Template talk:Policy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Possible proposal?

It appears that as a result of an extremely long and still ongoing conversation at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, yet another proposal to change the wording on this template may be proposed, presumably to reflect this change, which encourages editors to WP:IAR policies (instead of just guidelines and essays). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Note of extreme discontent This is the second time in several months that I've seen a policy, or something that directly effects policy being changed because of something discussed on a talk page not directly attached to the page being changed. This tends to cause mass confusion folks, and it should stop. The "July" version of this template has been vastly changed, and much of it due to conversation at the "Policies and guidelines" talk page - no wonder people are often left scratching their heads in confusion. — Ched : ? 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Also: Changes this vast and sweeping should have had a much wider coverage in both the RfC and the implementation of the change. WP:CENT, Village Pump, Signpost, and AN at the very least. — Ched : ? 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

reverted

I reverted the Oct. change(s) to the template. Simply the nuance between "explains" and "documents" is too great to be done without some discussion on a very wide scale. Changes like this that affect every policy we have, simply should be done on a very broad consensus. If you have issues with my edit, feel free to ping me at my talk page. (I don't stalk my own edits for the most part). — Ched : ? 02:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well first you complain that changes are not being discussed on this page, then you say you're not watching this page anyway. Well, I hope you're still watching it at least for now - please say what objection you have to these changes (that I've restored for now). Some of them don't affect every policy page at all, only a couple which need a different wording (because they're more legal documents, rather than standards that editors can ignore occasionally). And "explains" seems more accurate than "documents" if you look at most policy pages - certainly policy pages don't serve as documents that can be relied on to accurately reflect actual practice (although it would be nice if they did).--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "explains" implies that the proceeding document is simply an elaboration, rather than the actual substance of the policy. Powers ^T 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Which I would contend is true in most cases (except for a very few policies - the terms of use and so on - which need a different text anyway - best implemented in a different template in fact - see next thread).--Kotniski (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elaborations are given in essays, not policies. Documents is I feel the correct word. There is a policy and the policy page documents it. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The template defines the policy as the widely accepted standard. But if you look at the average policy page (like WP:NPOV) you won't find documenting of the standard (which would just say "Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view on the subjects it writes about") but the results of various editors' attempts to explain what the standard means in practice. I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but saying "documents" seems to be counterfactual, at least as I understand the word.--Kotniski (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think any documentation attempt is someone's try at explaining something. The effectual difference is really negligible. "Explains" also sounds sort of awkward to me. I'd be more concerned with the fact that the guideline template makes mention of using common sense and there being occasional exceptions, whereas the policy tag doesn't; this seems to be the wrong message to send as the difference between policies and guidelines, as common sense should always be followed, and there are occasional exceptions, even to policies. Equazcion (talk) 14:32, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. —David Levy 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you (and agree with other users' comments). A policy page is intended to document a policy. One that fails to do so should be corrected (though I do not share your perception that such a phenomenon is widespread). —David Levy 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, we just seem to have different understandings of the word "documents". (Would you say that a Wikipedia article "documents" the facts about its subject?) Anyway, not that important. As to Equazcion's point, what wording would be proposed? We already have the word "normally", wikilinked to WP:Use common sense - would you be for spelling it out a bit more explicitly?--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Nevertheless it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The distinction between policies and guidelines becomes a nuance of the language this way, with some of the wiggle room eliminated in the policy template. As far as common sense and exceptions, this is really the only choice, as they really do apply in both cases. If a clearer distinction is desired then it may be time to start work on a page that actually spells out the difference between policies and guidelines (if we can figure that out ourselves), so that it can be linked from these templates, and that way we wouldn't need to spend quite as much time trying to draw the distinction with the extreme brevity required for a template. Equazcion (talk) 15:25, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The sooner people realize there is no particular difference between policies and guidelines, the better. Anyway, I'm happy with that proposed wording.--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. Should is already wikilinked so it stands out. There's no point duplicating things and WP:POLICY expressly warns about rephrasing policies elsewhere. I see no point in the extra verbiage. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To "document" can mean "to furnish with references, citations, etc., in support of statements made" (Source: Dictionary.com). So yes, a properly written Wikipedia article documents the facts about its subject. —David Levy 15:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All right, but it clearly isn't that meaning being used here because policy pages don't... oh never mind, I said it wasn't important.--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the applicable definition is "to furnish with documents" (referring to the noun form, defined as "any written item, as a book, article, or letter, esp. of a factual or informative nature"). —David Levy 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see so much feedback here. Not sure I have much more to add to my original statement. I've seen a lot of pages that "explain" the United States Constitution - but they are not "the" Constitution. Our articles "explain" a lot of things here, but they are not in fact the things they explain. That is where I think we need to be clear on our policy template. — Ched : ? 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd also say that I don't agree that there's not particular difference between policies and guidelines. I tend to think of policies as the rules by which we play - and guidelines as the out of bounds markers on the field. — Ched : ? 10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you support "explain" or you don't? Surely the policy pages do serve to explain our principles/rules rather than "become" them? Wikipedia doesn't legislate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

per my comments above and previous actions, I am opposed to using the term "explains" in the policy template. In fact, I'd even be content with "This page is a wikipedia policy", but the term "documents" is ok I suppose. I do think that the policy template should closely mirror the guideline template, which it seems to have drifted away from - and I really think that all these changes are confusing a lot of folks lately. I'd really like to see more consistency with our policies and guidelines - given the way they change so rapidly from month to month; but I really think the templates which are transcluded on the pages need to be stable, consistent, and reliable. — Ched : ? 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Instead Of Linking To An Essay, I Propose To Link To wp:iar

What are your opinions?Curb Chain (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I correct myself, this discussion was a week ago.Curb Chain (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fact: This template is at the top of IAR.

My opinion is that telling readers, "if you want to know how to apply the policy IAR, then see the policy IAR" is unhelpfully circular. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And telling people that all policies can be overridden by an essay is unhelpfully at odds with everything we normally tell people about these types of pages.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that we are not trying to link this template to the policy that says "Don't listen to the rules!". We have policy pages that say when it is inappropriate to do something. I think our policy pages are matured to outline what can happen on wikipedia, and what would happen if things are not followed. Linking to the common sense page/section doesn't help editors find out what would happen after a certain thing they do.Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Curb Chain has started discussions proposing the removal of "common sense" in at least these locations (the first of the following was started by Bernolákovčina):

It is unhelpful to discuss the same issue at multiple locations. The core page appears to be the last, and I suggest that any further discussion should occur at that page. I am suggesting that no further discussion should occur on this page until the issue is decided at one page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a guideline different to a policy?

Stale

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. ··gracefool☺ 19:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Must you normally follow an applicable policy?

Scott boldly changed the template to say that editors "must normally" follow policies. Jayron basically reverted it for lack of prior written permission to make a bold change, and also that it might encourage mindless adherence.

I think the change is probably a good one. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an extremely poor change, both ignorant of the fact that the change it was reverting was not undiscussed - it arose out of this discussion in January, and of the fact that the text explicitly states "must normally follow", insulating against the hyperbolically-phrased "mindless adherence" referred to. See the discussion from 2009 at the top of this very talk page. In other words, a useless edit that actually reading carefully would have obviated. Consequently, I've restored the agreed-upon version from the start of this year. — Scott • talk 06:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)