View source for Wiki143 talk:Policies and guidelines

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Metatalk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 15
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(180d)
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Policy talk}}

{{old move|date=25 March 2024|destination=Wikipedia:Guidelines and policies|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1215849995#Requested move 25 March 2024}}

== PAG precedence ==

Currently, we have a commonly accepted precedence for determining which PAG we should defer to (Manual of Style < Guideline < Policy < Core Policy), but this isn’t formalised. I think it would be helpful to do so, as our policies should reflect practice, and it will avoid wikilawyering on the issue. 

As a rough draft, I would suggest changing [[WP:POLCON]] from 
{{tqb| If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.<p>
More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand.}}
To:
{{tqb|If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice.

More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] says newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. 

Editors must use their judgement to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the situation at hand. When doing so, editors must defer to the advice with the highest level of consensus:
*Core policies (highest)
*Policies  
*Guidelines
*Manual of Style (lowest)
}}

[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:The MOS banner states that those pages are a guideline. Do they really need their own level?
:Whats an example of a "core policy", and how are these different than policies?
:As you can probably tell from my questions, my mental model of PAG only has three levels: policy > guideline > essay / not classified. And I would hesitate to add additional levels as it would enable wikilawyering, which is undesirable. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 04:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:OR]], <s>[[WP:RS]]</s><u>[[WP:V]]</u>, and [[WP:NPOV]] are the core policies.
::They are the policies most central to making Wikipedia Wikipedia, and making it the trusted resource it is - I think we should make this importance, and the level of consensus they hold, clear. 
::I think it would also be beneficial to reflect the generally accepted stance that style guidelines are considered less important - to have a lower level of consensus - than guidelines generally.
::However, I don’t mind too much if we simplify this down to "guidelines < policies", as this will formalise most of current practice. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::: In the list of core policies, [[WP:RS]] should be replaced by [[WP:V]]. This is in line with the explanatory essay [[WP:COPO]]. Historically, [[WP:RS]] was created as a place to provide further explanation for which sources satisfy [[WP:V]] and that relationship still exists. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 05:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: You’re right, corrected. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think a blanket statement that all manual of style guidelines have less consensus than other guidelines is reasonable. There are a lot of guidelines out there, and the amount of discussion each received varies a lot. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 06:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:I don't agree with the premise that introducing formal levels of guidance will better reflect practice and avoid wiki-lawyering. Part of the reason the community has difficulty in setting rigid levels is because in practice, it's not rare for the community to reach consensus agreement to allow exceptions for various cases. Additionally, establishing a fixed hierarchy would lead to endless debates on the appropriate level for a given collection of guidance. The second issue could be mitigated by a different decision-making method than the current consensus-based method with a "consensus can change" tradition, but that would have to come first. The first issue, though, is practically inevitable with how guidance is developed on English Wikipedia, with large group conversations amongst a changing set of participants, so maintaining consistency is unrealistic. It's endless work to try to codify all guidance to avoid exceptions, as they have a fractal nature: the closer you look into different scenarios, the more variations become apparent. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 06:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:The long-ago wording: {{tq|Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence.}} But then [[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=339706252 weakened it] to {{tq|Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence.}} But then [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=next&oldid=379933921 weakened it further] to: {{tq|As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.}} I'd like a return to the long-ago wording but disclose that In March I was in an argument where I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1214200133 quoted WP:POLCON] with the weakest wording, and wish I could have quoted the long-ago wording. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::If memory serves, the idea of "precedence" started when there was some concern about WP:RS saying something that didn't quite align with WP:V, and an editor decided to boldly solve the problem by saying that the policy trumped the guideline.
::The problem with declaring My Policy Always Trumps Your Mere Guideline is that I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.  For example:
::* The WP:V policy says that "reliable sources include:...Reputable newspapers"
::* The WP:MEDRS guideline says that newspapers aren't reliable sources for biomedical content.
::IMO there's no true conflict here, as MEDRS doesn't say that newspapers are completely unreliable for all content, but editors occasionally claim that there's a conflict, because they want to cite "Study says cigarettes don't cause lung cancer after all" in ''The Daily Slop'', and if they have to follow MEDRS, they won't be able to cast doubt on the scientific consensus.  
::[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#c-Peter Gulutzan-20240317143500-Newslinger-20240316211700|The discussion you linked to]] wasn't really about [[Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays]]; it was about whether [[WP:RSCONTEXT]] is still a rule in practice.  If RSCONTEXT is not a rule, then you can blindly (or defaultly) blank all uses of a newspaper that has been designated as [[WP:GUNREL]].  If RSCONTEXT is still a rule, then you have to slow down long enough to ask yourself whether or not ''The Daily Slop'' is reliable for a sentence that says "The movie critic at ''The Daily Slop'' gave it two bananas". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
:::You aren't being exact about what your memory serves or about what WP:MEDRS says, so I'm unable to address that. In the discussion I linked to the argument was whether "WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS". Context was mentioned in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Reviews_from_unreliable_sources the thread] but not for that specific argument. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I thought NOTCENSORED was irrelevant.  [[WP:NYPOST]] movie reviews don't involve "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so".  Here is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloudy_with_a_Chance_of_Meatballs_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1213901763 an example of the objected-to edits].  He removed a sentence saying {{xt|"[[Kyle Smith (critic)|Kyle Smith]] of the ''[[New York Post]]'' gave the film two out of five, stating that the animated film "greatly expands on the kids' book on which it's based in a clever and engaging first half. But the second half leaves a foul aftertaste.""}}  The edit summary says that the source is (in his opinion) unreliable and therefore mentioning the movie review is [[WP:UNDUE]].  I don't see anything "objectionable or offensive‍" in the removed sentence, and I suspect you don't either.  Invoking NOTCENSORED sounded to me like someone throwing some [[WP:UPPERCASE]] spaghetti against the wall to see if anything would stick.  
::::But if you want to follow that line of thinking, then consider a [[WP:POINTY]]-headed wikilawyer saying "We must include this exceedingly [[WP:Offensive material]] per NOTCENSORED!  No, I don't happen to have a reliable source for the offensive material, but that doesn't matter.  NOTCENSORED is a policy, and all policies override mere guidelines, so having a reliable source is unnecessary". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll do my best to ignore your accusations and say what I thought that argument was. Material was being removed based on the "generally unreliable" objection (and the example you picked had those words). I was saying that regardless whether an RfC re RS misinterpreted, it could not suppress expressions of opinion without running into the policy which quoted {{tq|The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views.}}, which is not about obscenity and had nothing to do with what's in WP:Offensive material, which is not a policy and was not mentioned in the argument or any edit summary that I noticed. A reviewer's opinion is allowed, the policy is relevant, the claim that the policy does not override the guideline was met by the reference to a weakened wp:polcon. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::A movie critic's comment is not the kind of ideas that the university president was talking about, and NOTCENSORED itself, in the first sentence, says that it's about objectionable or offensive content, which this isn't.
::::::Besides, the edit summary gave a policy-based reason:  A view presented in an unreliable source is [[WP:UNDUE]], and therefore the inclusion was a policy violation.  You were arguing that the NOTCENSORED policy ought to trump the NPOV policy.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's just another false statement about me, I'll again do my best to ignore your accusations. If anyone wants to comment about what I actually said, or even wants to address the thread topic, that might be better for the tone here. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:I also disagree with making the levels more formal. We don't really need put down arguments if an editor says that they feel that a lower level is more applicable. Saying a policy normally takes precedence is enough, if they still have a problem it should be discussed. Editors have discussed things at all levels. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with the general principle, but think that further codifying the hierarchy in this way isn't helpful. Guidelines often address exceptions / edge cases or provide more detail than we would want in policies, and for these specific areas can represent a higher level of consensus than applying the higher level policy by default. Asking editors to use their judgment (through consensus building) is sufficient. [[User:Scribolt|Scribolt]] ([[User talk:Scribolt|talk]]) 06:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::Policies and Guidelines should support each other.  In the rare cases when a Policy and s Guideline appear to be in conflict, the solution is to resolve the conflict… not to argue about which “takes precedence”.  The issue needs to be raised on both pages (linked to a central discussion). It may be that ''both'' pages need to be amended.
::That said, it often turns out that there IS no actual conflict… but simply a disagreement over how the language of one or the other page should be interpreted in a specific situation. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree, which is why asking editors to use their judgement in the not so obvious cases,  rather than simply referring to the pages position on the ladder is the best course for this text. [[User:Scribolt|Scribolt]] ([[User talk:Scribolt|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

== New PAG discussion location  ==

Currently, the guideline says that we should hold discussions on creating a new PAG at said PAG’s talk page. 

This seems odd to me; for such creations we should have broad community consensus, meaning it would be better to hold the discussion at [[WP:VPP]]. This would also align with practice where we hold discussions to modify PAGs at VPP.

Is there a reason we don’t do it this way, and if there isn’t should we change it? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::: [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], just wondering, what is a "PAG"? My best guess is "policy '''or''' guideline." But that is just a guess. - [[User:Butwhatdoiknow|Butwhatdoiknow]] ([[User talk:Butwhatdoiknow|talk]]) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Butwhatdoiknow}} Your guess is correct [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 16:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:My [[Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#c-Isaacl-20240630143700-WhatamIdoing-20240629231200|previous comments]] on this topic apply. Personally, I feel as long as appropriate notifications are provided at the expected locations, the location of the discussion can be flexible. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Notification, not location, is the important part. Also discussions on modifying PAGs doesn't ''have'' to happen at VPP, it's just a place where they can happen. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear, if you feel something isn't getting enough attention additional  and more prominent notification is the solution. If you list it at CENT, notified all the common noticeboards and post to the village pump, then editors will see it. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to me that the underlying question is: is it preferable to nudge editors (through notification) to engage policy talk pages that are new to them, or is it better to encourage editors (also through notification) to shift their attention to centralized discussions like VPP.
:I believe that the former is clearly better for the project, because it encourages more diversity and less entrenchent of perspectives on policy pages. The latter encourages waves of participation in centralized discussion in a way at much higher risk of BATTLEGROUND effects, and abandons the gains to be had from editors learning how diverse domains of the project actually understand guidelines and get work done. The ''quality''  of consensus is therefore likely to be lower if we force everything to centralized discussions (which we could probably measure using the rate of "per X", brigade-like voting at centralized venues). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::Why do you think they are more battlegroundy?
::It does tend to draw in a more diverse range of editors, which can make it more likely that there will be two groups who strongly disagree with each other, but isn’t a diverse range a good thing? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::To answer your question, there are different kinds of diversity among editors, and I don't think they all have equal value.
:::One form of diversity is '''knowing less vs. knowing more''' about a policy/guideline topic and its history. I am not convinced that this form of diversity is especially valuable in decision-making in P&Gs (though it is sometimes helpful in RFCBEFORE). So, for example, the relatively large number of editors to be found at Village Pump, etc., who think the [[WP:GNG]] applies to everything because they are unfamiliar with the history of SNGs (including their post-2017 history) - I don't think the !votes of these editors on notability topics are especially valuable, especially when thei4 contributions take the form of a vote "per X".
:::On the other hand, another form of diversity is '''knowing about diverse aspects''', e.g., of article creation and development within enwiki. So for example, bringing together editors interested in BLPs concerning, say, athletes ''and'' academics ''and'' political figures ''and'' literary figures ''and'' entertainment figures, is likely to bring additional perspective to discussions of biographical notability more than if only those interested in a single biographical genre arw involved. And I think this is the case even if the specific proposal only concerns one type of biography.
:::So I guess my shorthand would be that soliciting the opinions of editors who know less (and aren't motivated to learn) is generally unhelpful to P&G development, but soliciting the opinions of editors who know about diverse aspects related to P&G development is helpful. Which I believe supports the practical suggestion I made above that it is better to entice editors into well-informed discussions on Talk pages, and encourage diversity that way, than it is to create a "public arena" that could facilitate knee-jerk reactions, agonistic displays, and waves of canvassed input. TL;DR: increasing thr input of editors who are uninterested in learning the background and ''status quo'' within which a question is posed, and the most likely impacts of the options presented, is unlikely to encourage outcomes that are better for the enwiki project and comminity. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::My issue with this is it reads like you are seeking to minimise the input of editors with a different view on SNGs and GNG than your view. I don’t think this is aligned with our policies on [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, I'm really not promoting a particular view. I have my own specific understanding of notability on enwiki, just as North8K has theirs and WAID has theirs. History demonstrates that none of these editors holds the same view or reaches identical conclusions on the varied issues that arise with notability.
{{Cot|extended content on notability discussions, and a conclusion therefrom}}
On the specific relationship between SNG and GNG, there was a long-discussed, well-participated RfC on the topic, with a thoughtful (and uncontested) close, that gave rise to the text of [[WP:SNG]], so in this case at least there is good documentation for what the ''status quo'' is. Each of the editors I've mentioned, and many others, recognize this status quo while having different ideas about what would make better notability policy than what we have. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'd be surprised if any of us were trying to "minimise" the input of editors who want to change or evolve notability policy. I know I'm not.

But I would point to what almost inevitably happens in discussions of notability, which is that editors who are inexperienced in P&Gs enter discussions assuming that there is one essential standard of notability, namely the GNG, and that the community shares this view. In the course of discussion, they learn that their view is one of many, and that other standards of notability exist that are understood to apply to certain domains, in various ways. After they learn this, some of these editors retain the assumption that other standards ''should'' not exist, although they do; some reconcile the GNG with SNGs for themselves using varied reasoning; and still others become convinced that it is beneficial for different standards to exist depending on the domain. But all editors who participate in these discussions come to recognize that, in the ''status quo'' within the community, there is no one universal standard of notability. 

Based on this example, there is benefit to the community from having new editors come to these discussions, learn about the issues, and develop perspectives of their own that interact in varied ways with the ''status quo'' (whether to tinker with it or to overhaul it). But there is no clear benefit to the community in having waves of editors participate without coming to understand the policies as they exist and as they currently work (or don't work). As I pointed out earlier, this is especially true when an editors' only participation in a policy discussion consists in brigade-like "per X" !votes unaccompanied by evidence of reading and reflecting on the policy topic.
{{Cob}}
:::::To paraphrase something I pointed out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=123994197 elsewhere], there is a salient difference between seeing community consensus as an emergent property of active discussion among all who want to participate, and seeing it as a mirror of the views all members of the community happen to hold at a point in time (regardless of their familiarity with the topic and its context). My sense is that enwiki has consistently held a community view of consensus much closer to the former imaginary than the latter. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Discussions on a page should be held on its talk page unless there is a very good reason not to.  The main example is that deletion discussions should be held elsewhere, because if the page is deleted, so it the talk page, and we want records of deletion discussions.
:For a proposal, the proposal talk page is blindingly obviously the right place for discussions.  The two are watchlisted together.  The talk page will follow the proposal page through any future renames.  Queries about the proposal will obviously go first to the talk page.  Talk pages have archives that all Wikipedians can understand.  Village pumps and other dramah boards have overwhelming and confusing archiving, including the tendency for the archives to host thread copies out of chronological order. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:This would cause bloat at VPP and make it more difficult to link the policy and the proposal:
:*Editors would have to find the link hidden the RfC statement to read the proposal instead of clicking the "Project page" tab.
:*The discussion about the proposal would then be hidden away in the VPP's vast archives, instead of conveniently in the archives of the proposed policy's talk page. A link could (and should) be provided to the archived discussion at VPP, but this is still confusion from an administrative point of view.
:If notification is provided at VPP, and that is pretty standard, than I see no benefit to moving the whole discussion there.
:As Newimpartial pointed out, discussion at the Village Pump tend to get more BATTLEGROUNDy. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 14:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::The benefit is a notification is easily missed. A discussion, which will repeatedly show up on watchlists, is far less so. 
::As for the rest, why do we treat the creation of PAG’s differently to the modification of them? All the arguments you present apply equally to each. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think we do.  Most changes to policy and guideline pages are minor and undiscussed/[[WP:PGBOLD]].  Most of the discussions happen on their own talk pages.  Only a small minority of discussions about changing a single policy or guideline are intentionally started anywhere else.  The village pumps are most likely to host general discussions ("I have identified a problem..." – these sometimes turn into, but are not necessarily intended to be, discussions about changing a single policy or guideline) or multi-page coordination ("...so either we need to make small changes to both WP:A and WP:B, or we need to make a big change to WP:C").
:::For reference, the WP:PROPOSAL that prompted this discussion is [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline]].  It is currently more than 250K long, with about 400 comments.  It is three times the current length of [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]].  Adding a discussion of that length to a page with other active discussions makes it difficult for some people (especially on mobile devices) to participate in any discussions on that page, which means that we'd be frustrating editors who want to participate in unrelated discussions and thus interfering with the main purpose of the page (i.e., to let editors participate in a variety of discussions).  We've been talking during the last year about intervening to split VP discussions off when we think they're going to have 100+ comments, so "at the village pump" very likely would have ended up being on a separate page anyway.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
*[[#Venue]] nice chart  .<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:it is very reasonable to first discuss a idea for a new policy or guideline at the ideas page. That discussion might be a bit extended if the basic idea has problems. But after that gets off the ground the talk page for it is the right place for discussions I believe so the reasoning can be found easily when people think of changing anything. Quite enough editors will find an RfC on policy and put it on their watchlist ifinterested. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 20:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Deletion of MoS navigation template ==

Can we get input from those actually familiar with this..[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Template:Manual of Style]]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 21:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

== Regarding the [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enfocement|Enforcement]] section ==

The [[Wikipedia:Essays|essay]] [[Wikipedia:Duty to comply]] delves into reasons [[Duty|duties]] on Wikipedia exist and are enforced and lists prohibited behaviors, such as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]], that could lead to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning]].  I have wondered if we should include a link to this essay in the "Further information" sentence in that section. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 17:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest adding links between your new essay and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service]].
:On the subject of your essay, I suspect that a philosopher would disagree, and that if there is a true duty at all, it is a "duty not to violate" (a subtle distinction) and that it is subordinate to Wikipedia's values and principles (i.e., a duty to ''not'' comply, if compliance results in a worse article). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{replyto|WhatamIdoing}} {{done}}. I understand.  Thank you. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 18:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:Things like not putting in a citation are not forbidden! But more importantly I'd prefer not to encourage vandals by listing various ways they can cause trouble, or put off someone who wants to contribute by implying the they might be beset by vandals. [[WP:5P]] doesn't point to ways to vandalize Wikipedia - it assumes the people reading it want to be good contributors. There is the guideline [[WP:Disruptive editing]] but I don't think we push it in front of people who want to contribute! It's there in case there is some disruption. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 18:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::{{Replyto|NadVolum}} I addressed your concerns, and I think I edited [[Wikipedia:Duty to comply]] accordingly. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 20:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:::That was the least of my concerns, it was immediately followed by "But more importantly ...". [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 21:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

== Shortcuts ==

@[[User:Gommeh|Gommeh]], 

The rule for [[WP:LINKBOXES]] says:

"The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (that's what [[Special:WhatLinksHere]] is for). Instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.  One way to check which is the most common is [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-365pages&pages=Wikipedia:PG%7CWikipedia:PAG through the Pageviews tool] (replace the examples with the shortcuts you are testing)."

[[WP:ADHERE]] is not "the most common" (it's barely used at all, since you created it yesterday).  Nobody except you and me "remembers" it.  Nobody except you uses it.  So why should it be listed?

My preference (others may disagree, but I believe my view is common) is to have just one shortcut for a ==Section==, and to have two displayed only when those two are either both very common (e.g., WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE) or when they have completely different names (WP:YESPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE).  With [[WP:ADHERENCE]] and [[WP:ADHERE]], neither of these situations apply.

Why do you think that we need to advertise another shortcut here? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:For the same reason why we have two shortcuts for [[WP:ENFORCE]] and [[WP:ENFORCEMENT]]. Also it seemed aesthetically better that way. <span class="nowrap" style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Franklin Gothic Medium;background:linear-gradient(to right,#fd9f88,#79382c,#503e60);padding:0 4px;">[[User talk:Gommeh|»]]&nbsp;[[User:Gommeh|<span class="nowrap" style="color:#fbffff;">Gommeh&nbsp;(he/him)</span>]]</span> 15:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::An [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] argument?  
::I lean very slightly towards including only ENFORCEMENT, but – unlike the ADHERE/ADHERENCE pair – [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-06&end=2025-05&pages=Wikipedia:ENFORCE|Wikipedia:ENFORCEMENT both of those are actually used], with a 7:4 ratio.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:My preference matches WAID's. Any editor is welcome to create a redirect and use it in discussions. If it catches on, then we should consider adding it in the shortcut box. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Although it doesn't have to be this way, for better or worse, on English Wikipedia, shortcuts typically become jargon terms used directly within the visible text. Having multiple jargon terms referring to the same set of guidance diminishes the effectiveness of jargon. So while I feel it's more work than it's worth to try to prevent new shortcuts from being created, I agree with limiting the number of shortcuts that are publicized, in an effort to avoid new jargon terms, and to help the effectiveness of existing ones. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)