Template talk:MoS-guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reverts[edit]

Tony and Marskell have reverted my edits. The reason for them is to bring this page into line with the policies and guidelines page, which describes policy as "a standard all users should follow" and guidelines as "more advisory in nature." This has been the distinction ever since I started editing in 2004. To replace advisory with "should follow" is meaningless, because users "should follow" policy too. Also the "set in stone" thing is poor writing -- policies aren't set in stone either. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I said above, not all these pages will be part of the MoS. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that we need wording that distinguishes Ps from Gs. But I'm concerned that the present wording may amount to declaring the Gs irrelevant. How about: "It is a widely accepted standard that all users are advised to follow. It may admit to the occasional exception and should be approached with common sense." Marskell (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the non-MoS page problem, I think we need a third template, as suggested above. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
First, could we create a special MoS template for the pages that are explicitly part of the MoS? That would solve that issue.
As for the wording, "it is a widely accepted standard that all users should follow" (or are expected to follow, I forget the exact words) is how policies are described. The usual way to describe guidelines is advisory. Can we simply say "are strongly advised to follow it, but it is not policy ..." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noted my objections to the "it is not policy" wording (which Tony1 appears to share) at Template talk:Guideline#SlimVirgin's edits, and I await a response to my most recent comments there (which you ignored before bringing this template "in line" with your disputed change to that one).
Also note that while I agree with this reversion, labeling it "minor" was inappropriate. —David Levy 14:07/14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure who these posts are directed to. You said the edits to the other version were an improvement and that "set in stone" was inappropriate.
The point is that all the templates should reflect the wording on the policies and guidelines page (which I think is policy), and should be consistent. Guidelines shouldn't be described as indistinguishable from policies. We have vast tracts of very badly written guidelines that no one pays attention to, unfortunately. Therefore the template has to make clear that they are not policy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I did indicate that you made improvements to Template:Guideline's wording and that I agree with your rationale for removing the phrase "set in stone." I also explained why I feel that the "it is not policy" wording is unsuitable. Of all of your changes to the template, that's the only one that I contest. I strongly agree that it's important to convey the distinction between policies and guidelines (which your new wording helps with), but I believe that such a statement is not a good way to accomplish this. Please re-examine my comments at Template talk:Guideline#SlimVirgin's edits for an explanation of why. —David Levy 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And yes, may admit to the occasional exception is much better. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, SV, creating a special MoS template would be just excellent—long overdue. I must say that the situation with templates partly mirrors the chaotic organisation of and relationship between styleguides, MoS pages, etc. I know people who are keen to overhaul it, but that will be a big project in itself. Newbies must despair at the moment. Tony (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The whole thing is a mess. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Do note my wording, Slim: "It is a widely accepted standard that all users are advised to follow." It keeps your word, without the subtle deprecation of the current.
I don't speak template. If I c/p everything here to a new page, what happens? Marskell (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just that the "widely accepted standard" language is policy language. It would be good if we could tell them apart. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) We're agreed, at least, that a third template can be created. I suggest MOS-guideline. As a unique part of the guideline structure, it could have whole new wording. "This describes accepted standards of style and formatting that make articles consistent and easy to read" or some such thing. Who can do up a template? I don't want to screw something up. Maybe JayHenry up the page?

As for the wording on Template:Guideline, are you suggesting not having language to the effect of "widely accepted", Slim? I don't dispute that there are bad guidelines around. But there are also good ones. AGF is a guideline. It's not something we merely advise, but something we expect of users. LEAD, which we've just worked on, is also a widely cited standard. Marskell (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not all are, and yet the templates are on all of them. That's why I'm trying to find consistent language that doesn't seem to upgrade guideline to policy, but also doesn't downgrade it to something that can easily be ignored. "Strongly advised to follow" seemed to fit the bill. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that we just rename this template MOS-guideline. For other style guidelines we can continue to use the style guideline field of {{subcat guideline}}. That way all the guideline pages have standardized wording from a central location. Whatever wording we decide upon for the somewhat unique creature that is our MOS, we can keep on this template at a new name. --JayHenry (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I went with "strongly advised" on the main template. I won't edit this one, as larger changes are afoot.
What do we do exactly, Jay? Can you take care of the rename? Marskell (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and I moved it to MoS-guideline. I'm hoping that hasn't messed up anything else. The world of Wikipedia templates is largely unchartered territory for me. If anyone disagrees, feel free to move back, of course.SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I like this edit of yours, Marskell. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, simply moving it is all that's needed. Templates still work through a single redirect. (if you move it again you'd have to go fix all the pages that use the template to the new name.) Might want to go through whatlinkshere of both this and {{subcat guideline}} to make sure that the right template is on the right page. --JayHenry (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the wording:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It describes accepted style and formatting that renders articles consistent and easy to read. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Rather than explicity directing people to do something, it lets the nature of the pages speak for themselves. Marskell (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would leave out the "renders articles ... easy to read." Not everything in the MoS does that. I would simply say: "This guideline is part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which describes accepted style and formatting. As with all guidelines, it may admit of the occasional exception and should be approached with common sense. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Drop "easy to read" but leave "consistent," maybe, as that's the name of the game. Marskell (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha, well, we're really down to nuts and bolts. "Admit of" sounds very odd to me; maybe a Brit/American thing. I think simply "admit" is fine. Marskell (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "admit of" is correct in BE and AE. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked up in OED. It's not incorrect to say "admit of" but even OED lists the prepositional verb as optional. Difference in meaning is negligible. Merriam Webster lists "to allow scope for", transitive usage, as the primary definition. Clear writing generally avoids prepositional verbs anyways, and Marskell's suggestion sounds more natural to my ears as well. --JayHenry (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, to some readers I suspect admit means little different than confess. I'd drop it as a triviality, but since it's on our MoS of all places we better get it right! Maybe allow, which is less severe than permit, but not ambiguous? Or maybe suffers the occasional exception, which is a more accurate summary of discussion around MoS disputes? --JayHenry (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So why not, as defined, "allows scope for"? That would be clear and plain for everyone. Tony (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Any problem in removing "English Wikipedia's" from "the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style"? It's a given in this context, it's really the "English-language WMOS", and the ambit of "the" is unclear. Tony (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have come in late, but I have read through the proposed changes and the reasons for them. I am concerned about the current wording:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors are advised to follow it, but it should be approached 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.

It is infelicitous to say that it should be "approached with [...] the occasional exception", regardless of what stands in the middle here. The rest is mildly awkward too. Passive voice, and so on. I do think we need to retain mention of English Wikipedia, against wikilawyering at non-English Wikipedias. My proposed text:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page in accord with consensus, checking on the talk page first.

Well, I can confidently predict that not everyone will like that exact formulation! But it is short, direct, unambiguous, and suitably directive. Checking on the talk page is suitably indefinite, though: it can mean peruse the talk page (often this is enough), or raise the matter on the talk page (when a mere perusal is not enough).
– Noetica♬♩Talk 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's much better, but I suggest this ending: "Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the talk page first." How's that? Tony (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes Tony, that may be good. For some uncontroversial alterations explicit discussion isn't needed; but we may want to err on the side of having editors discuss changes by default. So here, for clarity, is a version that you and I both endorse (retaining existing wikilinks):

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the talk page first.

What do others make of that?
– Noetica♬♩Talk 12:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I take it that no one objects to the proposed wording, then?
– Noetica♬♩Talk 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's quite good. Clear and concise. I particularly like the emphasis of improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. Is SV around? Tony (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with it. The "occasional breach" is somewhat non-colloquial.
Just to be clear, the MoS/non-MoS page problem is solved? The non-MoS pages will take subcat guideline? Do we need to go through and audit for that? Marskell (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the wording, though I'd prefer no link to IAR, as it suggests we're actively recommending that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1. What's wrong with recommending that users follow IAR?
2. Do you object to the adoption of the same wording (or whatever variant we agree on below) for the other guideline templates? —David Levy 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I said above what was wrong with including IAR. As for the second question, the people who maintain the MoS should be allowed to decide on their template, so it needn't be the same as the other guideline ones. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Your explanation is that "it suggests we're actively recommending" IAR. I'm asking why that's a problem.
2. Do you actively oppose adopting this wording for the other guideline templates? You note that it needn't be the same, but is there a reason why it needs to differ? You don't appear to believe so, given the fact that you recently edited both this template and Template:Subcat guideline specifically to harmonize their wording with that of Template:Guideline. —David Levy 02:47/02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored SV's exception. I see no actual objection to it; and I join in the deprecation of breach. MOS is not a moral law, which can be breached. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording II[edit]

I'd be happy to discuss my changes (which I didn't realize would be controversial). What are the objections? —David Levy 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is more precise as the Manual of Style applies to articles. Deviation suggests that one who does it is a deviant. The final sentence added a bit of unneeded verbiage. I prefer the consensus version, that we agreed upon after several days of discussion in which participation was invited. The link to IAR doesn't bother me one way or the other, but "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" seems to be exactly the spirit of what we're saying here. --JayHenry (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Some of the MoS, such as this part, applies to pages other than articles.
2. Oddly enough, I switched from "breach" to "deviation" to remove what I perceived as a negative connotation. (To me, "breach" implies wrongdoing.) The "deviant" connotation didn't occur to me.
How about "departure"?
3. The current wording appears to indicate that people shouldn't perform any edit (including a minor one) to a guideline without first proposing it on the talk page. Would you (or Noetica) object to simply changing "proposed" to "major"?
4. I would prefer that the IAR link be included, but I'd certainly be willing to entertain SlimVirgin's argument to the contrary. —David Levy 22:59/23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for discussing here, David. In future please show your proposed changes here clearly, to save others having to jump around in search of the different versions. Here is the text as it stood:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing proposed changes on the talk page first.

And here is the text as you wanted it:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional deviation will improve a page. Edits to this guideline should reflect consensus, and any major changes should be proposed on the talk page first.

First let me comment on Slim Virgin's removal of the link to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which I have also reverted since it was not proposed and discussed here first. At the head of the IAR page is the following box:
It would therefore take some argument to support removing the link from the current template, as "not appropriate here".
As for your own points in reply to JayHenry, David:
1. Some of the MoS, such as this part, applies to pages other than articles.
That is not settled. MOS is indisputably about articles; beyond that, more discussion is needed.
2. Oddly enough, I switched from "breach" to "deviation" to remove what I perceived as a negative connotation. (To me, "breach" implies wrongdoing.) The "deviant" connotation didn't occur to me. Perhaps we can come up with a better term than either.
Breach is more neutral than deviaton. I still like breach. I might be happy with variation. No, I don't like departure. It's ambiguous and ill-focused.
3. The current wording appears to indicate that people shouldn't perform any edit (including a minor one) to a guideline without first proposing it on the talk page. Would you (or Noetica) object to simply changing "proposed" to "major"?
Major is too major! See discussion above, arriving at the current compromise. Better to err in favour of discussion first. People will use common sense not to discuss truly minor changes, or changes that fit with a consensus that is already settled.
4. I would prefer that the IAR link be included, but I'd certainly be willing to entertain SlimVirgin's argument to the contrary.
I agree on retaining the link to IAR. Let's see what others think.
– Noetica♬♩Talk 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


1. Ah, I wasn't aware that this was disputed. Where is the relevant discussion taking place?
2. "Variation" seems fine to me.
3. I agree that it's better to err in favor of discussion. Instead of "major," how about "non-minor"?
Okay, so here's what I currently propose:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional variation will improve an article. Edit this page through consensus, discussing non-minor changes on the talk page first.

I welcome alternative ideas, of course.  :-) —David Levy 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the current version as was agreed above. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Could you please explain why? —David Levy 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic categorisation[edit]

I think that this template should automatically add pages to the Category:Wikipedia style guidelines.

The description at Category:Wikipedia style guidelines says that this template does auto categorise pages, but the current code in this template does not do that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right category. I think I even managed to make it work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoary's wording[edit]

The wording at #Two versions: which do you like and why? still seems better than what has evolved since, and it shows the clearest signs of support (with occasional exceptions, which I have retained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't legal boilerplate. The current wording is concise and precise enough for most purposes. The "clearest sign of support" IMO is that until you took exception to it the wording had been mostly stable for over a year. The clearest sign that your claim of consensus here isn't as firm as professed is that you took to edit warring over it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored it when reverted without discussion by a boor. Now that there is discussion, it is self-contradictory; if absence of tweaking shows consensus, then the presence of tweaking (and there has been other tweaking) shows absence of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As for concision: the most concise variant would be a combination:
    This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.
I omit the links, as obvious, and not under dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. This omits "all editors should follow", which is contrary to WP:POL: Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.. If anybody has a justification for should follow (and I like ordering all Wikipedia doesn't count), let's discuss it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blind obedience[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidelines are being cited for petty rv.

Added

It is for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools.

Emphasise the common sense part, which has been ignored lately. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed, for obvious reasons. Please don't muck about with important templates. --Ckatzchatspy 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop wikihounding me; you turn up within an hour to revert? You are guilty of petty rv. using the MoS as justification. If you hadn't been wikihounding me with petty rv., then I wouldn't have been inspired to use that famous quote.
I think this is a great quote, and encapsulates exactly Wikipedian ethics. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Harry, not everything is about you. I had to deal with this page months ago, and had watchlisted it before even that. If you make inappropriate changes to important templates, you can expect them to be reverted pretty quickly. --Ckatzchatspy 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It was a BRD edit summary I left. This invites honest debate. Which I think excludes you, Serindipodus & Ruslik, who have been tag-team reverting me for some months now.
So for honest debate I will re-instate it, and you can leave it to someone else to properly revert - then some useful debate might happen. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not reinstate it. Tony (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

9.4) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as the talk pages of those policy or guideline pages, and any related template pages.
10) Tony1 is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. Tony1 is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These nearly made it through, not much change in your attitude? HarryAlffa (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You wish, do you? ArbCom realised the punitive sanctions for most parties were highly inappropriate and reconceived them. Now, just why this is relevant to your strange edits to this template is the big question. Tony (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't wish. I suspected they were a bit much. The question part of my contribution is the relevance. I expect disparagement from Ckatz, as above, but your edit summary, "Rv; please do not tamper with an important template in the absense of consensus", and description of "strange edits" ... well ... "tamper"? My edit summary was, "Bold. Revert. Discuss!", instead of discussion you say "don't tamper without consensus" - what you are saying is, "don't WP:BRD or WP:BOLD without consensus" - which, you have to admit, is highly amusing. Is that what you meant? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the quote is an RAF "proverb" on Queens Regs. I think it a useful axiom for Wikipedia, and is a pithy way to amplify the cry for common sense. I find it's language and sentiment in agreement with my own outlook on life in general, and I think it echoes much of Wikipedia's best ideals. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic[edit]

It is for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools.

I think this is a great quote, and encapsulates exactly Wikipedian ethics. With the main focus on accurate content rather than expending great energy checking format rules - you can if you want, but don't become a WP:SPA for MoS! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have great optimism that many WPian editors improve their skills as they contribute. Calling some of them "fools" is out of spirit with the project. I don't wish to continue this debate. Tony (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. This is not a constructive message that we should be sending to users. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Text Of The Message[edit]

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.


Use common sense is an essay, and since this template is located on actual consensus achieved pages, it seems contradictory. I am going to be bold and remove this and instead having the following:


This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And I revert. While common sense is not always used with MOS, it ought to be; and the essay is a consensus explication of WP:IAR. Discuss? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But it is an essay.Curb Chain (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why should it ought to be?Curb Chain (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC For The Removal Of The Non-protocol Page Reference[edit]

I see that this template is referencing an wp:essay. Essays do not have the consensus of the community, so it is non sequitur to include such a link.Curb Chain (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't insist on the link; but what the section referenced says is:
Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.
Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.
Is that not consensus, even if it appears in an essay?
(So is the rejoinder that follows; that "common sense" cannot merely be one editor's private view, and must serve the good of the encyclopedia.)
All too often, users and writers of the Manual of Style needs to consider whether there has been a lack of perspective. Whether this RfC, with its demand for "protocol", is an example is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." says {{essay}}. The link references a section of an essay. "policy" used in this context means that it as been accepted by the community, with consensus.
The first sentence of the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus says: "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus...". So this page does not of consensus, or the community's consensus. This is the reason why I do not think this template that is an established part of the community, whatever it tags indicates that it has the consensus of the community, should not link to a page that does NOT have the consensus of the community. See wp:common sense is not common.Curb Chain (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop treating Wikipedia space as a set of laws; it is policy that it isn't. It is also policy that whether something is policy is not determined by a tag, but by whether it is general consensus. (This applies doubly to individual paragraphs within essays, which may well have more - or less - support than the parent essay.) You are Wikilawyering, which is an offense; far more seriously, it is an indication that you don't understand how our system actually works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I simply do you not agree with your view. If the paragraph within the essay has more support, then it must have more power (in terms of enforcement) than an essay. I can disregard any essay that someone cites. Policies and guidelines, I need consensus.
And if the "parapgrah" has more support than the rest of the essay, how would you determine that?Curb Chain (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
By seeing how widely the sentiment involved is agreed with - and, more important, followed in practice. This is a restatement of WP:IAR, which is very widely supported (see how often it is linked to). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
wp:iar is linked to often, not wp:ucs.Curb Chain (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That is my reply. wp:iar is a policy, and wp:ucs is an essay, so by virtue, I can throw out your argument. Please refrain from making inflamatory comments.
Curb Chain, I recommend that you read WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. People get banned and blocked over "just essays" like WP:Tendentious editing, or refusing to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Many things that are "just essays" are widely accepted pages that no one has felt a particular need to have canonized as official guidelines. Some "just essays" have broader and deeper support than formal guidelines.
IMO this link does no harm and may do much good. It should stay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, tendentious editing is a summary of policies-and-guidelines, and wp:bold, revert, discuss is a flow chart of our policies-and-guidelines. Editors aren't blocked over essays, they are blocked over our polices. For example, an edit war is a manifestation of reverting and arguing, and combination of wp:disruptive editing and wp:3rr. No, by the virtue of an essay, it does not represent wider community. A guideline has be put forth to the community as a description of the practices of the community. An essay does not have that indication. Of course, if an essay does have that indication, then we should "canonize" it as a "promotion". "Some "just essays" have broader and deeper support than formal guidelines.": I refute.Curb Chain (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you are unaware of the hundreds of advice pages that have been labeled as "guidelines" but were never "put forth to the community". You might start with the list at Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, for example; note that the text explaining their lack of community endorsement was written (by me) earlier this year. The community approval process described at WP:PROPOSAL is also a relatively recent invention, and cannot be assumed to have been followed for any page marked as a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:PROPOSAL doesn't seem to be relevant to the issue at hand. Style guidelines of WikiProjects are actually more like wikiproject style conventions, because most of the details in these pages contradict wider-consensus pages such as wp:mos and mos-pages.Curb Chain (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Disclosure: I am unsure of the precise topic.
If this is asking if policy-level templates should include essays, I agree they shouldn't. This is clear IMO. Policy is policy and essays should not creep in unless made policy by the Wikipedia community in the normal way. Heck, I've written essays! While a few are often linked in discussions, there are hundreds, if not thousands of them. None are policy until the community decides that. There should be no "back door" to promotion. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a policy-level template; it's called {{MoS-guideline}} and calls its pages guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Student7, the issue at hand is the simple removal of the text of this template from:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

to

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

.Curb Chain (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you just wanted to remove the link. Isee, you want us to stop using common sense altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
What? Are you being serious? Your comment does not seem to be constructive to this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In telling editors to use common sense—and linking to that essay—this template does nothing more than repeat what is present in the official policy at WP:Policies and guidelines (three times, and once specifically with respect to guidelines). Removing that makes this guideline less descriptive of our formal policies, not more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Curb Chain has started discussions proposing the removal of "common sense" in at least these locations (the first of the following was started by Bernolákovčina):

It is unhelpful to discuss the same issue at multiple locations. The core page appears to be the last, and I suggest that any further discussion should occur at that page. I am suggesting that no further discussion should occur on this page until the issue is decided at one page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to Consensus[edit]

I propose that "consensus" which now is linked to WP:Consensus be linked to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes which discusses (and contains special advice on) the processes, including consensus and BRD, available for making changes to policies and guidelines pages. Jojalozzo 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)