Template talk:MoS-guideline/Archive 2

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

Hoary's wording

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The wording at #Two versions: which do you like and why? still seems better than what has evolved since, and it shows the clearest signs of support (with occasional exceptions, which I have retained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't legal boilerplate. The current wording is concise and precise enough for most purposes. The "clearest sign of support" IMO is that until you took exception to it the wording had been mostly stable for over a year. The clearest sign that your claim of consensus here isn't as firm as professed is that you took to edit warring over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored it when reverted without discussion by a boor. Now that there is discussion, it is self-contradictory; if absence of tweaking shows consensus, then the presence of tweaking (and there has been other tweaking) shows absence of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As for concision: the most concise variant would be a combination:
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

I omit the links, as obvious, and not under dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. This omits "all editors should follow", which is contrary to WP:POL: Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.. If anybody has a justification for should follow (and I like ordering all Wikipedia doesn't count), let's discuss it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blind obedience

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidelines are being cited for petty rv.

Added

It is for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools.

Emphasise the common sense part, which has been ignored lately. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed, for obvious reasons. Please don't muck about with important templates. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wikihounding me; you turn up within an hour to revert? You are guilty of petty rv. using the MoS as justification. If you hadn't been wikihounding me with petty rv., then I wouldn't have been inspired to use that famous quote.

I think this is a great quote, and encapsulates exactly Wikipedian ethics. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry, not everything is about you. I had to deal with this page months ago, and had watchlisted it before even that. If you make inappropriate changes to important templates, you can expect them to be reverted pretty quickly. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a BRD edit summary I left. This invites honest debate. Which I think excludes you, Serindipodus & Ruslik, who have been tag-team reverting me for some months now.

So for honest debate I will re-instate it, and you can leave it to someone else to properly revert - then some useful debate might happen. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not reinstate it. Tony (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

9.4) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages, and any related template pages.
10) Tony1 is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These nearly made it through, not much change in your attitude? HarryAlffa (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You wish, do you? ArbCom realised the punitive sanctions for most parties were highly inappropriate and reconceived them. Now, just why this is relevant to your strange edits to this template is the big question. Tony (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't wish. I suspected they were a bit much. The question part of my contribution is the relevance. I expect disparagement from Ckatz, as above, but your edit summary, "Rv; please do not tamper with an important template in the absense of consensus", and description of "strange edits" ... well ... "tamper"? My edit summary was, "Bold. Revert. Discuss!", instead of discussion you say "don't tamper without consensus" - what you are saying is, "don't WP:BRD or WP:BOLD without consensus" - which, you have to admit, is highly amusing. Is that what you meant? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the quote is an RAF "proverb" on Queens Regs. I think it a useful axiom for Wikipedia, and is a pithy way to amplify the cry for common sense. I find it's language and sentiment in agreement with my own outlook on life in general, and I think it echoes much of Wikipedia's best ideals. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic

It is for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools.

I think this is a great quote, and encapsulates exactly Wikipedian ethics. With the main focus on accurate content rather than expending great energy checking format rules - you can if you want, but don't become a WP:SPA for MoS! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have great optimism that many WPian editors improve their skills as they contribute. Calling some of them "fools" is out of spirit with the project. I don't wish to continue this debate. Tony (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is not a constructive message that we should be sending to users. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text Of The Message

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

Use common sense is an essay, and since this template is located on actual consensus achieved pages, it seems contradictory. I am going to be bold and remove this and instead having the following:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And I revert. While common sense is not always used with MOS, it ought to be; and the essay is a consensus explication of WP:IAR. Discuss? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is an essay.Curb Chain (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should it ought to be?Curb Chain (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC For The Removal Of The Non-protocol Page Reference

I see that this template is referencing an wp:essay. Essays do not have the consensus of the community, so it is non sequitur to include such a link.Curb Chain (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't insist on the link; but what the section referenced says is:

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. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Is that not consensus, even if it appears in an essay?

(So is the rejoinder that follows; that "common sense" cannot merely be one editor's private view, and must serve the good of the encyclopedia.)

All too often, users and writers of the Manual of Style needs to consider whether there has been a lack of perspective. Whether this RfC, with its demand for "protocol", is an example is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." says {{essay}}. The link references a section of an essay. "policy" used in this context means that it as been accepted by the community, with consensus.

The first sentence of the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus says: "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus...". So this page does not of consensus, or the community's consensus. This is the reason why I do not think this template that is an established part of the community, whatever it tags indicates that it has the consensus of the community, should not link to a page that does NOT have the consensus of the community. See wp:common sense is not common.Curb Chain (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop treating Wikipedia space as a set of laws; it is policy that it isn't. It is also policy that whether something is policy is not determined by a tag, but by whether it is general consensus. (This applies doubly to individual paragraphs within essays, which may well have more - or less - support than the parent essay.) You are Wikilawyering, which is an offense; far more seriously, it is an indication that you don't understand how our system actually works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I simply do you not agree with your view. If the paragraph within the essay has more support, then it must have more power (in terms of enforcement) than an essay. I can disregard any essay that someone cites. Policies and guidelines, I need consensus.

And if the "parapgrah" has more support than the rest of the essay, how would you determine that?Curb Chain (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

By seeing how widely the sentiment involved is agreed with - and, more important, followed in practice. This is a restatement of WP:IAR, which is very widely supported (see how often it is linked to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:iar is linked to often, not wp:ucs.Curb Chain (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That is my reply. wp:iar is a policy, and wp:ucs is an essay, so by virtue, I can throw out your argument. Please refrain from making inflamatory comments.

Curb Chain, I recommend that you read WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. People get banned and blocked over "just essays" like WP:Tendentious editing, or refusing to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Many things that are "just essays" are widely accepted pages that no one has felt a particular need to have canonized as official guidelines. Some "just essays" have broader and deeper support than formal guidelines.

IMO this link does no harm and may do much good. It should stay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, tendentious editing is a summary of policies-and-guidelines, and wp:bold, revert, discuss is a flow chart of our policies-and-guidelines. Editors aren't blocked over essays, they are blocked over our polices. For example, an edit war is a manifestation of reverting and arguing, and combination of wp:disruptive editing and wp:3rr. No, by the virtue of an essay, it does not represent wider community. A guideline has be put forth to the community as a description of the practices of the community. An essay does not have that indication. Of course, if an essay does have that indication, then we should "canonize" it as a "promotion". "Some "just essays" have broader and deeper support than formal guidelines.": I refute.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are unaware of the hundreds of advice pages that have been labeled as "guidelines" but were never "put forth to the community". You might start with the list at Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, for example; note that the text explaining their lack of community endorsement was written (by me) earlier this year. The community approval process described at WP:PROPOSAL is also a relatively recent invention, and cannot be assumed to have been followed for any page marked as a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROPOSAL doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue at hand. Style guidelines of WikiProjects are actually more like wikiproject style conventions, because most of the details in these pages contradict wider-consensus pages such as wp:mos and mos-pages.Curb Chain (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am unsure of the precise topic.

If this is asking if policy-level templates should include essays, I agree they shouldn't. This is clear IMO. Policy is policy and essays should not creep in unless made policy by the Wikipedia community in the normal way. Heck, I've written essays! While a few are often linked in discussions, there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. None are policy until the community decides that. There should be no "back door" to promotion. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a policy-level template; it's called {{MoS-guideline}} and calls its pages guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Student7, the issue at hand is the simple removal of the text of this template from:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

to

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

.Curb Chain (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you just wanted to remove the link. Isee, you want us to stop using common sense altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you being serious? Your comment does not seem to be constructive to this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In telling editors to use common sense—and linking to that essay—this template does nothing more than repeat what is present in the official policy at WP:Policies and guidelines (three times, and once specifically with respect to guidelines). Removing that makes this guideline less descriptive of our formal policies, not more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 7 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)

Link to Consensus

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose that "consensus" which now is linked to WP:Consensus be linked to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes which discusses (and contains special advice on) the processes, including consensus and BRD, available for making changes to policies and guidelines pages. Joja lozzo 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)