Welcome to roadsat.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:List of policies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
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. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Contents

[edit] Suggestions

I'd like to include all the enforcement policies in the monthly WP:Update, but I can't find any rules of enforcement at WP:Dispute resolution; it seems more similar to pages that are in the behavioral cat, to me. Also, the WP:LOP#Global section is more likely to confuse people than help, I think; it says it means "general" policy, but WP:GlobalBlocking means blocking on all projects at once. WP:LOP#Global only has 2 pages, IAR and NOT, but NOT is already in the content policies, and IAR seems to me to belong with WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS, i.e. in the enforcement cat; by itself; can we axe the "Global" section from this page? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing Refernce:

I am not exactly sure about where should I discuss this, but I feel that this the right place to discuss this matter.

I have observed in various article at wikipedia that the refernce citation is no standardized through out the wikipedia. Different users use different ways of citing reference. There are some references in APA style, others simply refer the authors name. Some will the website address, and some won't mention the reference. This creates a problem that wikipedia is facing of in sufficient and unreliable reference. This also requires for many users to put the tags of request for improving the article by providing reliable citations.

I suggest that wikipedia programmers should work on a system that make's citing refernce easier and standardized throughout wikipedia. A referncing tool similar to the one present in MS Word 2007 should be developed or purchased to be included in the editing tools. So that the reference style is standardized.

Further, it can be made neceassary, for the editors to give refernce for what they edit or emend or expand, to give reference by the use of that citing tool.

Please talk more about it, and also suggest the right place where this topic should be discussed. --DaDexter (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname idea

Wikipolicy is an easy portmanteau of Wikipedia and Policy (shared p) so I took the initiative of redirecting that term here since it has no other use. There is a history of a deletion in late 2008 for this, but it was not blocked from recreation so I presumed that it was some sort of vandalism previously. Tyciol (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Nutshell

I've made a page at Wikipedia:Nutshell where I'm trying to put together a comprehensive list of actual policies, without explanations, reasons-why, history, examples, redundancies, and so on. Though it's a nutshell, I want it to be complete and precise. The page would help me, and I hope others, to better understand Wikipedia policies. If someone could check it for completeness and correctness, I would appreciate it. –MT 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions (categories)

A few years back, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was mistakenly deleted. In particular, this policy was formally approved by the bureaucrat on 2005-09-25 13:30:49 UTC. Restored, with additional description.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

Functionaries listed here, but the page itself says it's a proposal. Peter jackson (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, OTRS says it's a policy, but isn't listed here.

Can't you people get your act together even on something as basic as this? Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the 1st time I've pointed out such inconsistencies. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm noticing more inconsistencies on this page now; it was in pretty good shape half a year ago. I've added the following footnote which ought to be self-explanatory, but feel free to revert or discuss: "When a summary or talk page on Wikipedia claims that a page says something it doesn't say, the original page is definitive, not the summary or talk page. For instance, all the Wikipedia content policy pages are in Category:Wikipedia content policy; adding a page to the content policy section below above without getting consensus to promote the page to the content policy category doesn't make it a content policy page." - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) tweaked 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll come back to this as soon as I'm finished with today's WP:Update. I'm not comfortable with linking to this page from the Update if this page is going to be wrong. It looks to me like a reversion going back 2 or 3 months would be an improvement, and we could start from there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I just visited OTRS again, & it still says it's a policy, & it still isn't listed here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick thought

WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS have been in the enforcement cat for about half a year; I get why someone removed them from the enforcement section of this page, but I think the reason they've been accepted in the enforcement cat is because they're two of the most frequently quoted pages in enforcement related discussions. Maybe it would be less confusing if we define the "enforcement cat" (both here and on the category page) to be "enforcement plus the policies on policy". Then we wouldn't need to move WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS to a different cat, and I'd propose that we throw in IAR (it's just one sentence!) and this page (because it's not really a good idea to let this page get out of synch, and reporting on it every month at WP:Update will help). - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't seen any support for this. Now I think the best solution would be to add Category:Wikipedia conduct policy to WP:Update, and make that a section on this page; there are already pages similar to WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS in that policy cat, so they'd fit in nicely there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles are all in Category:Wikipedia conduct policy. These probably have more in common with WP:POLICY, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR than the enforcement cat pages do. WP:LOP probably doesn't belong in Category:Wikipedia conduct policy ... any ideas where to put WP:LOP? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Of the existing categories, it would mostly likely fit Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, I would favor a revival of Category:Wikipedia policy, which is currently a redirect to Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then put Wikipedia:List of policies in that category.--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing the page in line with policy pages

Is there any reason not to use the same subcats as appear at Category:Wikipedia official policy? (I mean, other than "global", which means different things to different people and is a huge subcat ... pretty useless). They are all named "Wikipedia X policy", where X is: conduct, content, deletion, enforcement, and legal. The "legal and copyright" section of this page makes some sense to me, and I wouldn't mind changing the name of the subcat to match and adding in the policy pages in Category:Wikipedia copyright; other than that, and other than the ideas above (#Quick thought), the pages that are currently in those cats make sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like good sense to me. :) It might help keep them coordinated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Does the footnote I added make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also ... I've just added Category:Wikipedia legal policy to WP:Update and I'll get the June update done today ... which policy pages would you like to see added to a theoretical Category:Wikipedia legal and copyright policy? - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Question 1: I've got the basic idea, but I think it's a little convoluted. How about something like this:

This summary page is descriptive of the content of the various policy pages referenced and does not override the text of those pages. Where discrepancy exists, the policy page itself overrides. Changing this page does not change policy. Likewise, adding a page to this summary does not elevate it to policy status. Policies are promoted through consensus. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for more.

Works for me. This seems to me to fit better in the lead section than as a footnote. Anyone else? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Off to examine the theoretical category. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Legal & copyright

I'd include:

Neither of these last two are policy, precisely, but certainly merit inclusion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the logic that these all involve legal and copyright issues, but some of these pages have a long history in other policy subcats. The 5 policy subcats other than "global" (see Wikipedia:VPP#Global_policy.3F) don't have much overlap, and the 3 subcats I've been covering at WP:Update don't have any overlap ... I don't think that's written in stone, but it seems like a practical approach. On the last two, I mentioned some ideas on the talk pages for why the recent promotion to policy status might not be a good idea; they seem more similar to pages in the "disclaimer" subcat of Category:Wikipedia legal policy to me ... they're not disclaimers, but they serve a legal purpose and they're not to be tampered with without consultation with the lawyers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure I follow you here. :) Are you saying that policies should be in one category only? If so, I'm not sure I agree, since a category for policies related to legal & copyright issues would be incomplete with the exclusion of any policy related to legal & copyright issues. Those users who wished to locate such policies in a category might not be checking other policy categories. I guess the question would be the purpose & function of the category. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had to deal with the consequences of overlap so far at WP:Update because there hasn't been any, and I'm not sure how to approach it. If we add the legal subcat to BLP, which section do I put the monthly update in: content, legal, or both? Also, I'd prefer that people go through roughly the same process to promote a page to a policy subcat as they go through to promote the page to policy status; if pages are switching subcats without a lot of discussion, then it will be hard to follow their history at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it work for you to have one tag (category) meaning "this page concerns important legal issues" (whether it's a policy page or not) and another tag that means "this policy page is more similar to the pages in the legal and copyright subcat than it is to pages in other subcats"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I think we're at one end of a cycle, it's very difficult to get people to talk about policy these days ... that's not much of a problem, it suggests that people think that policy pages aren't creating unsolvable problems and don't need babysitting ... but it means that I have to tread very carefully if I don't want to be the "big daddy" (and I don't). There's not enough history behind Category:Wikipedia legal policy for me to be comfortable pushing to expand it at this time. Besides, it has only 3 pages, and 2 of those pages are already covered at WP:Update in other subcats. I'm fine with the idea of some kind of cat to denote pages that have legal and/or copyright content, but I guess my preference now is to either get rid of the legal subcat or remove it as a subcat of Category:Wikipedia official policy when we (I predict) get rid of Category:Wikipedia global policy ... that would allow me to cover all of the policy subcats at WP:Update, which I've always wanted to do but didn't have time to do before. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank, I'm glad that you're doing what you are with WP:UPDATE, but I have to agree with Moonriddengirl that it makes sense for some policies to be in multiple categories, just as many articles are in many categories. I certainly agree that the categories in that area need to be cleaned up a little, but we shouldn't be putting policies in rigid straitjackets just to make it easier to manage WP:UPDATE.--Aervanath (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs