Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Overlapping policies and guidelines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Christopher Parham (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 15 February 2007 (→some suggesitons: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'd support merging. If the pages become too big, then we can have subpages under the same policy heading. So, for instance, Wikipedia:Deletion Policy may need to have '/undeletions' - but at least we'd keep it all together and have a composite introduction to the various parts--Docg 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see the point. Can I suggest that Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No legal threats be merged to a new page, Wikipedia:Behavioural policy, so that each page could have its own section and shortcut, because I would hate to see those useful statements declared in the page headers disappear. They have a vitality, an emphasis, which is needed here. Might also be worth considering merging Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy to Wikipedia:Deletion policies for a similar rationale. Steve block Talk 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the existence of {{Policylist Deletion}}. Separate pages are still possible if they are linked enough. Very large pages can put people off reading them. I've suggested "executive summaries" with "detailed subpages" in the past. Also, please don't confuse policies and "how-to guides". The latter are helpful when kept separate from the policies. Carcharoth 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some suggesitons

  • I think we could keep most of the old names intact (e.g. Deletion Policy, and What Wikipedia Is Not) simply because most people know those names. Not sure about BLP though, it's a rather awkward name. >Radiant< 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think BLP needs to stay. It is one policy that we are often having to refer non-Wikipedians too in regard to OTRS. Thus the name needs to be self-explanatory. It must not be confused with libels - else we get the 'it is true' 'they won't sue' responses. As the policy isn't just about bios but also bio material in other articles, perhaps we could rename it Wikipedia:Biographical information. It is really a sub policy of WP:V in reality.--Docg 11:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The libel page may just be a distraction. Having a policy that emphasizes the distinction between libellous and non-libellous material is probably a bad idea if, as you mention, that distinction is not the important or operative one. Merging LIBEL into BLP seems like a good idea to me. On the other hand, the libel policy is brief and to-the-point rather than bloated and cluttered like BLP, so it would be a shame to lose it. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I would characterize BLP as a sub-policy of verifiability; it is at least as much about NPOV. Well-sourced smears are easy to write. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Just to give some suggestions, here's a possible Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft. It still needs work, of course, feel free to edit. If people disagree with merging DEL, UNDEL and other pages, well, the main DEL page could use a rewrite anyway. >Radiant< 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raised on WP:AN

Doc G directed me here to avoid parallel discussion ... I would not like to see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy merged, as blocks and bans are explicitly not the same thing. Same goes for undeletion/deletion. Keeping them separate makes it easier for editors, particularly newer editors, to see what they need to see, rather than having to pick out the applicable parts of a huge page. Copyright violation and Copyrights are separate for good reason. I am not even sure how Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Usurpation are meant to overlap. Libel and BLP could be merged, though, as WP:LIBEL has very little content that isn't duplicated on BLP already. Proto ► 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I disagree with all of this. Whilst merging anything is not necessary, it may be advantageous. New users do tend to get confused by multiple policies. If related things can be kept together, so we've only got a few policies and less alphabet soup, all the better. No, blocks and bans are not the same thing, but they are related and often confused. Setting down the differences and how the relate to each other on one page may be very beneficial. Same with policies on user behaviour, or on user accounts. However, BLP and Libel should NOT be merged. They are NOT the same thing. BLP covers many instances where libel is not in view, and if the two were confused, we'd have real dangers of less care being taken by people who were sure they weren't libeling - but were opining negatively without citations.--Docg 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If our blocking policy also covers unblocking, and our protection policy also covers unprotection, why shouldn't our deletion policy cover undeletion? Of course they're not the same thing, but they're very closely related. >Radiant< 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm sitting, sock puppetry and usurpation are both policies which apply to accounts/usernames. In fact the word username is used in the first sentence of both policies. The overlap is therefore that they are both policies which apply to usernames. It seems expedient to try and keep related policies close together, and to try and reduce the number of policies, since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We shouldn't have six pages to which we direct a user so that they understand one point. That's my opinion. Steve block Talk 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subpage approach may help here. Have the front page summarise everything, and then allow people to drill down to different layers to find what they want. If they arrive at a deep layer, they can drill upwards towards the front page. Subpages are not used in article space for good reason, but subpages are useful in policy space, I think. The one thing needed to avoid confusion is a good way to list subpages below a page (the thing at the top shows pages above a page, but I don't know whether it can be changed to show pages below a page). At the moment, the policy pages are sort of organised this way using categories, but I suspect subpages would work better. ie. Organise things loosely using categories (ie. different flavours of Wikipedia pages and articles), but organise hierarchies in Wikipedia space using subpages. A workaround for showing subpages can be done using Special:Prefixindex. For example, see the subpages of Wikipedia:Deletion... pages. Carcharoth 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could do some things with opening/closing sections, the way DRV presently works. Just a thought. >Radiant< 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: merger of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

  • I oppose this particular merger proposal. WP:NOT is the primary page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a drill-down page that explains the issue in more detail. This is an issue that confuses many new users. The extra detail is useful. In a perfect world the pages could be merged. In practice, it would bloat WP:NOT and make it less readable and less useful. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't either/or. Perhaps moving this to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/a dictionary might allow a number of 'drill down' pages with attendant detail, and yet make it clear that it is still part of the same policy. --Docg 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, _but_...

I'm very much in favor in reducing the amount of policies, guidelines, and general alphabet soup. However, especially with policies, it is very important to make sure that the spirit of the new version matches that of the old versions without leaving anything out. Do we have any experienced wikilawyers on board with this? --Random832(tc) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hang all the lawyers". But I think we're clear that the aim is not to change any policy (not even any substantial changes to wording), but to reorganise what we've got. Besides which, we will want to wait for a lot more comment before doing anything drastic.--Docg 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a semi-official policy which is missing from the official copyright policy pages, or is not clearly stated there, regarding permission to use copyright material. I've actually been tempted to create a page describing the steps an editor must take to use copyright text in WP; which I suspect would be a candidate for merging into the copyright page. Αργυριου (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Overlapping_policies_and_guidelines&oldid=108440061"