Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines
| 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, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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. |
| 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, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Research on rules
People interested in policies in general might be interested in an upcoming presentation. The m:Research Showcase on 17 October 2018 is about m:Research:Teahouse group dynamics, and the way people respond differently to two different kinds of "rules" (written rules vs what you see other editors doing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing
Haikoman (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia policies" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia policies. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Wikipedia policies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 [cont] 02:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Self-referential failure in the guidelines
I note this text in the "Content" section of the guidelines "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification.". Is "more clear" really the most concise? I'm pretty sure "clear", as an adjective, has regular comparative and superlative forms, and M-W lists "clearer" as the comparative of "clear", so someone who can edit the guidelines should fix that sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.106.61 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Icons
I've proposed a change to the icons/colors used for policies and guidelines at Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines#Colors because the colors are too hard to distinguish from each other, even for normally-sighted people. I'm hoping the change could be fairly easy to implement (navbox and a couple of other templates used on individual policy and guideline pages, though I haven't dug that far yet). Comments invited. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy and guidelines icons. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC on notability guidelines related to shopping malls
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines regarding guidelines and the notability of shopping malls.
Question: Should existing guidelines be clarified (or a new guideline created) to provide more guidance between what is considered routine run of the mill coverage and what coverage will establish notability?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
About the Rules.
Hello, I have two questions, the first is where can I find the shortcuts for changing my Wikipedia user page?. The second is how can I find the complete rules of Wikipedia? --ItsObjectiveee (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- ItsObjectiveee, try this link to edit your local user page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ItsObjectiveee#/editor/all
- Life isn't long enough to read the complete rules. However, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines might help you find the relevant rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I mean, it was going to be "Sandbox", thank you anyway. ItsObjectiveee]— (talk)]— 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already edited it, thank you. ItsObjectiveee (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Misconceptions about must and should
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content begins with these words:
Policy and guideline pages should:
- Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms or dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something.
When we wrote this, we were trying to keep it brief. Years later, however, I'm still finding that many editors continue to believe that only policies are allowed to contain the word must, and that guidelines should limit their advice to things that editors should do. This is usually because editors prefer to think that guidelines such as WP:RS are merely describing best practices, rather than telling editors what to do and how to do it.
Reality: The main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page – which is officially a guideline – contains the word must 20 times. It tells editors do not 80 times. It uses the word never 19 times, and always 15 times. And that's just the main MOS page. Some specific MOS guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, have an even higher proportion of this kind of clear, unambiguous language.
I'm thinking about expanding this point to explicitly say that these words are acceptable in any type of page. Maybe something like "Even in guidelines, help pages, and other non-policy pages, do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something" or Do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something. Clear requirements and prohibitions, using words such as must and do not, are acceptable in any type of page, not just policies. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Since there has been no objection during the last couple of months, I've expanded the policy today to say "Phrases such as do not and must not are not restricted to policies alone, but may be used in any type of page, explicitly including guidelines, how-to pages and documentation pages for templates."
- Please ping me if you have any questions or concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Content
I just read [[Wikipedia:Style of policy and guideline pages|]. The section "things to avoid" has some points that i think we should add. "
- Ineffective rules. Do not add rules that are moot or unenforceable.
- Weak rules. Avoid rules expressed as conditional statements if there is no condition, weak modal verbs if there it is a mandatory rule, and rules of limited applicability to the subject at hand.
- Weak language. Avoid wikispeak, legalese, and terms of art, unless necessary to clearly convey a rule. Do not nullify rules with wishy-washy language. Avoid mixing rules and rationales in the same section, and unnecessary self-reference.
- Redundancy. Avoid saying the same thing twice in one page, even if phrased differently. Also avoid rules that duplicate the effect of other rules, saying the same thing in both positive and the negative, laying out a class of things as a general principle than enumerating the individual items partly or fully, and repeating rules and descriptive text from other policy or guideline pages.
- External authority. Avoid quoting rules from outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline articles, except to endorse that they apply here. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wakelamp, it's a good idea, except that it'll never fly. So:
- Sometimes an "unenforceable" rule exists to set expectations and communicate what we hope for. These have community-building value even though they are facially pointless.
- Some editors think that weak rules are a more polite way to communicate. It's a problem if someone writes a rule that says "It sure would be nice if people could avoid copyvios" and then we beat up the innocent folks who didn't understand that "sure would be nice" means "We will insta-block anyone who does that", but there can be some value in starting softly, especially if the situation isn't clear cut when you're writing the rules. If you see gaps between what's written and what's done, then one or the other needs to be adjusted.
- So stronger rules, would mean that people who do not see nuances would be more likely to abuse them. Thank-you. I was trying to understand discretionary guidelines and failing, and your comment now makes sense of this Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak and sloppy language is often a case of Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, but it can also be a case of weak language reflecting weak consensus. When you're not entirely sure what the rule should be, then wishy-washy language might be just what the doctor ordered. Mixing rules and rationales can be helpful. For example: "You must not (rule) start a separate article when not Wikipedia:Independent sources exist, because (rationale) it's not possible to comply with WP:NPOV without them." Someone who wants to violate the rule is going to be stuck either saying that NPOV is unimportant, or that they can magically write an article about Alice Expert, using only sources written by Alice herself, and still give a balanced view of Alice.
- Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. People mostly read one section, which they reached through a shortcut or by using ⌘F to find a keyword. If the key instruction isn't in that section, they won't see it.
- I mostly agree, but our opinion isn't widely shared. People often feel more confident saying that "Strunk and White says that ain't grammatical" than just saying "I say that ain't grammatical" on their own authority. In other cases, people want to change the typical (sometimes thoughtless) convention, so they look for an external authority to prove that their goal is correct and not merely their private, personal opinions. You'll see this in a lot of LGBT- and suicide-themed style discussions. "I propose that we ____ because it's recommended as the best practice in the AP Stylebook" sounds a lot more professional and objective than "I propose that we ____ because otherwise we'll hurt people's feelings."
- (Please ping me if you need me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've slightly modified today's edit from WhatamIdoing to the relevant section. Even if a guideline or something similar uses words like "do not" or "must not", it is understood that this is not an absolute prohibition. Guidelines are just that, with frequent exceptions which must be made on a case by case basis. Fcrary (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- WOuld it be fair to say that we should avoid all absolutes? - no best practise just good practice, no "do not" just "could" or "may" Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've slightly modified today's edit from WhatamIdoing to the relevant section. Even if a guideline or something similar uses words like "do not" or "must not", it is understood that this is not an absolute prohibition. Guidelines are just that, with frequent exceptions which must be made on a case by case basis. Fcrary (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think having simple p and gs mean that new editors are on a more equal footing. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)