Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 3

message: I realize this is probably a stupid question, but I couldn't find the answer. Would school IPs be banned if people use it to vandalize wikipedia too much? Should they be banned? Is there a case against this? 
Yes, I think they should be banned if they use it for the wrong reasons. It is a serious website and should be used for serious discussion and the sharing of views.
Julie
No. i reckon they should be able to get permission to read Wickipedia,
otherwise some might be diadvantedged. Jared
I disagree, I don't think the entire school should be banned from reading Wikipedia. Is there a reason they can't be given read-only access? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidane (talk • contribs) 
:Schools IPs do get banned fairly regularly for vandalism, although rarely for more than 24 hours. Remember that the banning is only for editing, and there is nothing stopping the IP from reading the Wikipedia. BlankVerse 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most larger schools employ a number of servers with different IPs. Blocking one of these IPs will only block part of the campus network. rdude 00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: School IPs

message: I changed "Generally accepted policies" to "Key policies" to try and be more newbie-friendly, and also because lots of generally accepted policies weren't in that short list.
I removed the copyright thing from key policies, as it's duplicated by "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself..." in the text under the edit box, and because with the advent of non-free images, it's not as clear-cut as that.
I removed the "Follow conventions" list as I felt it wasn't "key": you can pick up conventions as you go along, and that works pretty well. Martin 15:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key policies 

message: I'm assuming that there is a guideline for this, but I have not found it written out anywhere. Maybe I am mistaken for believing that it is wrong-- but I think this would be the place to tell me for sure.
I've seen a number of Wikipedia articles about television series or fictional characters that include extensive blow-by-blow-by-blow summaries of everything that happen in the series or to the character. Any 12-year-old can summarize a television show, but I don't personally believe that it adds much to an encyclopedia to do so.  (It's much more interesting to tell why something is important than to tell, in great detail, what it is without any context.) Four or five lines of summary (or a bit more) might be appropiate, but not too much more. For an example of what I'm talking about, see Fusion Saga. (Dragon Ball Z) I'd like to thin the herd a bit and trim it down so it flows better, but I want to make sure it would be correct and within the mission of Wikipedia to do so. JRP 18:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-Extensive Summaries? 

message: I just added this article: Elvis has left the building
I know I'm supposed to bold the title of the article when it appears for the first time in the article.
But I'm wondering, since this is an _expression_ (a phrase that people say), should it be italicized? Or should it be in quotes? Or both? Single quotes or double quotes?
Jawed
:Like the article is now - bold like all article titles must be, as well as double-quoted. Italics probably unnecessary since there are quotes. ··gracefool |☺ 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  when to bold, italicize, quote? 

message: How did that come to be referenced? A horrible, highly negative document that isn't terribly useful. I suggest that m:Wiki is not paper would be a more suitable reference. It could read, "3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but not a paper one." Dan100 17:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
:"Horrible"?  What has WP:NOT ever done to you?  Seriously though, in an effort to define something as organic and ambiguous as WP, sometimes a little definition- in-the -negative is necessary.  The article is actually incredibly useful in pointing out to newbies what not to do on WP.  It very clearly outlines a number of things that are not appropriate for this site. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 18:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What Wikipedia is not

message: Netaholic is right. Unwritten rules are bad. Having unwritten rules is akin to saying "the rules are whatever I feel like they are".
On the other hand, having a policy of flexibility and common sense in dealing with situations not covered by current policy makes sense, and is a good thing. However, every effort should be made to make as clear as possible what to do in situations not specifically covered by the current policy. Something like Wikipedia:Use common sense would be very helpful. - Pioneer-12 13:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwritten rules are bad

message: I came across this yesterday. There's nothing on it's talk page, it looks like someone just slapped a policy tag on it. I thought I'd ask about it here, before doing something  hasty. I can put it on VfD if that's appropriate, actually I don't know what to do with it but I'm pretty sure it wasn't created via process. Rx StrangeLove 13:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[IP Civil Rights]]

message: I would suggest to add a guideline to use international standard units wherever possible, or at least always add standard units if non-standard units are used (e.g. always add a length in meters if it is given in feet).
jope
We do need to agree on a guideline for this. Also, when should an article summarize relevant units, and when should it refer to Wikipedia articles about units? The vacuum page got rewritten in Pascals - fine and dandy - but then the mention of the Torr as alternate unit was completely deleted. In my country, (Canada,) I challenge you to find vacuum equipment specified in Pascals. The Torr is the de facto standard of vacuum measurement. I support the standardization of measurement units, but some realism is needed.
I propose that articles be written in SI units as a general rule. However, if a field makes common use of other units, those other units and conversions can be given at one location in the article.
Ytrottier
I just think that whatever units are included intially, other alternative units are always preferable although MUST be checked. I just commented about the SS United States article there, one of the tables values for the operating pressure of the boilers had incorrect units, in3 instead of psi or lbf/in2. The value in MPa was included though, and that was how I understood the in3 to be false.--Hengineer 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use ISO units and internationally standardized measures 

message: This may seem like a silly question, but shouldn't this page be a policy? I mean, the stuff on how to make policy certainly seems to be a policy or a guideline right? There should be some sort of tag here, maybe just semipolicy for now, but having just that feels weird to me. --Dmcdevit 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy? 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: I think that some of the discussion we have had over policy and guidelines shows that we don't all have a common understanding of what those words mean, or what kinds of "policy and guidelines" we need. This is an attempt to outline useful definitions of these terms. I'll use "convention" as a general term for all kinds of policy and guidelines. Please feel free to copyedit. Zocky
----
;Kinds of conventions
;;content conventions
::What should and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, how it should be written and formatted.
;;workflow or meta-conventions
::How are content conventions implemented. Things like Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
;;community or meta-meta-conventions
::How are content and workflow conventions decided, changed and enforced. Things like Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and WP:POINT.
;Degrees of conventions
;;advice
::Advices describe how things can be done on Wikipedia. They are a good place to refer confused newbies to, and also a good place to describe a successful technique you encountered. If there are several ways of doing things or several reasonable opinions on whether they should be done, they should be described. If you don't like following an advice, don't. If you don't like other people following an advice, discuss it on the relevant talk pages. Example: Wikipedia:Boilerplate text indicates how to create a certain kind of layout.
;;guideline
::Guidelines describe how something is normally done on Wikipedia. If there are several ways of doing things or several reasonable opinions on whether they should be done, they should be described. A guideline applies as long as there are no reasons for breaking it. If you break a guideline, it is polite to explain why you did it. If somebody else breaks a guideline and you disagree, you should discuss it with them and decide what to do. Mass edits contrary to guidelines should be discussed beforehand. Example: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages indicates a good way of behaving on the Wiki (and explains when you should and should not do so)
;;policy
::Policies are conventions that always apply. They are either basic principles of the project, conventions necessary for the functioning of the community, or standards for issues where consistency is more important then correctness. You should not break policy. If somebody else breaks policy they should be reverted and directed to the policy in question. Example: Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is inviolate.
;Other stuff
;;NPOV
::All convention pages in Wikipedia project namespace represent the opinion of Wikipedia as a whole and must adhere to the standard of NPOV, i.e. they must truthfully and accurately present what their status and support on wikipedia is. Consensus should thus exist for the wording of every convention, even if there's no consensus on the benefits of the convention itself.
;;style guide
::Conventions must be written in a friendly and factual manner.
;;creation and ammendments
::As said, all conventions should be consensual, but the approach to changing them should depend on their degree. The basic idea is "respect other editors". Any degree of convention should be proposed and agreed on to be accepted as a Wikipedia-wide convention. Conventions followed by a single user should be stored in their userspace, those followed by a group of users should be stored on clearly marked and signed pages in the Wikipedia namespace, in Wikiprojects, or on meta. 
::*Advices can be written, edited and expanded, but read relevant talk pages beforehand to make sure you understand what the people who follow them are using them for and how they intend to develop them further. If in doubt, ask. If an advice is found to be a good solution for an issue where standardization is beneficient, it can be upgraded to a guideline.
::*Guidelines can be written, copyedited and clarified as necessary, but since they are likely to apply often and be used in many discussions, substantial changes should be proposed, discussed and agreed beforehand. If adherence to a guideline is found to be essential for functioning of Wikipedia, it can be upgraded to a policy.
::*Policy is the only degree of conventions that requires what could be called rude enforcement, i.e. revert and point to the policy without discussing the merits of the case. All policy should be widely known and accepted, therefore policy should be created and changed rarely. Policies can be copyedited and clarified as necessary, but any changes in meaning must be proposed, discussed and agreed beforehand. If controversial, consensus should be demonstrated in a credible manner.
----
Notice that the above goes on about consensus, but doesn't ever mention voting. That's because it generally shouldn't be done. Sure, strawpolls are a very useful tool for assessing the mood and moving debates forward, but formal votes are rightly treated as an excess which only encourages competitiveness and the culture of vehemence. 
But the thing is, we only need to vote rarely. If we agree on something, we've "achieved consensus" and there's no need to vote. If we agree that we disagree, there's no need to vote either - there's clearly no consensus. It's only when we can't agree whether we agree or disagree that we are forced to vote. I suspect that the frequent need for voting has something to do with the fact that we often mistake consensus to mean "My option wins". 
Anyway, does the above outline sound reasonable? Zocky 12:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a clearer definition of terms 

message: *Very good. I've added some samples. And the above. Please copy-edit if it's unclear. Radiant_* 12:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
**Judging by the pages in that category, "how-to" was an inappropriate name for the weakest degree of convention. I've substituted "advice". If there's a better word, feel free to rename it. Zocky 15:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: To an extent, Netoholic is right -- most of this page is an index. But to that extent, it is Bad and Wrong to fool with it. Changing structure on the sly is not the honest way to advance one's position. 
This page includes a summary of important foundation principles -- and to that extent, it is a flat-out violation of those principles to fool with this page. This page is policy -- it is one of the true cornerstones of all policy. No change should be made to this page without a great deal of discussion -- discussion not only on this Talk page, here, but on Pump (policy); and probably not without a note from Jimbo and the WMF Board. 
There is exactly one type of edit that should be made to this page: reversion of any other edit. — Xiong熊talk* 08:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
*So I'm allowed to revert your addition of policy? :) (only joking) --Dmcdevit 08:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fooling with this page is Wrong and Bad 

message: Is there a policy dealing with discussion pages, off-topic posting, and reposting of old discussions (on the same and on other talk pages)?
132.187.253.14 17:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pages, posting and reposting

message: I would like to propose the following guidelines for these lists (after looking at the questionnaire that has circulated):
*The words born and died should not be spelled out in these lists (contrary to general Wikipedia policy). (Asterisks for born and daggers for died should be phased out.)
*No links should be inserted in these lists. Only the name and date should be links, except for heads of state or Nobel Prizes, where the reader might want to go to the list of heads of state or recipients of the prize.
*Birth dates should be included in death lists and death dates in birth lists, when available.
*Titles should be included, for example King Henry VII of England.
*No approximate dates should be included.
*No one should be included in these lists that does not have a Wikipedia article about them.
*Descriptive phrases about the person should be very brief, usually just the nationality (if known) and a word or two describing the profession or activity the person is prinicpally known for. If the reader wants to know more, they should go to the article about the person.
*If the person is known only as someone else's relative, they should not be on these lists.
Ksnow 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes approximate dates are all that are known. Historians use the abbreviateion "c." for circa to indicate this. Other times, particularly in the entertainment field, a number of different birth years exist throughout such authoritative records as Facts on File pubs, NY Times obits, Encyc Brit, etc., and the disparity ought to be noted. — Tenebrae 13:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth and death lists on year and day pages

message: Recently an editor chose to remove this section from WP:POINT. He suggested, and I concur, that a better location is probably on this page. However, since this page is official policy, I'm not just going to offload it and run. The text is as follows:
---
There are two unusual aspects of Wikipedia culture that often lead to misunderstandings:
*Wikipedia is inconsistent.
*Wikipedia tolerates certain activities that it does not condone.
The nature of consensus editing, combined with editor churn, means that Wikipedia is not consistent. Where there are two or more equally correct ways of handling matters, and no consensus or guideline has been established, Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem.  For example:
* Spelling using either American English or other forms of English is accepted.  Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use the other.  However, where spellings are mixed in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.
* There are naming conventions for article titles, because inconsistency creates a practical problem in that articles are harder to find and the likelihood of creation of duplicate articles increases.
* Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem.
** It would seem likely that with the addition of major-leage support from such "corners" as Yahoo! (lent some months ago) we might perhaps see also influence become apparent on the judgement calls being made regarding allocations of physical and mental assets to some extent, though, wouldn't one reason?  Indeed, can we truly no longer support a bifurcation as likelihood might be promulgated by such a division of purpose?  I say nay.  Why not find room for a bit more?  Why not, indeed?  I believe it was Snr Hed PE that saic, "War." -B 1 2 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like all of it(including the last sentence).  I support putting all of it in, in a section titled "Wikipedia is inconsistent" (although finding a place that's not policy for it might be slightly better). It makes much sense, and would be helpful to point various questioners to. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is inconsistent 

message: Is a summary.  It is not policy.  I have removed it.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five pillars 

message: I notice that "No legal threats" is listed under "Behavior guidelines". Judging from the situation at Alan Dershowitz, surely this item can be removed. - Xed 08:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Legal threats" and "disputes over legal issues" are different things. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 17:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No legal threats 

message: The guidelines here are ostensibly here by editor consensus. A glance at Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms shows there has never been anything like consensus on the merits of that guideline. I therefore propose to remove the "Style Guide" header from it and downgrade it from the guidelines section to some sort of "Proposed guidelines" or "Disputed guidelines" section. Kwertii 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to downgrade the status of [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]

message: I also propose that Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms be downgraded in status, for the same reason as Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms above: there has never been anything approaching a consensus on the adoption of this policy. Kwertii 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with lack of consensus - the talk page shows a 50/50 split. IMHO the peacock guideline is just a style thing, it has nothing to do with POV. Stevage 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree too, do it--BozMotalk 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to downgrade the status of [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]]

message: This page is, quite frankly, a mess. It basically directs the user to another 50 pages in case they feel like they need more guidance.  I suggest a careful re-ordering and re-prioritising of the guidelines here, making it clear which are firm policies (3RR), which are fundamental principles (verifiability, OR etc), which are general guidelines agreed upon for happy editing (civility, don't bite newbies), and which are somewhat tangential or only apply in special situations (eg, notability of music groups). 
I would further suggest a simple one-line statement of each of the policies here, so that with a simple scan down the page, the reader can pick up a quick dos-and-donts.  So instead of "Three revert rule (Revert wars are considered harmful)", which really requires you to click the link to make sense of it", it would become: Three revert rule: Don't revert any page more than three times in 24 hours, or you may be blocked from Wikipedia. Ideally, each page here would have its one line summary on its own page, and that would simply be copied here.
Note that I'm not advocating changing any policies, just the presentation of the "guideline book", which is what this page is.
Comments before I dive in? Stevage 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Idea! Have fun!! :) Gerard Foley 00:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree. Go for it! Doovinator 03:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a major overhaul?

message: Im not sure if this should go here. But Im noticing how images are constantly being removed from pages and ending up unused (while being replaced with other images). So people should upload newer versions on those image pages instead of adding new images. How could we make this a policy? -- Psi edit 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images