Template talk:Supplement

Reversion by NewsAndEventsGuy

NewsAndEventsGuy, 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:

Where "essay pages" offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, "information pages" should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way.

142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Moxy: 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)

WP:CONLEVEL---Moxy (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:GUIDESMoxy (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're linking to that. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

makes sense if still in proper order [1]. --Moxy (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for use

This is an old lingering issue. Some people like to promote their essays to guideline or policy supplement. A policy supplement looks way more impressive than an essay that may represent only one or two wikipedians’ opinions.

One obvious and objective criteria should be immediately agreeable: if the guideline or policy page doesn’t like to your page, your page can’t be tagged as a supplement to that guideline or policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I understand what you mean about a supplement page looking more supported, although it has the same weight as an essay, but no one should be upgrading an essay to a supplement page unless it or the concept is supported in the policy or guideline the essay is claiming to be a supplement of. Are you stating that you want this page to state that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, this started recently with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy and the use of this tag on that essay.

You have missed that people have often upgraded essays to supplements without even a peep at the policy page?

The supplement tag definitely gives an essay more weight, I have seen it most definitely. The non policy wonks are impressed by the tag.

I am thinking that this template should be subjected to this simple objective rule (the page it supplements must link back to it), as proof that its existence has at list hit the watchlist of the policy page. The documentation her could state that, but more importantly a policy section somewhere should say it, probably a new paragraph spun out of Wikipedia:Project_namespace#How-to_and_information_pages. However, I opened a thread here to see what interested watchers of the template think. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I’m thinking about ensuring that supplemented policies and guidelines have a section like this: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Supplemental_pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I have not missed that editors "have upgraded essays to supplements without even a peep at the policy page." I have questioned changes. I brought up the supplement page thing in 2017; see Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/Archive 3#Supplement page vs essay page. As seen with that link, discussion took place on my talk page with WhatamIdoing and Moxy. We didn't conclude that a supplement page gives the essay more weight. In the minds' of some editors (especially newbies) it might, but it's still just an essay. Right below my WP:BRD notification, NewsAndEventsGuy, who'd upgraded some essays to supplement pages, pointed to the "Have some essays unintentionally been given quasi-rule status" discussion. I would state that there should be some sort of note on the template that supplement pages hold no more weight than other essays, but the template already states, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. [...] Use this template carefully, only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline. [...] Note : this template does not indicate a 'higher status' within the community for an essay, but is used to denote that the essay in question has wide acceptance to be linked from said policy or guideline page." Regarding what I asked you above, the template is already clear that no one should be upgrading an essay to a supplement page unless it or the concept is supported in the policy or guideline the essay is claiming to be a supplement of. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, I'd prefer not to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been my observation that the supplement tag does give an essay the appearance of more weight, and no three people can decide it doesn’t, as much as they agree agree that it shouldn’t. I do like the idea of my previous post that policy pages should have a section listing it’s supplemental essays. This makes sense for convenience of browsing regardless of any “weight” issues. Regarding the page in question, Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy, I see that someone has downgraded its tag from supplemental essay to explanatory essay. There can be no denying that some people see this hierarchy. “the concept is supported in the policy or guideline the essay is claiming to be a supplement of“? What is the measure of this “support”. I suggest it is the backlinking from the policy or guideline. Do you disagree with that? -SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've agreed that the supplement tag gives an essay the appearance of more weight; I'm stating that it doesn't have more weight, though, and the template notes this. I don't think we can keep people from seeing the hierarchy you speak of, but, again, the template does state "this template does not indicate a 'higher status' within the community for an essay." As for your suggestion that policy pages should have a section listing it's supplemental essays, do you want something added to this template? Regardless, such discussion should be had where more people will weigh in. This page is watched by few, and most of those watchers are no doubt inactive today and some likely accidentally watchlisted this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Perception is eventually reality. There's no way to give a typical essay a "stronger" tag and not have that essay's perceived importance and perceived consensus not increase over time.

OTOH, I can agree that a "supplement" tag doesn't give BRD more weight, but that's largely because so many editors believe that BRD is a mandatory policy. This tag would, and does, give greater weight to other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Policy describes not prescribes practice, including best practice. BRD is demonstrably practiced. For Wikipedians who have already learned the ropes, the taggery is irrelevant. The purpose of taggery, and wikilinking between policy guidelines and essays, is to assist the beginners in finding the relevant essay for their learning needs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the description/prescription distinction is mushier than that these days, and depends upon more than just the label we put on a page. For example, legal policies can be prescriptive, Wikipedia:Office actions is prescriptive, and others are "descriptive for 'us', but prescriptive for 'them'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it has always been mushy and has not changed. Legal policies carry the {{legal policy}} template, not the {{policy}} template, legal policies allude to some higher legal authority and should be considered separately. The greater number of tags has been a change.

The mushiness comes from needing to know reader. Early career Wikipedians tend to read policies and guidelines as legally prescriptive. Mid-career Wikipedians read them as descriptive of best practice, aware of occasional disconnects between documented policy and actual practice. Late career Wikipedians either ignore policy documents (policy documents serve as simple straightforward reading for the newcomers), or they use policy documents as forums for high-language wiki-philosophy debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We should not have to list the supplement essays in a separate section because they should already be linked in a section of a policy or guidine and is why they are tagged as a supplement. If an essay is not linked in the context of policy or guideline (not just the see also section) it should have the tag. All that said I would have no problem dropping the supp tag all together... as I've been trying to explain it in our P and G pages for over a decade. 5 years ago or so I tried a merger but got rejected out right....since then I and many others have outlined the problem at Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. And a few of us have tried to make the documentation here as clear as possible...even adding a note at the guideline page Wikipedia:Project namespace#Notes. If more could be done to make it more clear any suggestion would be great.... but till the community decides to drop this tag we're stuck with it.... and in fact I think it's been managed pretty well.--Moxy (talk),

• Delete tag altogether This tag is nothing more than a tool to stop the endless merry-go-round when some folks want P&G to include certain stuff and others don't but everyone's reasons are subjective. Partisans will often say their own reasons are rigorous and logical but the other side's reasons are subjective. What matters is how discussion-closers view the reasons. This dysfunctional escape hatch lets the advocates slap on "Policy supplement" as SmokeyJoe has described, and the detrctors just don't give a shit because if it ever comes up they can say "But its only an essay"!! It would be more honest, in my view, to just use "essay" on this material. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• I generally support SmokeyJoe's proposal as a best practice, but not necessarily as a rule. I'd also prefer that those links be integrated into the text of the policy or guideline, and not just in a long ==See also== or navbox list. That said, I'm not sure how we'd do that with WP:INDY, which could be considered an important "supplement" to at least WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. I'm sure that all of them link to it, but hundreds of pages link to it, and we can't (and shouldn't) cram them all into the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Granted that doing anything might be a large task, if the "supplement" tag went away maybe some of INDY could go into the P&G and the rest could become a "help" page... (with the same gravitas as essays) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  I've only re-written INDY once, so it's probably not ready for a guideline WP:PROPOSAL. It could also be considered for "info page" status, as the goal is really to explain something factual, rather than to provide advice on what to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  Getting back to this: about a year and a half ago, this edit changed the template to require naming the pages, which means that we're in a bit of a pickle over how to make the template work at WP:INDY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• If merger of Temps is the way forward best we get an RFC going... the talk here with the five of us isn't going to get us far without serious Community input. we're looking to change something that's been here for over a decade and has evolved many previous talks.--Moxy (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

agree; though I have little hope there will a clear consensus in the end. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• • What is “Temps”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I think "Temps" refers to "Templates". If memory serves, a similar template was merged into this one a while ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, WhatamIdoing, NewsAndEventsGuy, Moxy, and Flyer22 Reborn: I've recently seen a supplement not discussed for about 8 years but radically different now than it was then. I'd like to see them relabeled essays. "Supplement" sounds far too official. I know I'm here a year later, but it's never too late, is it? Doug Weller talk 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

What about "Subsidiary essay" ....less important than but related to...--Moxy 🍁 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe merge it with the other "information pages", and end up with one fewer group for people to argue about precedence over? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose any page claiming some kind of associate authority from another page, unless the authority page explicitly points to it. That is, for example, a page cannot be a "policy supplement", unless listed explicitly as a "policy supplement" by the policy page. Otherwise, these other pages risk being able to stray from consensus due to being under-watched backwaters. If the policy page makes an explicit listing, the policy reviewers will be reminded to check on them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm interested in SMcCandlish's thoughts on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think this is much ado about nothing. Having a {{Supplement}} tag on it isn't any kind of magical "promotion", it's just descriptive of the purpose and scope of the page; in this regard, it is like {{Information page}}, {{WikiProject advice}}, and sevearal other more specific variants of {{Essay}}. There's a cart-before-the-horse logic error in the above suggestions to require that a WP:P&G page make reference to the supplementary essay, or even have an entire section for it, since you kind of "can't get there from here": a P&G page isn't going to make direct reference, in its guidance (much less at sectional length) to a page that isn't already important. (Yet not all supplement pages are important; some of them are just drilling down into a technical matters, as at various subpages of MOS:ACCESS). Indeed, some of these ideas (especially "must be covered in a section") would probably result in editwarring attempts to inject a WP:SUMMARY of the supplement page into the P&G page it's a supplement of, just to satisfy this requirement. That would rather defeat the purpose of having the material off in its own page in the first place. Then again, there's very rarely any objection to adding essay pages to the "See also" sections of [relevant] P&G pages anyway, so a requirement to just be "mentioned" would be easily satisfied anyway. There's a second sensibility problem in that something can be a {{Supplement}} of a non-P&G page, such as another essay, a Help-namespace page, a process/procedure page, and so on.

  If a bunch of editors object to {{Supplement}} being on an essay page because they don't agree it supplements the target page and is instead just some random (even contrary) opinion, that is sufficient to put back an {{Essay}} tag (or other variant), or at least have a broader case-by-case discussion (even an RfC on the essay's talk page or whatever). For my part, I don't add this template to a page unless I'm certain of the intent of it and that it actually represents best practices. I have nevertheless had it removed a couple of times from pages on the bogus argument that there's something "official" and processy about this template. But I really don't care. We could actually just eliminate this template entirely, and use either {{Essay}} (or variant thereof, like {{Information page}}, as seemed most appropriate for the case in question), and everything would be just fine. If people are going to argue endlessly about this template (which does seem to be the case), I suggest we nuke it at WP:TFD as redundant to the aforementioned templates and nothing but a magnet for trivial but repetitive dispute. {{Essay}} and its spawn already have parameters for specifying scope, including that it interprets a specific P&G page. Consider also that these distinctions are artificial and rather unreal; we even have various essays (not P&G pages) that have the force of P&G pages in the community's Zeitgeist (i.e., they are cited as rationales in community, admin, and ArbCom decisions), yet they remain tagged with {{Essay}} (or a variant, including sometimes {{Supplement}}) because of their style or because they don't represent rules as such. Some obvious examples include WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:ROPE, WP:HERE, WP:CIVILPOV, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:CIR.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I despair when I see BRD being used as though it's a rule people must follow. I'd supported deleting the supplemental template. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree.--Moxy 🍁 03:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
This topic is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Should_review_be_needed_to_achieve_"explanatory_supplement"_status?. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Template supplement

Should {{Supplement}} be deprecated due to the confusion it causes regarding the level of community acceptance (gives a given essay more weight?). Essays in question thus should use {{Information page}} (the banner template for pages that are more just informational and non-opinionated ) or {{Essay|interprets=}} (the banner template for pages that are more opinionated then instructional or technical) or {{Wikipedia how-to}} (the banner template for pages that are more directly instructional and non-opinionated).

See above for long discussion.

Essays in question...

‎ Essays taged as "supplemental pages‎" (112 P)

Essential reading...

WP:GUIDES - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - WP:PROPOSAL - WP:PGE
Template:Supplement#History - Template:Supplement#Current usage --Moxy 🍁 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer.--Moxy 🍁 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Preference list by scores:

Formalize its use, by restricting its use to pages that are explicitly listed on the other page as a supplement. 9/10. Often, supplements are tangential or verbose explanations of the policy/guideline, supported by consensus, but removed from the policy/guideline for reasons of focus, concision, and readability.

Deprecate, and convert all uses to "essay". 7/10. Many Wikipedian rules are espoused in essays, and the merit of an essay derives from the essay. An example is WP:Deny recognition, an essay that often carries the enforcement of deletion.

Do nothing. 3/10. The current unclear situation where ordinary editors have to guess the meaning of the tag is undesirable, and it should not continued. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support, but not deprecated, just deleted (replace existing usage with the proposed alternatives) (as deprecation does not prevent usage). I personally dislike the existence of all essay-like pages. Their use in any discussion is masked by the same "WP" prefix used by policies and guidelines (as they require no consensus whatsoever to be created in the project space), making their their true nature easily mistaken (AGF here and not done intentionally). Supplement pages are the worse of the lot since their name makes them even more ambiguous. If a guideline page needs to be split for any reason (and to be honest, more often then not, they don't), that page should have the same level of community consensus and scrutiny that guideline pages get. --Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose pending demonstration that these pages as a class actually do cause confusion. I've never encountered this, and while I'm sure it's possible, it seems most likely these issues could be resolved by discussing, editing and/or downgrading to essay the individual supplement(s) concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per SMcCandelish in the previous section. The template is largely redundant to others like {{essay}} and creates doubt about the relative consensus of essays. This is a situation where standardization is useful, and {{essay}} is the better template for essays that are not P&Gs. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf. I see no evidence that anyone was ever confused by a template that explicitly says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (and has for over 12 years now without any reported confusion!). I also think there is a valid distinction between essays (which usually make some point) and supplements which merely attempt to explain another policy or guideline in more detail and for which there is consensus that these pages should exist to further explain a subject. Pages like WP:NOTOR or WP:CREEP are not essays and it would be wrong to classify them as such. On the other hand, for example, WP:DENY that SmokeyJoe mentions, might be widely cited but it's just one suggestion and there are opposing viewpoints as well. As for {{Information page}}, it does not serve the same purpose. Supplements are pages that build upon a policy or guideline. Information pages are stand-alone pages that provide information without relying on an underlying policy or guideline. For example, Wikipedia:Edit requests is an information page because it's not a page that merely further explains the protection policy, COI policy or another policy but instead tells readers how to do something, not what to do. Regards SoWhy 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is clear that the template has as much community acceptance as the page it comes to supplement. At least, that is how it should be. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation or deletion, for reasons I went into above in more detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Previous discussion

What is this word "decrepitated"? Do you mean deprecated? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just assumed so and have changed it boldly. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Examples of "the confusion it causes regarding the level of community acceptance" would be helpful. —David Levy 05:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  +1, especially since the difference in wording between {{supplement}} and {{information page}} is subtle at best. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I advertised this RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating language to reflect reality

Headbomb, I reverted you on this per the above. I mean, the #Criteria for use discussion and everything below it. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing above that warrants a revert. Re-reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: OK, now you are being tendentious. People above objected to the existence of the tag, and debated without achieving much of anything if there was a POLICY>SUPPLEMENT>ESSAY hierarchy. That has exactly zilch to do with "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community", which is a demonstrable untruth in a great deal of cases. Many supplements haven't vetted extensively. That is true. But many have. That's what the change to and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting reflects. If you come across a supplement somewhere, it may or many not have been vetted, and may or may not have consensus. But it is untrue to categorize all supplements as unvetted, or without consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All that discussion above, and you don't see how what I reverted you on again is likely contentious? Okay. Let's just ping the others and see what they state: SmokeyJoe, Moxy, WhatamIdoing, NewsAndEventsGuy, SMcCandlish, Gonnym, Thryduulf, Wugapodes (Wug·), SoWhy, Debresser, Izno, David Levy, and Tigraan.

And, no, I'm not being tendentious. Do not apply such a term to me ever again. You are the one edit warring over something that has been demonstrated as contentious on this very talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, someone that lands on WP:GAB, WP:PBLOCK, WP:TE, or WP:IS isn't landing on a random essay that no one saw or vetted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Talk, this heading you added to this discussion is also inappropriate, as it makes it seem that I added that. I did not. Long sigh. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add this heading, people.. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And per WP:Talk, the lack of a header makes it look like this is somehow part of the above discussion about weather or not {{supplement}} should be deprecated. This has nothing to do with that. New topics need new headers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is related to that. Either way, you could have given it a different heading -- a neutral one. Either way, it looks like I wrote that heading. It contrasts my comments. It's not like I stated that you updated the page "to reflect reality." But no need to argue over that any further. I've noted that it's not my heading. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• The issue above seems to be that some pages tagged as supplement are not accurately represented by the wording of the Supplement template? If so, given that there is clearly no consensus above that the template is problematic, very simply to change the template on those individual pages to something that does accurately represent that page - i.e. exactly what was suggested in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In what way does the updated/proposed wording (which refrains from implying any specific levels of vetting or consensus either way) not reflect the corpus of Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages. As oppose to the previous/current wording which implies that all supplements (like WP:TE or WP:GAB lack vetting). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Use wording close to what it links to??? This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been formally approved by the community through the protocols vetting process.??? Just says has not gone through a process for labeling without covering consensus...leave that to the linked policy.--Moxy 🍁 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Prefer the status quo wording. For the record I have only grown more convinced of my opinions that this is a net negative. If a page using this template has such strong consensus that the status quo wording is misleading, the essay should be promoted to a P&G rather than expand the scope of this template. Essays like WP:GAB and WP:BRD should be listed as guidelines because they have the consensus of guidelines quite obviously. I'm tempted to slap {{Guideline}} on one of them per NOTBURO but obviously WP:POINT applies. Regardless, I'm strongly against wording that would turn this template's use case into This page probably has the consensus of a policy or guideline, but it is not one because no one cares enough to start an RfC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That's putting the cart before the horse, and then some. In point of fact, WP:BRD and several of these supplement pages have already been through WP:PROPOSALs to be made into {{Guideline}}s, but consensus rejected the idea. So, you're basically putting the cart before a horse that's already been beaten to mush.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes (Wug·), the last big discussion about whether to elevate BRD to guideline status was five years ago: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#RfC: elevation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to guideline status. As seen in that discussion, I was against that. Five years later, I still am and for the reasons I stated then. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like either version. The pages don't "reflect" varying levels of consensus; they "have" varying levels of consensus. Perhaps more pointfully, different parts of each page may have more consensus than other parts. For example, just about everyone who "supports" BRD seems to like the part about getting to revert the other guy's bold edit and him not being allowed answer revert back, but some of them are really surprised to discover that it's a process recommended to problem-solving, compromise-oriented grown-ups, and not a get-out-of-jail free card for anyone who clicks the Undo button. So, yeah: There's lots of "consensus" for it. They'd all vote to make it a mandatory policy, so long as you don't let them read the page first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly I fail to see a large difference between may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting versus it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. If the argument is that some pages do have significant consensus (which the second version denies but the first version makes possible), see Wugapodes' criticism above. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tigraan: "it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" implies that a page hasn't been thoroughly vetted. Which is false on the vast majority of pages tagged with {{supplement}}. WP:PBLOCK and WP:GAB have been extensively vetted for instance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just repeat what I said before: Having a {{Supplement}} tag on it isn't any kind of magical "promotion", it's just descriptive of the purpose and scope of the page; in this regard, it is like {{Information page}}, {{WikiProject advice}}, and several other more specific variants of {{Essay}}. If the community wanted to create a new document level of "demi-guidelines" that have official imprimatur a notch below guideline and a notch above all the various forms of essay-level content, then the community would have done that, and yet it has not. If you think it should, use the WP:PROPOSAL process at WP:VPPRO to seek consensus create one (whether you want to it to use this template or something else). This template does not (and must not be altered to) imply that pages labeled with it have any form of authority, since there is no way to "police" use of this template effectively, and there is no process by which such authority would be established anyway. This purpose of this template is simply identifying the overall nature of the tagged page, as subordinate to and interpretational of some other page (generally but not necessarily a policy or guideline). While it would be appropriate to challenge the use of this template on a PoV-pushing user essay that doesn't represent a general editorial viewpoint, it is perfectly fine to use it on neutral pieces that do in fact capture the community Zeigeist about the situational application, addressed by that supplement, of a broader P&G page. Remember that WP:CONSENSUS is a condition not a process; an edit that reflects general community agreement is a correct edit whether the exact wording on it has been through a vetting process or not. In the end, this template should just be deleted if people are going to continue fighting about it. Most extant uses of it could be replaced with {{Information page}}, a few with {{Wikipedia how-to}}, and the rest with the generic {{Essay}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's really unrelated to the above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as unrelated at all, rather it seem pretty close to spot on. If the wording of this template is incorrect for a page it is on, change the template on that page. If there isn't an existing template that matches then get consensus for one. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

{{Supplement that actually has been extensively vetted, but which is still not a policy, a guideline, or essay because supplements have different purposes than those}}? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

{{Vetted supplement}}? Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there are a significant number of editors who believe that a supplement has higher standing than an essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Result of discussion

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)

I support this change. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

What do you think about changing "explanatory essay to" to "explanatory essay regarding" or, perhaps, "explanatory essay about"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

• Just pointing out that the template is inherently meant to tell the reader that the ideas discussed in the supplement have wide community acceptance in the form of policies and guidelines. It is not to be used on subjective essays. The usage instructions explain this clearly. We differentiate between objective information pages and essays, and explanatory supplements are information pages about policies and guidelines. It makes no sense to categorize them as essays and it is inaccurate. If the template is being misused, it should be replaced with the appropriate template. This template is meant to be used on objective information pages, and I’m not sure why we would just erase that concept. If you think the word “supplement” sounds unduly official, I’m fine with a change, and it looks like others are too. However it should say “explanatory information page”, and exactly what that means should be made a bit clearer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's not meant to indicate that there is wide acceptance, and it's not only used on "objective" pages. Sometimes it's used on pages that are trying to persuade people to do what the author believes is the right thing. Consider, e.g., Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?, Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, Wikipedia:Assume no clue. One of them is a humor page, and the others are promoting a viewpoint.

  I'm happy with this template using the "explanatory essay" wording. I wonder whether a page move might be in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• I support the change to explanatory essay. I get the sense that explanatory supplements and essays are on the same level in terms of community backing, so I like the idea of simplifying the terminology, to help newer editors crack our system of labels quicker. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)