Wikipedia talk:Use common sense

message: This page was created as a fork of Ignore all rules.  Some felt there wasn't enough detail in "IAR" as it as called and others wanted to maintain its brief original form.  This fork was created to expand more on the concepts of IAR.  For a complete history, see the IAR talk page.  --Wgfinley 05:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Monty Hall problem shows that the idea behind this policy is flawed.Geni 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's no common sense. Zocky | picture popups 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't supposed to be policy at all. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About this page

message: I do agree – only problem faced (sometimes) is that common sense is rather uncommon. --Bhadani 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I opposed the creation of this policy; the title is inflammatory, and if you want to officiate it, you will have to majorly overhaul the words mentioning, and not excluding, common sense in the policy.96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Since 'common sense' is subject in question here, what does the photograph on the Project page have any thing to do with it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.96.60 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Common sense (1)

message: What path or policy exactly is this essay trying to propose? I see two potential applications that the author may be trying to support, but am not sure which is the intention.
:The first application would be essentially that if the rules seem to not directly apply to an issue, rather than fretting over it you should just take action. 
:The second application would be that if you personally think a rule is nonsensical, you ignore it.
The 1st application seems like wise advice, since the rules will obviously never cover every possible situation. The 2nd, however, is taking the position that personal discretion supercedes the Wikipedia guidelines and user consensus. Users who follow their own judgment over policy and consensus are the cause of more trouble on Wikipedia than anything else, with the possible exception of faulty article edits made out of simple ignorance.--Tjstrf 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'd say that maybe just as much trouble is caused by those users who become radically rule-absorbed. They can ruin the work of the less fanatical editors who don't have the time or inclination to fight a battle.  I think this essay is a reflection of the fact that rules often do not reflect actual consensus, but only the consensus of the fairly small percentage of editors who're willing to argue over them (and even then, the most persistent editor usually wins). Esn (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay purpose? 

message: Dear Wikipedian,you have acheived a considerable number of edits on wikipedia. This can mean, that you devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free encyclopedia. I would like to remind you, however, that Wikipedia is not the best thing that happened to mankind since 2000, it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local municipality, that would allow you to volunteer your time and efforts to help the diseased, disabled, or otherwise handicapped people. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a computer in their entire life, and don't know what internet or wikipedia is. Such organisations target hunger, diseases, or the lack of proper education in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you donate your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most.
Azmoc 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute, but what's considered a "considerable" edit count? Also, some people might be insulted by the implication that they don't do anything offline to help people. I know I would be, since I have a 1500+ count, but also am active in my community as well. So, I would definitely stress caution in using this template, if at all. --tjstrf 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be happy!

message: Elsewhere, it is stated that there is no common knowledge on Wikipedia, nor is there common sense. The idea of this essay does not contradict those, but the phrase it uses does. This is why I am moving this. The only thing being changed is the words, not the meaning, which is in line with what the essay professes.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you'd put this out for a consensus vote first.  The thing is, I had understood that WP and WP:SENSE were meant to complement each other like that.  Also, none of the essays you cited are policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, so it's not like moving this clarifies any official policy of Wikipedia.  You should probably read the fine essay Essays Are Not Policy.  Also, next time you move a page, please clean up your mess: you left behind a whole slew of double-redirects which I just finished fixing. Thank you. --Aervanath 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not liking the new name. It doesn't have the same connotations of simplicity, and the link is now out of context for most of its uses. I support moving it back to the old name. Picaroon 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the new name totally doesn't get the point across. Even if there is technically no such thing as common sense, the concept does exist as something we can refer to. This is as bad as when they started randomly shuffling around WP:VAIN for the sake of political correctness. Can we please move it back? --tjstrf talk 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm already the fourth person opposing the move, I've been bold and moved it back. Sorry for creating a number of double redirects once again, gotta fix that later. :) --Conti|✉ 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, move it back. I just feel that the name and the meaning are not at all the same thing in light of similar entries in the Wikipedia namespace. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving page to [[Wikipedia:Use your best judgment]] 

message: Common sense is what tells us that the Earth is flat.  And that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.  And that mass is solid and velocity is additive.  Common sense is fine as far as it goes, but it has to be tempered with the occasional reality check.  :)  Xtifr tälk 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your common sense can speak for itself! :-P --Kim Bruning 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As can that of my species! :p  ;)  --Xtifr tälk 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws 

message: This Essay could use expansion to cover other areas.  In particular I would like to see this discuss WP:GUIDELINES and the fact that are just that guidelines and the use of guidelines is actually subject to common sense.  Far too many editors treat guidelines as policy or rules.  This essay on Common Sense is the perfect place IMO to have a discussion reguarding this. Russeasby 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest expansion 

message: Indeed, I have recently seen some people oppose particular edits on the grounds that they are not required by codified rules, even though common sense suggests they improve the article. Michael Hardy 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use common sense 

message: Some time back this essay magically became a "policy supplement". Since policy is consensus based, and there has not been a consensus to make this a policy or even a supplement to policy I have returned it to the status of essay. If anyone wishes this page to be more than an essay please attempt to gain consensus for that first. 1 != 2 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IAR is only one sentence long, I feel like it kind of needs supplementing so that users (particularly new ones) can understand it without having to read long archives of talk pages they may not know how to access. I see nothing in here that goes against Wikipedia spirit, and nothing in here that isn't directly implied by IAR, so I would have no problem keeping this as a policy supplement. 1!=2, I agree with your assessment that this page never achieved consensus for policy, but that's not really how Wikipedia consensus works. This page was policy supplement for 4 months and no one objected; silence usually implies consensus, and unless there is strong disagreement, I think it should remain policy supplement as default. - Chardish (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well here's another one - under no circustances should this be a "policy supplement" until consensus is shown. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  As far as I can see, each of the five pillars already has a page, so what's the reduandancy here for?  --Fredrick day (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be a reason to merge, but good luck changing the IAR page.  Or maybe we keep it as clarification just like Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means.  They sure seem similar to me.  Both are attempts to better explain a central concept in Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you still need to get consensus that the clarification is not a novel interperation of what those pages say before we slap the word "policy" anywhere on this page. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's time to think about upgrading WP:COMMON to a guideline? PSWG1920 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as an essay 

message: Has a Common Sense Noticeboard ever been considered?  By that I mean a noticeboard where disputes involving claims of common sense could be linked to, which could also potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines may need to be reworded.  Does something like that already exist? PSWG1920 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that what's important is what you're applying common sense to, and the subject matter probably what should determine which noticeboard it goes on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense noticeboard? 

message: The infopage tag is apparently used only for pages that neutrally describe parts of wikipedia (though it seems that help pages have taken over this role). This page advises people to use common sense. Was this a guideline before? If not, then someone should correct me and change it to essay, or whatever it was.    M   01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's a less zen-like rewording of IAR. Oh. Wait. <Facepalm> --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Does your common sense tell you that Wikipedia will be improved by an extended discussion about whether or not this page should be a {guideline}, {policy}, or {essay}?  I'm done now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, wasn't this a  to IAR or so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  + <raises hands in surrender>... I'm not going to be rocking the boat here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infopage 

message: *wow... I think some of you need to take a breath, and then review what you've written here. "Idiots"? "Morons"? "They need to be forced"? Geez... Do I really need to point out the problems with the line of thinking that some are espousing here?— V = I * R (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool down

message: The guideline template itself uses "common sense" as a recognized standard of behavior and judgment. If "common sense" itself is nothing more than an "essay", then this description becomes illogical. That's bad. There's no point in hiding this under another header other than to obscure this policy because of a philosophical disagreement, which, after reading the above, is hardly convincing or widely recognized. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some kind of forking of ideas here. "Common sense" in the above template refers to the "Use common sense" section of another page. Things needs to be tidied up so we can see what's what. But the fact that a page called "Use common sense" is marked as an essay doesn't mean that "common sense" itself is an "essay" - common sense is a fundamental principle that ought to take precedence over everything, regardless of what pages people have written to talk about it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right, I've just looked at the history - this page was redirected to that other page until just now. I don't think you should resurrect old guidelines and just declare them unilaterally to be guidelines again without new discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I did, the page was marked as a disputed guideline & just reverted further to the use of a non-policy tag. However I agree with taking greater care with the semantics of this dispute. While the contents of this page are implicit in the greater body of core Wikipedia policies, I think that relegating it to a subsection of an "essay" minimizes the importance of what is said here and implies that use of common sense may or may not be the general consensus. Use of common sense is the consensus, if not the very spirit, of Wikipedia editing practices - with notable exceptions. It is not a direct equivalent of IAR, but a specific and important safety net. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: This page, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia:There is no common sense were merged into a single one, as their main overall idea is basically the same. MBelgrano (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, however this shouldn't have happened as WP:UCS is no mere essay and is not subordinate to the other essay's interpretation of IAR. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even policies and guidelines should be merged if they are redundant with others. The idea of this page isn't anything that isn't already considered by the more generic IAR. The system developed was a good one: keep just the simple policy, and merge all explanations of "how do we use this policy on everyday work" at a linked page somewhere else MBelgrano (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page wasn't merged because it was redundant, it was merged because an editor thought it was "over-promoted", i.e. he disagreed and wished to make it less noticeable. The original essay cum law was concise and useful (or at least widely used). It has a distinct and separate meaning from the explicit IAR policy. While I hope that most contributors have an inherent understanding of common sense and its relation to the application of policy, many, many events have led to the necessity of explaining, in no uncertain terms, that it is an essential component of deciphering policy. Again, relegating it to a somewhat-related essay written at a later date is nothing more than a begrudging compromise that reduces the value of having an easily accessible resource. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further dispute