that you're making a better version instead. As such, please copy/paste whatever parts (if any) of WP:NUT you find necessary onto this list, and overwrite WP:NUT with a redirect to here. I'll leave it up to you which of the two names you like best. Radiant_>|< 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this complete as of now. Thanks for mentioning it on the VP, that's how I heard about it. It's on my watchlist now... JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice work, thanks. Radiant_>|< 14:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the pillar pictures from WP:5P; except for deletion / no firm rules (the red pillar) they match well:

  • Orange pillar: rules of engagement (5P) / Behavioral
  • Yellow pillar: free content (5P) / Legal
  • Green pillar: NPOV (5P) / Enforcing policy
  • Blue pillar: WP:NOT (5P) / Content

If anyone wants to make them match more closely, feel free... but I think the visual correspondence is a good idea, and a possible guide for making all our various (and somewhat confusing) rule lists make sense. Alba 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A nit!

This sort of bugs me but I haven't changed it (tis just a grammar nit) YET... "Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working well. Try and discourage others from being incivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed." It is "Try TO discourage" not "Try AND discourage" I will fix it soon if no one objects here (this being a policy page and all) ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just want to say...

...that I love the "policy in a nutshell" boxes. Makes the place so much easier to understand (and the more people understand it, the less problems there will be). Dan100 (Talk) 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, this is peculiar

Notice the pictures of the pillars. How come three of them have a colored top and a white bottom, while two of them have a colored top and bottom? Very weird, indeed. Aiee. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Yeah...I was wondering what the heck was up with that--Crucible Guardian 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for criticisms?

I've been trying to find some guidelines for what to put in a criticism section, but can't seem to find anything. For example, the talk page of "Theory X and Y management" contains:

I'm a motivational expert, and I am really confused about the criticism on the X and Y theory as well as Maslow's hierarchies of needs. I understand that non-experts feel uncomfortable in putting heavy criticism in the Wikipedia. So, I have some questions and commments about the Wikipedia's function here. First, is presenting examples out of line in the Wikipedia? I know that presenting counterexamples tend to be rhetoric, but they do fill an important function in explaining why a theory is not very useful. I think this could help the notion that even if the criticism is concise and correct, a non-expert cannot rate its severity. An example would do that very efficiently. For instance, a lot of scientists and ordinary people would consider the idea that there are only twelve types of people (as some astrologists may suggest) as ridiculous and oversimplifying. In this light, theory X and Y is even worse! I would like to add these things to this page, because I feel that we need to explain in layman's terms why certain historical ideas and theories are not very useful. Clebo 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What advice can we give authors in similar predicaments?

My guess is that, if the criticism is widely known, it should be included. Examples seem reasonable in the context of illuminating an a point. For example, the "Writing" section of Wikipedia:How to write a great article gives the Red Cup and Billy Fish as examples.

What do others think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hilgerdenaar (talk • contribs).

If a criticism is important to the understanding of a subject, it should be mentioned in neutral terms, with citations. Importance my be subjective, but if it's important enough to have citations, it's important enough to be included. Image:Tycon.jpgCoyoty 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organising Wikipedia:List of guidelines

Could someone give me a hand? I'm trying to organise Wikipedia:List of guidelines the same way as this page. CG 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd that that talk page links here... I don't think the list of guidelines should include style guides and official policy - they are simply not guidelines. I've made a template list for guidlines only, but I think I might have lefts some style guides in the list. Putting the style guides in there would make the list too huge. Fresheneesz 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Recently I've been corrected - style guides apparently *are* guidlines. This was very unclear to me, but I've changed their template so that its hopfully more clear. Fresheneesz 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another Unenforceable Policy (YAUP)

JA: Like any WP:Policy or Guideline whose fair and equal enforcement would depend on knowing the real-world identity and affiliations of each editor in question, the aspects of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:SPAM that deal with advancing particular purposes are simply null and void. Just f'r'instance, nobody has any way of knowing for sure whether that editor or that cabal of evatars who are so insistent about imposing the POV of their favorite secondary source on an article is in fact the author or publisher of the work in question. What will be the result of attempting to enforce a WikiProvision of this type — and I use the word "vision" blindly? The editors who are honest enough to use their real names will be at the disadvantage of the editors, their agents, and their evatars who are not. WikiPar for the course, of course. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're learning very fast indeed. :) Could you please improve your spelling a bit though? Kim Bruning 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internationalism

An awful lot of entries are biased towards one country, and the United States in particular. I suppose that this isn't surprising considering that most English-language users of Wikipedia are likely to be American. Moreover, most of us are apt to know most about our home country's version of any given topic. This said, it's no excuse for what is a lazy practice of many contributors of crafting an article without referring to its international dimensions (where these are relevant/substantive). I've sought to draw attention to this by adding a content guideline tentatively called "Internationalism". If there is a better way of going about this, don't hold back!

[edit] Official policies

[edit] We have those now?

Wow, we have official policies now? I must have been hiding under a rock. Could someone tell me which official stamped them? ;-)

A bit more seriously: At some point the process we use for documenting guidelines here had generated so many pages, that people apparently saw a needeto differentiate, and started calling some pages "official policy". Now some people decided to call certain pages "non-negotiable policy". Apart from the latter name being something of a diplomatic faux pas, does anyone notice any inflation going on here, or is it just me?

[edit] tidying

I think we might want to start thinking of smart ways to organise things. The method(s) of organisiation should be able to simplify guidelines, ensure flexibility in the face of change, and in general just make things intuitive and pleasant to work with, and keep the wiki addictive ;-) .

Kim Bruning 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I propose creating a comprehensive list of guidelines like the list of the 42 policies is comprehensive. There are many guidelines that are 100% redundant, and simply explain the use of other guidelines or polices. In saying that, i'm implying that they are better used as essays, not guidelines. With a comprehensive list, we can begin weeding out or merging guidelines. Any comments? Fresheneesz 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an excellent idea (but also a herculanean effort). You have my full support and cooperation in this matter, including the merging of redundant policies and guidelines. >Radiant< 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL - policy?

The Text of the GNU Free Documentation License is listed as a policy. Its been confirmed to me that it isn't one. Shouldn't it be better placed somewhere more appropriate? Fresheneesz 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that I confirmed it to you, that is not what I said. The text of GFDL is just not policy in the way that WP:CIVIL or any other common policy page is policy. It is outside of any internal Wikipedia policy development. The text cannot be changed, and the text of the license does not apply itself to Wikipedia. See comments at the Talk page there. This is one of many examples where putting templates on everything doesn't work; standardizing makes things vague. The text of the GFDL is totally outside and beyond policy. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • GFDL is one of our founding principles, and as such qualifies as de facto policy. >Radiant< 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So is it or is it not used as policy. Since it is used as policy, then my question is answered - ie we should not put it anywhere else, ok.
Also, I'm not trying to edit the text of the GFDL license (god forbid). And standardization does not make things vauge - in what way does that work? The sole point of standardization is to make things more familiar to a large group of people. Fresheneesz 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Standardization is usually good but we can't always pigeonhole everything. Also, too many template boxes may render a page hard to read. >Radiant< 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The page on GFDL doesn't have any templates, so thats not a problem. Fresheneesz 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adding Template:policylist to policy pages

I recently put the Template:policylist on most of the policy pages. But apparently Centrx disagreed, and reverted all of my edits (giving no explanation and no note on my talk page). Does anyone else thing putting that template on all or most policy pages is a bad idea? Fresheneesz 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Personally I prefer CAT:P for navigation; there's too many policies to conveniently fit on a template. >Radiant< 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No open proxies

I was under the impression that "no open proxies" was at least as much copyright as enforcement? WP is required to keep tabs on who contributes what, and open proxies foul that up by making edits unattributable? Is enforcement of other rules just overwhelmingly more important? -- stillnotelf is invisible

[edit] Reducing the number of content policies

It strikes me that there are way too many policies (which are also way too long and change way too often). A shorter list of concise rules would be much better.

For example, looking at the content policies, these could easily be reduced from eight in number to four, namely:

The other pages would then be downgraded from "official policy" and treated as guidelines or discussion pages. Similarly, other types of policies could easily be reduced in both number and complexity.

Thoughts? jguk 11:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We have three content policies: NPOV, NOR, and V; I've moved the others to miscellaneous. This isn't the place to discuss downgrading policies to guidelines, Jon, because not enough people will see it. Best to do it on the relevant talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm raising it here first as it needs to be raised somewhere first). It's a point that can be raised elsewhere later, if my comment leads somewhere, jguk 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Isogolem, each of the three content policies say we have three content policies, not seven or eight or however many you're calling "content". Everything could be called "content" when it comes to it, but the point of using the term to describe NPOV, NOR, and V is to signify that they determine which words may be added to articles, and that they're special in that sense; that they are core policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not everything could be called "content" - certainly not policies about banning, civility, reusing Wikipedia material, AGF, bots etc. However I see your dilemma: this page uses the implied term "content policy" to mean any policy primarily about defining what does or doesn't belong in Wikipedia, whereas those three articles use it in a more specialised way. I would be inclined to move those three to a special section above, "core content policies" or something - they really should be highlighted in some way as they effectively overrule most of the others. Stevage 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, SV I see your point. I see this page as an attempt to list and organize all policies. I'm not set on it having the structure it has now, only on it having a self-consistent structure that doesn't include "misc". What about changing "Content" to "Content and Style" (done)? Keeps the grouping but allows implies the other items are "style" policies. Fair?

[edit] Spoilers?

Just curious if Wikipedia has a policy regarding plot spoilers of books, TV episodes, movies, etc.? I haven't been able to find anything on it--perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place? --Bonesiii 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the Manual of Style - Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Bonesiii 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

Jguk, you wrote "these are all the key content policies, break any one of these and the content is not permitted - other legal policies are derivative from the copyright policy)" You're plain wrong. You can add any text you want so long as you're following V, NOR and NPOV. Everything else hinges on these, which is why they are the three core policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, if it fails WP:NOT or is a copyvio, you still can't add the text you want. I suppose most everything hinges on these, and they could be called the five core policies, but then IAR and CIV are definitely also core policies. Hm, SV, perhaps you should create a page akin to WP:5P to explain your vision on which policies are the most important, and perhaps that vision should not be on the policy pages themselves, just like the Five Pillars, the Trifecta, the Statement of Principles and the Flower Garden aren't part of the policy pages. (Radiant) 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Additioanlly, Radiant, if you are unwilling to release your contributions under GFDL, you should not add content either, jguk 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
IAR is not a content policy! :) jguk 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute here, with SlimVirgin and Jayjg asserting that WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are the only three content policies, and with Radiant, supported by me, asserting that content also needs to comply with WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights.

Whilst understanding why SlimVirgin and Jayjg do not understand WP:NOT and WP:Copyrights to be core content policies may help us develop the wording of policies better in the future, I don't believe specifying the precise number of content policies is essential to the text of WP:V. I therefore suggest omitting it in its entirety, jguk 16:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs to conform with every policy. That said, legal policies, or mission statements, are only peripherally content policies. The fact that there are 3 content policies has been in the lead for well over a year; if you want to change that, you'll need to get some broader agreement. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take as a starting point the question, is it factually correct to say there are 3 content policies? If it's not, we should not say it. If there's reasonable doubt, we should also not say it. I trust you agree with this point.

My take on what the content policies are is that that they are the policies that all content must comply with. If we refer to "core" policies, I'd understand it to mean the minimum number of policies that we need to comply with so that content is acceptable.

Personally I'm not sure content can comply with WP:V but not WP:NOR - but leaving that aside for now, I am sure that content can comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and yet not be allowed on WP because it does not comply with WP:NOT. Similarly, content can comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, but not be permitted because it does not comply with WP:Copyrights, or indeed, because the editor is unwilling to release his contributions under GFDL.

WP:V, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL are all very important policies. They are all content related. So much so that every time we try to edit, below the edit box there appear direct links to the text of those policies. There is also a reference that content must be encyclopedic (which is what is really behind WP:NOT).

Indeed, to my mind, the core content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:Copyrights and WP:GFDL. Content complying with any four but not the fifth is not permitted. Content complying with all five, subject to editorial judgment, always is.

Finally, I should add that I don't see the precise number of content policies as being important to WP:V. I'm happy not to refer to any numbers at all. I do believe, however, that if people want to add a number and list the core policies, that that assertion should be factually correct, jguk 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your mind is in disagreement with the official position of the WP, and it looks as though you are proposing a fundamental change. The Five Pillars are WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:CP, WP:EQ, and WP:IAR. The Three Core Policies concerning content are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. It looks like you are trying to expand the Three Core Policies into some private list of your own. Please clarify and explain if this is not the case. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. However, note that WP:5P is a separate page, and those five policies don't restate the content of 5P. I think it's best if SV/Jayjg create a page Wikipedia:Three Core Policies and put the content there; I suppose Jguk and/or me could create a page Wikipedia:Some other policies that seem to be core and put our opinion there. (Radiant) 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for adding some humor to the situation, Radiant! I'm still unclear on what you feel is desirable - this dialogue is all over the place, is it settling here for now? It appears jguk wants to trim the policies, without reducing the number. It appears you concur with that, but you either want the 3 core dismissed or so noted on their pages. That could be misleading, I'm basing this on your recent edits. If that is not the direction you feel is desirable, would you please try to state it succinctly here? thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be settling here for now, yes. See the section below; I think the best option would be to put the information on the "three core policies" on its own page, rather than copy/pasted over several policy pages. One reason is that it keeps the pages shorter and keeps redundancy down; another is that there are other "core" policies as well as other "content" policies, and it is not agreed upon that these three are paramount. (Radiant) 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that in practice, the key content policies are those which content must be compliant with to be allowed, and the minimum such number.

The varying importance of WP policies is debated on different pages with different people putting their own emphasis on which ones are important. The ones highlighted below each edit box are WP:Copyrights, WP:V, WP:GFDL. That's a pretty important list given prime billing and which is entirely fundamental to all edits. There's also a reference to "encyclopedic content" (which is what we really mean by WP:NOT). So it's not really a private list it's the one you see every time you make an edit plus WP:NPOV added - which I don't think anyone would seriusly dispute.

I really have never seen the 5 pillars has having any official status - more being a way to try to introduce newbies to WP, and I've no idea what you mean by the Three Core Policies, jguk 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, all I know is that whenever you get involved with the policies or guidelines, and I'm thinking back over the whole two years I've been editing, you cause trouble, and I'm very tired of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Jayjg: "This isn't a personal issue, it's a policy issue." [1]
Quoting myself: "SlimVirgin, please don't play this ad hominem [...]" (earlier today at WP:VPP) --Francis Schonken 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, it's a policy issue. When certain individuals regularly attempt to fundamentally change the meaning of policies to their own preferred versions, and others have to deal with that, it's not a personal issue, it's an issue of respecting policy. And by "certain individuals" I mean jguk and you, Francis, among others. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as a policy issue in that I am not attempting to change policy. I believe it is a case of how existing policy (de facto) is best explained to potential contributors. Any misunderstandings I, Radiant, Francis, you, SlimVirgin or others may have in the policies is entirely due to it not being clear from the wording of the policy what exactly is meant. Surely it's best to get these out into the open so that a text that everyone reads in the same way can develop.
Admittedly WP has a poor history on this. The first policy was WP:NPOV, which Larry defined in a philosophical way that he himself noted most people will not understand. The outcome - WP does not follow NPOV as originally intended, and has probably never, ever done so. Instead everyone has their own vague idea of what NPOV means based on the words in the title - giving rise to lots and lots so-called NPOV disputes when people can't decide whether something breaches NPOV or not.
What's wrong with having a clear, easy-to-follow set of existing rules? Hiding behind - you don't understand the policy so we're going to continue re-writing it in a way you still will not understand - helps nothing, jguk 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick list

  1. A content policy, by definition, is a policy about content.
  2. There are at present 46 policies. More than three of those deal with content.
  3. A legal policy, by definition, is a policy about law.
  4. There is no dichotomy; a policy can be both a legal policy and a content policy.
  5. I'm not sure what a core policy is, but the most likely definition would be m:Foundation issues.
  6. Any content that fails NPOV, V and/or NOR is unacceptable.
  7. However, not all content that does not fail NPOV, V nor NOR is acceptable.
  8. Any content that fails NOT or COPY is unacceptable, as is content removed for OFFICE reasons.
  9. If a copyright expires, some text will no longer fail COPY and may therefore become acceptable.
  10. However, if a new book is published, some text will no longer fail V or NOR, and may likewise become acceptable.
  11. The "triad" has been on the pages for about a year, added by SlimVirgin. It has not been debated or agreed upon anywhere.
  12. However, precedent on Wikipedia isn't binding; policy pages are edited frequently, and lots of items that have been on policy pages for a long time get removed.
  13. Several pages exist that explain why a certain combination of policies is good. The most famous is WP:5P.

Did I miss anything? Anything up here that's false? (Radiant) 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I can't help thinking that none of this discussion about how many content policies we have is important. jguk 17:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it's not, which is why I've been copyediting WP:ATT in the meantime :) but in my opinion most policy pages are overly verbose, which leads to confusion of newbies (and oldbies are unlikely to re-read policy all that often). So shortening a page by removing a claim that is, to my mind, misleading sounds like a useful thing. (Radiant) 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is important. It might even be crucial to resolving the current ew/dispute and clarifying the entire system. Perhaps we should examine the policies and the way they are organized, and possibly restructure. Are there core content policies, and if so, what are they? Is there overlap? What are the core legal policies, and what are they? Is there overlap? And the same with behavior/interaction policies (do we even have a name for that?) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need an extra "layer" in the hierarchy, like core policies. We have guidelines, policies and the m:Foundation_issues; one could say that the policies are our "core guidelines". WP:CIV is then a "core" behavioral page, of which WP:ETIQ is a corollary. (Radiant) 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But if we have 46 policies, I for one would like to see them organized and listed, and discuss which have overlap. There is currently discussion about V, NOR, RS, and ATT being merged/re-organized, there may be a better way to do that than with 46 policies. Also, are there core policies, and if so, what are they? You are saying no, which would mean 46 policies to know and understand before being reasonably certain you weren't working against policy. Does that sound reasonable? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is true that some policies are fundamental and others are corollaries, or definitions of process. It may be useful to reorganize this page to indicate such; it may also be useful to merge policies that are corollaries (e.g. the proposed merger of V/NOR/RS into ATT). Fundamentals include the GFDL license (corollaries WP:COPY, WP:FUC), WP:NOT (corollary WP:WINAD), WP:CIV (corollaries WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:FAITH, WP:DR) and WP:OWN (foundation issue). We also have a few restrictions on editing (WP:NOP, WP:SOCK) which appear to be less fundamental and more about process. Several of these are about content. (Radiant) 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
An article which is under copyright has no content issues per se, but if it is included then the Foundation will face legal issues. Copyright is a legal issue that transcends Wikipedia, not a content rule invented by Wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are content policies invented by Wikipedia that uniquely define which content is suitable for Wikipedia; no other encyclopedia has these content rules. As for the claim that publishing a new book mirrors the case when something is no longer under copyright, the analogy doesn't hold. When something falls out of copyright, that exact text could theoretically then be used in Wikipedia. However, when a new book is published, the original WP:NOR will still not have been suitable for Wikipedia, since it will (by definition) not have complied with WP:V. You might be able to include new content which is substantially similar to the old content, but it is still not the old content. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no flaws with Jayjg's reasoning here. So Cp is Legal; and while a policy we really don't have to worry too much about edit wars there, because the impetous and form are set externally, by copyright law. I was thinking also of such things as the proposed TRIVIA and SCHOOLS3, which would fall under Category:Wikipedia notability criteria categoriy of guidelines under the current structure, all of which are more closely allied with WP:NOT than any other policy so far as I can see. Do you percieve my meaning here? We have related Policies, with overlap and some contradictions. We have Guidelines which may or may not fall under the aspect of clarifiy details about Policies, yet are not so labeled. We lack a clear structure of organization. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Jayjg is correct that NOR/NPOV/V are invented by Wikipedia to define content (although arguably, factuality has been the aim for older encyclopedias as well), but he is incorrect in claiming that no other policy has been invented by Wikipedia to define content. Indeed, WP:NOT predates two of the three he mentions.
  • Also, I fail to see why a newly published source would require an article on that subject to become shorter; indeed, it may well become longer. For instance, if a new form of dance develops, and someone writes a short article on it, that's original research and not allowed. If a book is published on the dance, the exact same short article now has a valid source and is no longer original research. It needn't be reduced in any way. Thus proving my original analogy.
  • (Radiant) 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua wrote: Also, are there core policies, and if so, what are they? You are saying no, which would mean 46 policies to know and understand before being reasonably certain you weren't working against policy. Does that sound reasonable? Most of those 46 policies are procedural polices (stuff like Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion or Wikipedia:Protection policy, which you only need to know if you want to get involved with the procedure in question). A large proportion of the rest are behavioural policies, not content ones, and as the vast majority of wikipedia users never behave in ways that are detrimental to the project, I'm not sure it's necessary for most of them to read such policies. Only if they want to get involved in enforcing them, or if a user is directed to them as an explanation of why they shouldn't behave in a way they are behaving, is reading one of those necessary. Some are legal policies (e.g. Wikipedia:Copyrights) which most users should never need to read as either they'll already know about the laws discussed (don't infringe other people's copyrights) or the relevant parts are displayed rather prominently ("You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL"). Some legal policies discuss content issues, but I'd still say they're not content policies, because they discuss things in absolute terms of what is a legal requirement. WP:BLP is a good example.

That leaves the content policies, by which I mean policies that exist to help wikipedia editors decide what should be included in wikipedia and how it should be written; this distinguishes them from the legal content-related parties which exist (essentially) to help the wikimedia foundation avoid getting sued. These are perhaps a little more tricky, as they're apparently less obvious to most wikipedia contributors than the rest, (or, at least, they're the most frequently violated, which probably means that a lot of users don't understand/know about them). We're talking about: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:WINAD. Of these five, WP:WINAD is essentially a corrolary of WP:NOT. There are arguments that WP:NOR is a corollary of WP:V, which is the impetus behind the current attempt to merge them. Other than this, I feel all of these policies should be given equal weight. Certainly, content must pass the tests in all of them to be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Therefore, I feel that any statement about "core content policies" should include at the very least WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT, and probably also WP:NOR (at least until/unless WP:ATT becomes policy). Take or leave WP:WINAD; the important part of it is on the WP:NOT page. JulesH 18:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on who you are talking to. Are we explaining our policies to be able to answer the question "What makes Wikipedia different?". In which case, I would agree that respecting copyright is indeed not a difference. Or are we explaining our policies to someone wanting to write for us. In which case we're answering "What rules do we need to follow?". Respecting copyright is fundamental to answering that. jguk 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
JulesH: I agree, and this is beginning to look like organization. Legal, Content, Behavior, and Procedure is how I read you organizing policies in your post, is that correct? jguk: This is not about explaning policies so much as organizing them into a coherent structure. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference between WP:NOT/WP:WINAD, and the core content policies, is that WP:NOT/WP:WINAD define the kinds of articles that are appropriate (or not) for Wikipedia, whereas WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:NPOV define what content can go into those articles. WP:NOT/WP:WINAD sets the framework for editing; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, a phone book, Google version 2, etc. WP:NPOV/WP:NOR/WP:V define what can actually go into articles themselves, what makes Wikipedia content different from the content of other encyclopedias. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Put another way, WP:NOR/WP:V/WP:NPOV are content policies, WP:NOT/WP:WINAD are scope policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This then calls for an update of the definition of "core content policy" as currently used in the introductions of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace" - WP:NOT does part of the determining of the "type" of material that is acceptable in the main namespace, in a non-redundant way with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV (e.g. dictionaries; telephone directories; copies of widely published primary material,...). WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV primarily determine quality of the acceptable material I suppose, not so much "type" of the acceptable material (for which WP:NOT is the "core content policy" I suppose). --Francis Schonken 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a good distinction, but I'm afraid it isn't quite as clear-cut as that. There are kinds of articles disqualified by NOR/V concerns regardless of content (e.g. a student copy/pasting his essay or paper into Wikipedia is original research regardless of the content of the paper), as well as NPOV concerns (e.g. articles like "<Faction> opinion on <event>" are deleted as "inherently POV" regardless of content). Conversely, there is content disqualified by NOT regardless of what kind of article it's in (e.g. one shouldn't add a link to one's own website to a page even if your website has the same subject; one shouldn't list a celeb's phone number even if it's verifiable; and the content of a page should not be a mere collection of source material). It appears that "content" and "scope" (arguably, "scope of content") are intermingled on Wikipedia. (Radiant) 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • True, completely agree. I only wanted to draw attention that WP:NOT does take care of a large part of the "type of content" selection, part of it not really overlapping with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NPOV (although, like always, one could say that when WP:NPOV is transgressed, then so are usually WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:NOT, and all other variations, traditionally expressed as "core content policies don't work separately"). Also, of course, WP:NOT does some of the quality selection too: e.g. not making lists of fancruft is a quality issue as much as a type of content issue. --Francis Schonken 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random section break

KillerChihuahua, for whose benefit?

It's a fair question, as I think I've demonstrated how best to organise them depends on what the purpose of the organisation is. jguk 18:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, you haven't. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indulge me anyway. Who is the intended audience for this page? jguk 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unclear what you're saying here. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the target audience for this page? Is it all contributors?, newbies?, experienced editors?, all Wikipedians?, journalists or students interested in the way Wikipedia works? Whose needs should this page be tailored to? jguk 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You are asking this same question in many policy pages. What are your intentions? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The audience for a "list of policies" is mainly any and all editors, although it is to be expected that new editors just write articles without having to bother about policy, and it is to be expected that long-term editors don't read policy all that often because they've read it at some point in the past. I fail to see the purpose of the question, though. (Radiant) 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

When a user changes one of the warning templates ({{test1}}, {{test2}} or whatever, is there not some way of warning the rest of us country bumpkins that it's been done? I just found that all of a sudden {{test1article}} needs the title of the article in question. Not in itself a problem, but it would be nice to be warned. If possible - it may not be.--Anthony.bradbury 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Your best bet is watchlisting the templates. (Radiant) 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Good Faith?

Why is Assume Good Faith on this list? Isn't that a guideline, not a policy?--Dmz5 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It was policy until last week. There is discussion on its talk page. (Radiant) 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EList_of_policies_7b92.html"