Content deleted Content added
Archived more content |
Oiyarbepsy (talk | contribs) m update link to archived discussion |
||
Line 559:
--[[User:Mcorazao|Mcorazao]] ([[User talk:Mcorazao|talk]]) 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:I see that you have started discussions on the question of introductory articles at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 77#Introductory articles|village pump]] and at [[Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable#?Introductory articles?|Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable]]. I also see from these discussions that there is no consensus that such articles are a violation of Wikipedia policy or even a bad thing. Until such a consensus is reached, there are no grounds to characterize this or any other introductory article as a "serious violation of policy" simply for being an introductory article. [[User:StradivariusTV|Strad]] ([[User talk:StradivariusTV|talk]]) 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::The QM article did not "violate" anything. It may be that some editors saw that it was difficult to understand and saw the need for this introductory article. Since there is a focus on "violations" then there might be interest in this [[WP:IGNORE]],which is an accepted "English Wikipedia policy". Here is a page that explains that policy in more detail [[WP:WIARM]]----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X)]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 04:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X)]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 04:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Line 565:
Yeah, well, looking at the responses on village pump it appears some editors agree and some don't. What's disturbing is that some of the disagreement amounts to "maybe it is a [[WP:content forking|content fork]] but I still think it's ok". I believe the content fork policy was created for good reason. I understand the aim of [[WP:WIARM]] (bearing in mind that this is an essay, not a policy) but if we don't learn from our mistakes then Wikipedia will never mature (i.e. if we are considering violating a long-established policy, we should consider that a big deal, not just something to do on a whim). It's actually easy to come up with all sorts of reasons to content fork. But I have yet to see a case where it was actually necessary. --[[User:Mcorazao|Mcorazao]] ([[User talk:Mcorazao|talk]]) 05:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:It is not a content fork. That is an oversimplification, and ultimately a mischaracterization. For more detail on this view see my response at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 77#Introductory articles|village pump]]. Also, [[WP:WIARM]] gives views of the policy. The actually policy is [[WP:IGNORE]], not [[WP:WIARM]].----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X)]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:I agree. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 17:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
| |||