Template talk:Supplement

message: <very_innocent_look>
So for 3RR purposes, how do you count someone unrverting a revert made by someone who reverts themselves? Can one get into unrevert wars? The discriminating Wiki-nomic player wants to know!
</very_innocent_look>
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see an unrevert war make its way to ArbCom. ;-) Rockstar (T/C) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR issue 

message: SIX (6) essays are currently in the CATEGORY. :Category:Wikipedia supplemental essays.
Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep is linked at WP:BURO.
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle  is linked at WP:CON.
Wikipedia:Edit summary legend  is supplemental to Help:Edit summary.
Wikipedia:These are not original research  is linked at WP:NOR.
Wikipedia:Understanding IAR  is linked at WP:IAR.
Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means  is linked at WP:IAR.
Little discussion has occurred at this page since DIFFsAugust 2007, when the monumental event (name change from supplemental to supplement) occurred. Thank you --Newbyguesses (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this ever renamed from "Supplemental essay"? That name seemed to explain what this page was much better. Now was this a request for more drama, or pointing out the lack of it.... hehe (1 == 2)Until 13:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No drama on this discussion page, [[Wikipedia:thank you|thank you]]. 

message: There are some essays that are linked from a policy/guideline. In other words, a policy explicitly delegates some of its inherent consensus to an essay, it tells you "do it as described in that essay". And here you have an actual "supplement": something added to a policy/guideline to fix a deficiency. This is somewhat confusing situation (grey area) when an essay is elevated to a semi-policy status. Intuitively I don't like the situation at all,  but I'm going to examine some actual pages to see if I'm missing some useful aspect here. A few examples, note the links:
Policy/guideline                              	Citation with essay links
Wikipedia:Consensus policy                    	"In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community."
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy	"Criticism and praise - Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack"
Wikipedia:Civility policy                     	"Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. (...) Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place."
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy           	"This policy describes what you can do when you have a dispute with another editor. See also (...) the essay Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips."
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy        	"Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules (...)"
Wikipedia:Deletion policy policy              	"Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause GFDL problems if attribution for contributed content is lost in the process. The essay merge and delete discusses this."
Wikipedia:Gaming the system guideline         	"Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): Bad faith wikilawyering - arguing the word of policy to defeat the spirit of policy"
multiple policies and guidelines              	"Use common sense."
--Kubanczyk (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policies that delegate to an essay 

message: I think there should be some clear direction for when to use this template and when to use Template:Infopage. The two seem to be saying the same thing, the differences, if any, should be made apparent. -- œ™ 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Same as [[Template:Infopage]]

message: FWIW, the grammar becomes bad (and borderline confusing) when the pages parameter is >1.  Right now it says (emphasis mine):
:"While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the WP:V and WP:OR policies, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."
Thanks! --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "That page" should become "these pages" when page parameter >1

message: Needs to be reset.  It has drifted gradually to give supplements almost the same power as the policy or guideline they supplement.
"While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement other such guidance, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."
* The word "While" does a lot of damage here. 
* "to supplement" implies the same or similar strength.
* "to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." (as well as being horrendously verbose for "to which editors should defer.")  points up the promotion of the content to near policy/guideline level.
I am replacing with the simpler and more accurate:
"This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to be an explanatory supplement other such guidance."
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: , why do you believe it to be "Incorrect" that "Per WP:INFOPAGE, explanatory supplements have a status distinct from that of essays"? WP:INFOPAGE is clear that there is a distinction between the two:
142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: iInformation pages are distinct in function ....but have no more status then other non-guideline/policy  pages. Only 2 levels of pages here....those approved by the community and those that are not....pls see WP:Local consensus.--Moxy (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not to say they have the same status, however. WP:INFOPAGE makes no reference to "more status" (or "less status" or any other hierarchical gradation of "status" between the two types of pages), but rather a distinct status, given that "some [essays] represent widespread norms [and] others only represent minority viewpoints" whereas explanatory supplements must represent "communal norms". There is clearly a distinction in their role. And if the idea of "more status" vs "less status" is not backed up by policies or guidelines, it is misleading to include it. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.....but one should be impartial and factual while  the other may not be...that is the distinction between the two. How can we make this clear in your view. --Moxy (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the assertion that one should be "impartial and factual while the other may not be" is itself an opinion, and it fails to draw any bright lines of distinction between these blurry labels.   Does that language appear in any of the guidelines or policies, Moxy?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out that explanatory supplements document "communal norms" in contrast to essays which may or may not do so. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  By making clear that an explanatory supplement is not a policy or a guideline, we are making a clear distinction as to the page's role. But where in the relevant guideline are we getting the language "more status"? I don't see any reference to a hierarchical gradation of "status" between the two types of pages in the guideline. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CONLEVEL---Moxy (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

text: WP:GUIDESMoxy (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're linking to that. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense if still in proper order . --Moxy (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion by NewsAndEventsGuy  

message: :Previous  discussion
What is this word "decrepitated"? Do you mean deprecated? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just assumed so and have changed it boldly. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I think it is like underdemeciated, which can also be understood as an amalgam of under-appreciated, demeaned, and emaciated.  Decrepitated would mean to officially label the term as decrepit, I think because applies because term on wikipedia has been ruined by extensive misuse.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: The first sentence of this discussion   Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Should review be needed to achieve "explanatory supplement" status?
Regardless of any disclaimers, "Explanatory supplement" gives the appearance of having some degree of official status, but it seems that the rules and practice are that any person can simply call their essay an "explanatory supplement". 
The result was to more clearly identify it as an essay by changing the initial text to "This is an explanatory supplemental essay" or "This is an explanatory essay".  It was not a big RFC or anything, but neither was the roots of the current wording, and it seems to be a safe obvious thing to do...to identify something that is an essay as an essay rather than (despite later disclaimer wording) having text which implies some official Wikipedia status.
I was thinking of slightly-boldly making the change to "the is an explanatory essay"   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I (think I) did it.   For me the first time I've (attempted to) edit a template.  I hope I did it right.North8000 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I like the "about" idea the best of the three. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Result of discussion