Template talk:Guideline/Archive 1

message: I don't see what avoid using meta-templates has to do with anything. Just because this wasn't initially part of the list at WP:TS doesn't mean it shouldn't be standardized; standards are a good thing. Radiant_* 07:32, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Brightly colored boxes are meant for dramatically grabbing attention to some pressing issue.  They're garish on "day-to-day" pages. -- Netoholic @ 07:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
* Well, on both cases we should agree to disagree and ask for a third opinion. Radiant_* 08:31, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
::This is graphically a little too overwhelming to me. It's nice to have this note but it isn't the most important thing on the page, many times it is the most obvious thing on a white, otherwise plain, guideline page. - cohesion | talk 09:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: This template creates the impression of a standard or policy, when in reality the "guideline" may have a lot of opposition. Shouldn't :Template:Proposed be used instead? ··gracefool |☺ 03:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is a way to sneak in "standards" that many disagree with 

message: I have a mild objection to stating 'this is not policy' in this template, for the simple reason that nothing is policy unless specifically named as such; Template:Notpolicy was deleted for precisely that reason. Radiant_>|< 09:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I think it's needed to distinguish, to show that "guideline" isn't another word for or kind of policy. ··gracefool |☺ 12:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and thus used the def at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --mav 02:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, a clear wording is needed to ensure people don't see "guideline" and say "oh it's only a guideline I don't need to take any notice". Stifle (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not policy? 

message: So, I changed the sentence This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia to This page is a Wikipedia guideline. I believe it's an unnecessary softening that introduces more confusion than it needs to.
If Wikipedia's decision-making bodies -- including community consensus -- consider some rule or idea a guideline, then it is a guideline. What other definition of a guideline could there be? Is considered implies that some other group considers this a guideline, and it may or may not be so. If that's truly the case, such a group should probably be identified (This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia by the International Committee of the Red Cross), and it's questionable whether that information is sufficiently important to put on the guideline page itself.
This page is a Wikipedia guideline is clearer, plainer English. --ESP 23:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is considered -> is 

message: I strongly disagree with the change that says that the guideline is based on a consensus, that could not be farther from the truth, though guidelines are kept and generally modified majorly by use of a consensus not all guidelines are supported on a page by consensus.  This change has lead me to stop using this template due to the fact that the new template implies that a majority of users agree with the marked guideline most notably WP:1RR which while it would be appropriate to say that a number of editors agree with it would not fall under the saying that a majority agree with it. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
===for comparison:===
====Current version====
This page is a Wikipedia guideline. It illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
====Original version====
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards or conduct, which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I strongly agree. The current version is clearly misleading and pushy; why remove the note that it is not a policy, for instance? If a guideline has consensus, it's not a guideline, but a policy. That's what a policy is. I'm reverting, someone needs to address these issues first. There should be a distinction between policies and guidelines, because something can be labelled a guideline without going through requests for comment or similar proper community process. Most probably many guidelines out there are ready to become policy; but there are some which are not. ··gracefool |☺ 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement with current version

message: ====Current version====
This page is a Wikipedia guideline. It illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
====Original version====
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards or conduct, which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I strongly agree. The current version is clearly misleading and pushy; why remove the note that it is not a policy, for instance? If a guideline has consensus, it's not a guideline, but a policy. That's what a policy is. I'm reverting, someone needs to address these issues first. There should be a distinction between policies and guidelines, because something can be labelled a guideline without going through requests for comment or similar proper community process. Most probably many guidelines out there are ready to become policy; but there are some which are not. ··gracefool |☺ 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: for comparison:

message: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards or conduct, which some or many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I strongly agree. The current version is clearly misleading and pushy; why remove the note that it is not a policy, for instance? If a guideline has consensus, it's not a guideline, but a policy. That's what a policy is. I'm reverting, someone needs to address these issues first. There should be a distinction between policies and guidelines, because something can be labelled a guideline without going through requests for comment or similar proper community process. Most probably many guidelines out there are ready to become policy; but there are some which are not. ··gracefool |☺ 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original version

message: :Second parameter: it is not a good idea to force PAGENAME as default for the second parameter: most pagenames start with "Naming conventions (..." or "Notability criteria (...", not a good idea to sort on these PAGENAMEs in the respective categories.
:The person adding the template should better see something is wrong if (s)he didn't type a <category sort key> (...which typically starts with what's between the brackets of such guideline pagename)
That was noted by Francis in the template info for some
time. I kept his solution (no default for 2nd parameter),
but I'm not sure how good it is.
Omniplex 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort key (prehistory) 

message: Just noticed that the optional footnote parameter is not displaying properly on pages employing it. The page simply displays  instead of the expected text (see, for example, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Speedy keep). If I knew a little more about how the template works, or more accurately if I were a bit more bold in changing a major WP template, I'd take a stab at addressing the issue myself. As it is, however, I'm hoping someone else can fix this with my contribution limited to this simple note. ⇒ BRossow T/C 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly no optional footnote parameter, it's the sort key for the category. Visible is good, but just  is not goog enough. I'll try to generate a clearer error message. Omniplex 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See why I didn't wanna mess with it? ;-) ⇒ BRossow T/C 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesss... <g> I added a warning to ifdef that KISS is sometimes not what's really needed. -- Omniplex 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Attempted simple fix failed, and Francis doesn't like a default  (that would work perfectly for your examples), other ideas? Omniplex 15:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort key

message: I reverted to the last version I was sure was working, and typed this "edit summary" for the revert:I suspect the "ifdef" isn't a good replacement for "qif", or a faulty implementation
--Francis Schonken 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely something odd with ifdef, I've created a subpage for testing:  (note added slash, its discuss shows the test output). Omniplex 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I had disabled the category for the test talk page you've seen, otherwise the talk page would pop up in the real category. Some related info on my talk page, wrt the shortcut layout see another proposal by mangojuice in . -- Omniplex 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The usage info on the template page itself should be better now, it lists the available categories: The template is designed for precisely these subcategories, extending the list is possible, but would need some docu elsewhere. -- Omniplex 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code 

message: To eliminate the redundancy created by , I've whipped up a couple of versions with optional shortcuts via CSS magic at User:Alerante/Scratch/Policy and guideline with shortcut. I'll add my changes if there are no objections. æle ✆ 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Less talk, more action. Stevage 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The parameters work the same as  for backwards compatibility. æle ✆ 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated all of the  links to  with the added parameter. The Neokid 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version with optional shortcut 

message: I've posted an RFC at WP:RFC/POLICIES. I've requested that the discussion be centralized at Template talk:Policy (however I've left pointers to both these pages so commenters can see what's been discussed so far). I'll also be leaving a note at one of the village pumps. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: I think that the wording of this template greatly misrepresents what a guideline is. The definition at WP:POL includes the key points that a guideline is "(1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus" while at the same time "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This wording doesn't reflect that definition at all. Therefore, I propose that it be changed to this:
	This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.	
The difference between policy and guideline is not that one is actionable and the other is not, nor that one should be followed and the other should not. The difference is that both should be followed, and both are actionable, but a guideline is less polished, more open to revision and alteration and more likely to have exceptions in appropriate circumstances. I think that the current weak wording encourages wikilawyering from types who say "well, I don't have to follow so-and-so guideline, it's not a policy".
Discuss. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rewording, personally. Good work! Ziggurat 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion this strengthens guidelines too much, blurring the distinction between guidelines and policy. Maybe I just have a different view of what a guideline is supposed to be. Also, the language is too verbose and informal. Deco 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps change "should follow" to "should aspire to". Stephen B Streater 06:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guidelines are very useful to editors and many questions that arise are resolved on their talk pages.  I believe the template should include some statement about how absolute a guideline is without stepping on the creativity of editors. One element that appears too wishy - washy is the "set in stone" statement.  Some elements of Wikipedia articles actually are set in stone.  For example, Bolding the title of an article.  For example, using personal website opinion as a secondary source of information.   Could we have something like, "set in stone in called-out, specified areas while encouraging creativity in unspecified areas?" Terryeo 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: ;A cute trick used in several templates adding pages to a category is to say
:...<includeonly>...
;instead of only
:...<includeonly>...
In a template list category= (no value) can then disable a bogus categorization of the list with examples.
-- Omniplex 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've performed the requested edit.  —David Levy 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- Omniplex 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category parameter 

message: There's an existing SVG version of the PNG currently used in the template. We should replace :Image:Blue check.png with :Image:blue check.svg.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El T (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  The SVG version is rendered as an 859-byte PNG-24 file that's displayed improperly for most users.  The PNG-8 version is 685 bytes, and it's displayed properly for most users.  —David Levy 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd overlooked that for most versions of IE currently running 24 bit PNGs aren't transparent. Apologies El T 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  (I made the same mistake before someone brought this to my attention.)  It's quite refreshing to receive a response other than something along the lines of "IE users deserve to be punished for using such a crappy browser."  :-)  —David Levy 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a username, you know :-) No problem, I've reverted it. —Mets501 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement image 

message: I think we shoud insert the word "official" right before guideline (the part in bold). I think there should be a distinction between guidelines that are to be followed most of the time, and other things that are called guidelines (even style guides are sometimes called guidelines). Fresheneesz 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just learned that style guides are guidelines. How bout that. I know i'm not the only one with this confusion, and the word "official" would make it abundantly clear. Fresheneesz 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official guidelines? 

message: Lets talk about a change to this tag, or perhaps even its removal. This tag labels guidelines, does it not? It was not clear to me that it did that. Therefore, I propose that either we make it abundantly clear that this tag is equivalent to Template:guideline, or we simply use that template in place of this one. Comments? Fresheneesz 19:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this tag is for guidelines, apparently 

message: From the template: "and the occasional exception". Would this be better as "and the occasional exception"? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 22:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a good addition. Edit made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think this confuses new users about the importance of guidelines and should not be incorporated into this template. "Occasional exception" is not equivalent to "ignore all rules". IAR is a transcendent policy, but it shouldn't be bandied about casually. One can only "ignore the rules" when one knows the rules. It's the Zen of Wikipedia :) --LeflymanTalk 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth a link to [[WP:IAR]]? 

message: * "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." 
* "It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow."
No loss of meaning but much crisper. Marskell 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Can someone more adept at templates than I modify the category inclusion to allow sort keys (like Template:Subcat guideline)? Thanks. Libcub (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the purpose of  -- to allow the different sort keys.  If you want to use different categories like that, just go ahead and use that template. --JayHenry (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh wait, I misunderstood your request.  Yes, I can edit the template to do that.  One moment. --JayHenry (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the sort key feature to the template, but I'm actually unsure if it's necessary.  This template automatically adds pages to :Category:Wikipedia guidelines, but looking through there I don't see any pages that need a sort key.  I do see some user pages that aren't really guidelines, and should perhaps be removed.  We could either remove the Guideline template from those pages, or add a parameter that allows the category not to be added at all.  Sort of hate to gunk up the templature anymore than necessary though...  Does anyone else watching this page have thoughts? --JayHenry (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort key 

message: That's the suggestion for how to list two shortcuts...but almost all the time, I see WP:SHORT|WP:CUTS instead, which seems to work fine.  Perhaps that should be the suggested format. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>[[WP:SHORT]]<br />[[WP:CUTS]]</nowiki> 

message: Can we pick one or the other? The current wording is distracting, ungrammatical and clumsy, and undermines the credibility of what ought to be an authoritative tag. Thank you. 86.45.150.20 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  To be honest, I don't know how that change remained since December.  —David Levy 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you David. 86.45.150.20 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "talk page AKA Discussion page" 

message: This is the template's message:
This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page.
I suggest: This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow though occasional exceptions may apply. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page.
This is because that link is an essay, which is contradictory considering this is template was achieved by consensus and pages holding this tag were achieved by consensus.Bernolákovčina (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Logan Talk Contributions 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I have removed it from  as this is really not important enough of an issue to warrant listing there! (You could also remove the rfc tag I think.) I suggest that, as no one has objected to your rewording proposal, you go ahead (be bold) and make the change to this template. If anyone reverts your edit, then you will have someone to discuss this with. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks.  I just wanted to not seem zealous by doing something that hasn't received feedback.  Look above to see what I mean.  Thanks.Curb Chain (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Deletion Of Phrase 

message: An rfc was filed earlier with no response.  I am filing this rfc into centralized discussion as well.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it from  as this is really not important enough of an issue to warrant listing there! (You could also remove the rfc tag I think.) I suggest that, as no one has objected to your rewording proposal, you go ahead (be bold) and make the change to this template. If anyone reverts your edit, then you will have someone to discuss this with. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks.  I just wanted to not seem zealous by doing something that hasn't received feedback.  Look above to see what I mean.  Thanks.Curb Chain (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC For The Elimination Of A Phrase

message: See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. ··gracefool☺ 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a guideline different to a policy? 

message: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#Use common sense is currently piped as "common sense". However, that is an essay. Should the link be changed to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Guidelines (a rule) to be piped as "common sense"? --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link piped as "common sense"