Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editors, please note:
After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ.
There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar.
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Policy reverted
It looks like Mr. Whales has reverted this page to policy, per his post to wiki-l, where he said "I undid this merger of policy not because I think it is a bad idea but because there was not really a proper process. If ultimately approved, this is a MAJOR change of editorial policy structure (even if, at the outset, the policies are supposed to stay the same)." Philippe Beaudette 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protected
I have protected this page to maintain stability while the WP:ATT situation is being sorted out. Crum375 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:ATT: Join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NOTE: There is a proposal to merge this page into WP:ATT.
There should be a prominent merge tag posted on this page, directing people to the discussion, which is supposed to be trying to attract as many people as possible. This is the very problem that led to the current dispute: that there had been no merge tag on this and similar pages while discussions about possibly merging were going on. Would someone please correct this and put up the merge tags? --Coppertwig 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Notices are posted, here and on the page itself. Marskell 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no merge notice of any kind, standard or customized on the project page, only some discussion of ATT's status. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The project page needs {{Mergeto|Attribution}} (see Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll - merge has been proposed). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{editprotected}}. There is an enormous amount of discussion going on about these pages. There are many users with sysop rights who are actively involved, and I trust them to add appropriate templates when/if they are appropriate. There is no need to request assistance from uninvolved administrators using the editprotected tag.CMummert · talk 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it might not be a bad idea; spreading notice to people who use WP:V would alert some people interested in policy, and give the rest a reason for the protection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion about whether the tag should be there or not; I just wanted to remove the editprotected tag because I was working on WP:PER. Consensus on everything involving these pages is in a state of flux, and I think that leaving the pages alone for a little while (even in a suboptimal state) is better than administrator edit wars. I think you have been following the discussion at WP:AN... CMummert · talk 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I think I said there, the text should be left alone until the discussion is completed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No objection to what PMAnderson says. I don't want to edit the text, I want to properly merge tag this page, period. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I think I said there, the text should be left alone until the discussion is completed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion about whether the tag should be there or not; I just wanted to remove the editprotected tag because I was working on WP:PER. Consensus on everything involving these pages is in a state of flux, and I think that leaving the pages alone for a little while (even in a suboptimal state) is better than administrator edit wars. I think you have been following the discussion at WP:AN... CMummert · talk 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it might not be a bad idea; spreading notice to people who use WP:V would alert some people interested in policy, and give the rest a reason for the protection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following template is added along with {{protected2}}:
 |
A discussion regarding merging Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a single page at Wikipedia:Attribution is in progress. Pending long-term resolution of this situation, the page has been protected from editing. This is not an endorsement of the current version. |
You may have seen something similar on your watchlists and at WP:ATT. Would anyone object if I added this or something similar? I have also asked over at WT:NOR. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag
Wikipedia:Verifiability/Header. I was asked by an admin from WP:RFPP to come up with a combination of the merge header from WP:RS and the protection header from WP:ATT, to be used on both WP:V and WP:RS, and propose it here. My take at this is located at the link above (it has code in it so it can be used on both pages). By belief is that this version will satisfy everyone. It has the text (with twiddles that make it apply to these pages instead of ATT) from ATT's tag, including the protection discussion, with the merge tag formatting of the one at RS. So, it would replace the {{Protected}} on this page, and obviate the need to continue editprotecting about the need for a merge tag. I think it also absorbs all the ideas of the template in the topic above, too. Any objections? It looks like this:
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than asking for objections, ask if there is anyone that support your relentless unilateral request for changing these headers that you have done than for four days in a row. Is that not enough? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than savaging people seeking consensus, why not, um, try to seek consensus? You appear to be misusing the term "unilateral" since there is a multi-party (supportive) thread about adding such a header just above, and much discussion of the issue elsewhere, such as at WT:ATT, among other places. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to tell every other editor you disagree with to shut up and go away, but I must say it is getting way beyond tiresome. I thought we had a truce. I've made every endeavor to not argue with you at all when possible, and to only disagree with the text of your messages rather than with you personally since that agreement, but I do not feel that you are upholding your end of the bargain, and are in fact exploiting it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Part of what you've said simply doesn't make any sense at all. These header have not existed for four days. It took me about that long to get any merge or protect notices installed at all. The header on this page is barely over a day old, I believe. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see
Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:
Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration
To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
