Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset

message: In the meantime, I'll Be Bold (1) ignore the fact that these are rules (2), and change the lot. I'm leaving a note here (3), but the edit summary was getting all complex, which distressed me, so I skipped making a decent summary (applied (2) to ignore (4)) and used (3) (leaving this message) since I'm supposed to do something sane after all.
Heh, this is working! :-)
(8) -> Kim Bruning 11:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And this from the *simplified* ruleset. :-) I do like the method of sorting as well.Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is working!

message: Today on IRC, I proposed the following:
"In terms of editorial policy, our fundamenal rule should be WP:NPOV. In terms of social policy, our fundamental rule should be WP:DICK. In terms of personal action on Wikipedia, I follow WP:IAR. I think those three ideas in that order are a resonable trifecta."
and I'll add that out of these follow such other good policies as WP:POINT, WP:BOLD, WP:FAITH, WP:1RR, etc., etc. -- Seth Ilys 16:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stated this publicly at Wikipedia:Policy trifecta. I like to think of this as a simplified version of the simplified ruleset. -- Seth Ilys 19:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I already told you that you're great? ;-) --Elian 04:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seth's simplified ruleset

message: Now's the time dig up cases for each of the rules where breaking them got someone on WP:AN/I, WP:RFC, WP:RFAr, or lost people votes at WP:RFA.
We can then weigh which behaviours are really THAT bad, and those that could basically be left out to get a smaller set :-)
Kim Bruning 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People who break BE BOLD do fail RFA though. :-) Kim Bruning 00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to start trimming back 

message: Given that the principle guiding the sequence of clauses is intratextual, and implies no hierarchy of importance, should we not use bullets rather than numbers? Especially since no-one is ever likely to refer to individual rules by number. --Theo  (Talk) 09:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (4)*kerblink* I do! :-) Also, it helps keep track how over-complex the page has become NOW :-P (10) Kim Bruning 10:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers? 

message: Any simplified rule set ought to mention Wikipedia:No_original_research I would have thought. :ChrisG 22:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, can disobeying it once get you blocked, banned, or loose you an RFA? Kim Bruning 01:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a lot of the rules here, a single instance will probably be ignored (it'll get deleted, but won't count that much against you), but repeated violations are likely to get you into trouble; IIRC, there have been a few RFAs that have been about original research. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: In looking over the list here, a useful amalgum of the most impactful rules, it occurs to me that a couple of things might be added to each entry, something like a case list:
* case where following the rule was very beneficial
* case where following the rule was very problematic
* case where ignoring the rule was very beneficial
* case where ignoring the rule was very problematic
The content could consist of links to "cases" of various kinds, typically abritration proceedings or RFC's or Villiage Pump discussions that are particularly illuminating.
This is food for thought rather than a formal proposal for an addition to the page. Regards, Courtland 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rule 1 is BE BOLD, you know! I'm curious to see! Kim Bruning 02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples and counter-examples 

message: I removed the following "Sources" section.  Aside from the RFCs for internet protocols, which I think hardly qualify as a serious source for this article, each of the other links were already linked to on the page.  Why list them again?
 (placed here at random for now, please wikify as appropriate!)
 * The discussion for this page
 * This page's edit history
 * m:foundation issues for foundation issues
 * RFC 1123 and RFC 1855 for be graceful
 * Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages for be bold
 * Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for ignore all rules
 * Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for when in doubt take it to talk and don't revert good faith edits.
 * Wikipedia:No personal attacks for no personal attacks
 * Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Wikiquette generally
Starwiz 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, originally this page was very short, and we really needed that sources section, just to prove we weren't making things up. OMG, What Happen? :-) Kim Bruning 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources" section 

message: I was going through Wikipedia policy, I stumbleed upon this Foundation issues. Upon clicking link, I was taken to meta page for Foundation issues. I could understand all five issues except "3. The "wiki process" as the final authority on content". Big question for me was "What is wiki process?". I typed "wiki process" as a search term and then was redirected to the article about wiki.  On this basis, I made guess that "wiki process" refer to editing by wiki based software.  However, while I was investigating further on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I came across definition of process which say, "A process is a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines (e.g. the "deletion policy" tells us how the "deletion process" works)". So does the process in "wiki process" refer to the former case or the later case? Later definition of process makes more sense to me. And if this is the case, "wiki process" article should not be redirected to wiki article.  It should be something like "wiki process is a central and organized way of doing things, according to wikipedia policies or guidelines." Since this is somewhat "policy" issue, I did not want to make edit.  Plus, I really didn't know where to take this question so I came here.  This place appear to be the only place where "Foundation issues" is mentioned. This is rather important because I'm currently perticipating in a debate about direction of policy and guideline in japanese wikipedia. You help is greatly appreciated.FWBOarticle
: It's a good question. Try asking on the mailing list too! Kim Bruning 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation issues 

message: Oh gosh, this is getting long. :-/ Maybe we can trim down a bit again? Kim Bruning 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 ! 

message: Could that section please be rephrased? I have seen it taken out of context before to support harmful decisions made to Wikipedia.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore all rules? 

message: ... sorry but... what about WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. These are policies that need to be respected. Without these, WP is not worth the pixels and bytes it uses ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? You can edit this page. Radiant_>|< 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why to fix what is not broken. What I am saying is that this simplified ruleset is superflous. We have already Wikipedia:Five pillars, that does a really good job, and if you want the minimalist approach, we have also Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my point? We have too many such pages, and it's confusing people. There's also the list of policies and the eight words version, and I'm probably missing a bunch. Radiant_>|< 09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please provide evidence of people being sanctioned for failing to follow the guidelines that you mention. Kim Bruning 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Confusing people? Which people? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Kim for a chance, because I said this page is confusing people and she thinks I said that people are being sanctioned for failing to follow those guidelines. I'd say that he's confused, thus proving my point. Radiant_>|< 12:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not work for me 

message: Below, i've placed two sample templates that could be included on any/all of the relevant pages. Feedback appreciated. 
My main aim, is an attempt to clear up the mess of "see also" links at the bottom of each of these pages. -Quiddity 20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your smaller alternative is perfect. I've changed my examples to use "Principles" too. I'll replace the "See also" sections in each page, with this table (which i'll templatise now), in the next few days. I'll leave the additional example links at "Simplified Ruleset". --Quiddity 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It looks odd at the bottom, and would be too large at the top next-to/below the shortcut. -Quiddity 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm currently most in favour of Option 1, used as a footer on each mentioned page. I'm shortening the wording on a few too, that should make Option 1 a lot clearer. Anyone else in favour, of either of them? I'm just going to forge ahead otherwise... -Quiddity 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added  to the bottom of Five Pillars, Simplified Ruleset, and Policy Trifecta. Feedback? Thanks. -Quiddity 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure whether it should be added to the Statement of Principles page, or the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia page? -Quiddity 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not altogether sure. The only obvious idea, is to merge option 2b above (the smallest list), with the bottom of the  template. But that would create redundancy if we used both. Did you have anything specific in mind? -Quiddity 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've merged it into and reorganized .  - PatrickFisher 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Centrx's revert. These should be seperate. They have clearly defined places and uses, that don't really overlap. --Quiddity 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines Box Template 

message: Good idea.  I like it. This is something we want to be very clear and easy to navigate.  I've created an simpler alternative, also. - PatrickFisher 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your smaller alternative is perfect. I've changed my examples to use "Principles" too. I'll replace the "See also" sections in each page, with this table (which i'll templatise now), in the next few days. I'll leave the additional example links at "Simplified Ruleset". --Quiddity 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It looks odd at the bottom, and would be too large at the top next-to/below the shortcut. -Quiddity 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm currently most in favour of Option 1, used as a footer on each mentioned page. I'm shortening the wording on a few too, that should make Option 1 a lot clearer. Anyone else in favour, of either of them? I'm just going to forge ahead otherwise... -Quiddity 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added  to the bottom of Five Pillars, Simplified Ruleset, and Policy Trifecta. Feedback? Thanks. -Quiddity 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure whether it should be added to the Statement of Principles page, or the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia page? -Quiddity 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not altogether sure. The only obvious idea, is to merge option 2b above (the smallest list), with the bottom of the  template. But that would create redundancy if we used both. Did you have anything specific in mind? -Quiddity 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've merged it into and reorganized .  - PatrickFisher 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Centrx's revert. These should be seperate. They have clearly defined places and uses, that don't really overlap. --Quiddity 18:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The way this page is written now, you won't be able to make it to admin anymore ...
<scratches head>
That's going to be tricky. 
Kim Bruning 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drat, I've made it more correct, but messier... Kim Bruning 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Being verifiable is nice, but it's useless for starting new articles. <scratches head>. You also don't need it so strongly for non-contentuous issues, so putting so much stress on it will likely cause more conflicts rather than less, which is exactly what we want new users to avoid. Kim Bruning 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ouw, this page no longer meets original requirements 

message: Interestingly, The trifecta divides rules into editing an encyclopedia, social behaviour, and wiki. And now we already seem to have 2 of the trifecta subdivisions back. Looks like that trifecta was fairly visionary :-)
Maybe refactor the page into the same 3 sections, but slightly expanded from WP:TRI? Hmmmm ...
Kim Bruning 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back from trifecta 

message: :11. Use the preview button; it prevents edit conflicts.
Does it? How? I get no notice of edit conflicts until I hit the "save" button... 
Hmm, it's vaguely alluded to at Help:Show preview:
:Saving only once is also a way of avoiding edit conflicts, as people will not see the article on recent changes, and therefore they are less likely to try editing it at the same time as you.
But this is definitely not the primary purpose of the preview button. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So BE BOLD and fix it. Kim Bruning 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That line has been there since January, and was added by a sysop. I had guessed that maybe there was something I was missing, like a preferences setting or something, because otherwise it would've been corrected long ago... or not. --Quiddity·(talk) 08:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview button 

message: in intro, end of 2nd para "quide us in our constant efort" -> "guide us in our constant effort"? David Woodward 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo overlooked or am i missing something here? 

message: I have a copy of these rules on one of my subpages, which I often read through to remind me of how to proceed (many thanks to those who put them together), but repeated reading of them has led me to the conclusion that "graceful" here is not the right word. In theory, it should be, because its root is "grace", and the point is that we should behave on Wikipedia with good grace; we will also have seen the word "gracefully" used with this meaning, as in "to grow old gracefully"; but for some reason "graceful" resists quite that meaning and, in my opinion, reserves itself for physical actions (and occasionally for a style of living which now has implications of wealth). I'm not feeling bold enough to make a change to the text simply on my own instincts, but I feel sure that the mot juste called for is "gracious". What do others think? qp10qp 11:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I've changed it to "be gracious". qp10qp 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "gracious" make sense. Terryeo 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be graceful

message: Edit of "consider..." based on Dictionary.com, which grants blanket permission for such links on this page. --Unimaginative Username 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for usage edit

message: Is it a guideline?  Policy?  Help page?  Essay?  Hard to tell.  It is missing the familiar and comfortable Wikipedia page header that identifies where this fits. —Doug Bell talk 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do Wikipedia:How to edit a page or Wikipedia:The perfect article or dozens (hundreds?) of others. We're endlessly self-reflective and classificatory (lists of...) ! And there's nothing anyone should object to here, so doesn't require an essay disclaimer. Lastly, in the interests of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, not every page needs a template. :) --Quiddity 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this page? 

message: OK, I decided to be bold and make a modification to a portion of the Ignore All Rules section. I re-phrased the final portion of it to read The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both. This guidence comes from the Ignore All Rules page and is, I think, a better way to summarize the phrase. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous wording also came from ignore all rules. :-) There's something to be said for either approach. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignore all rules

message: We are isntructed to follow this "ruleset", but what is a ruleset? 
I do not find this word in any dictionnary (English or Translation).
If it is simply a rule set, why not call it this way?
I encounter this term in programming, but have no idea what it really means and how to translate it in another language.
The rules and regulations for Wikipedia are important. Why use a word that (apparently) does not exist, in its title? Or if it exists, could someone please define it?
Suzel25 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I don't think it's that hard to interpret it as meaning "set of rules".  The alternatives, such as "Simplified set of rules" or "Simplified rules" don't seem quite as appealing.--Father Goose (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is RuleSet a word? 

message: The section says there are five....but there are only three numbered. - ??Skookum1 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Five pillars.  NewbyG  ( talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "5 Pillars"??

message: The "preview button" thing seems to stand out compared to everything else on the page.  I think there's something to be said for iterating quickly (especially in fast-paced contexts like much of Wikipedia), as well as rereading or rechecking even right after saving, and it's not difficult to get a diff that combines a string of saves.  Does it really ruffle editors' feathers enough to be in this simplified ruleset? —AySz88\^-^ 04:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. A user making multiple consecutive edits on an article during one edit session, especially with no edit summary, is a big drag for other editors following the article. There are many editors whose contributions look like the following examples because they don't/won't learn to use the show preview function:
. This makes it tedious to collaborate on those articles. Eric talk 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, it doesn't seem like the preview button is actually the thing being advocated there - it sounds more like the principle is something like "minimize changesets" or "combine consecutive edits", and using the preview button is just one possible means to that end. That fits a lot better with how the other 'rules' are structured, and is a bit more accurate to the spirit of the thing. —AySz88\^-^ 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview Button - important enough? 

message: I was working on a similar document for basic editing mechanics and navigation called WP:PLAIN.  I think it's useful.  I'm curious if it could/should be merged here, to create a single page where new editors could get all of the basics. Ocaasi c 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be. What's going on with Wikipedia:Plain and simple? It looks like basically just a copy of this page. Right now we got 3 separate pages: Wikipedia:Plain, Wikipedia:Plain and simple, and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset but all saying pretty much the same thing. -- œ™ 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PLAIN 

message: The second section is headed "Writing high-quality articles". I think it would be better as "Creating and editing articles" because we don't want to give the impression that the guidance in that section doesn't apply to all our articles. People might ignore it thinking "I'm not writing high-quality stuff, so this section isn't relevant". Are there any dissenters before I change it?  —SMALLJIM  11:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments, so I've done this.  —SMALLJIM  09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second section 

message: Anyone know why an empty citation is appearing prior to the beginning of this article's text? I tried to edit it out but I can't find the code behind it. Maybe it is supposed to be there...? Just looks weird. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  was at  some sort of test edit I would  ‎guess. -- Moxy (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting issue? 

message: This page and WP:PSG talk about the same exact thing in the same exact words. I was thinking about merging these articles together. Any thoughts on this? Interstellarity (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There does appear to be a large amount of duplicated information, but they are not identical, so a merge with redirect may be appropriate. I suggest a brief description of how you would merge, with an explanation of which would be the article and which the redirect, and why. I may not be following the changes here too closely, so if you want my opinion at a more developed stage, please ping for my attention.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what you are saying. I would also like to reach a consensus before merging or redirecting anything to anywhere. Interstellarity (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the amount of overlap easily justifies a merge with redirect. It looks like the intended purpose of the two pages is near identical. Both titles are reasonably appropriate. WP:Simplified ruleset is the senior, from 2005, while WP:Plain and simple is from 2011, and is part of a similarly named group. Somewhat surprisingly Plain and simple is classed as "Contributing to Wikipedia" in the navbox, while Simplified ruleset is under "Protocols and conventions".  (Pinging the creators of the two pages in case they have some input). I have no personal preference at this stage. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Support merge, specifically from WP:Plain and simple, which is too vague a name to be useful, to WP:Simplified ruleset which is clear, and which long pre-dates the other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Can anyone merge these two articles? Interstellarity (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it yourself? Is there any aspect in particular that you need help with, or do you just want someone else to spend the effort? Huon (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if I merged the article correctly. If I didn't do it correctly, can you correct any errors I made? Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

text: There's really no need for the help me template. All interested parties can see your response. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC