Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Wikipedia is a work in progress section needs an update

I want to see the section "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" somehow changed. It has been used justify poor articles such as Adamantamine. With the attrition of experienced editors, a backlog that is not bing cleared, and 4,064,486 articles that need protection, it is high time we tighten up on poor articles. One way of doing that is to make the deletion process a little more ruthless.

I will have to leave the change to the policy to others - it is not my forte. I think will have to be an RFC? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The above article AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantamine. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think editors would be willing to listen to your thoughts, but only with specific suggestions, especially if you were to open an RfC. Respectfully, there's not much we can do to policy with what you've said so far. NTox · talk 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add, after the sentence "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." the sentence "The criteria used is, is the subject notable and deserving of starting an article?" Apteva (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. It would reinforce that deletion is not dependent on the article's status, but on the topic's notability. Diego (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It needs to clarify that notability isn't the only indicator that we should have an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Question for elsewhere

Where would I go to question the appearance of my editing tools? I want the old appearance back. When the current look of Wikipedia was established, well over a year ago, we had the option of opting out and keeping the old style. Well, I still have my search bar on the left (instead of the top), as I want it, but some months ago my editing tools switched. I assumed I could switch them back in My Preferences; tonight I tried to do so and couldn't find any way to do it. I positively loathe the current set up, and tonight wanted to use the strike through function, which is no longer there. Yes, I still can strike out text, but I still miss the buttons that allowed this easy editing. The current set just doesn't fit my needs (which admittedly, evolved with the old set). HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I've still got the old edit bar, with the strikethrough. Try Special:Preferences > Editing > Usability features, and uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". If that's not there, or isn't the thing that makes the difference (knowing yours disappeared, I'm wary of testing mine!), then it's worth remembering that the HTML-like code is available below the edit window, if you set the pop-up menu to "Wiki markup". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It worked. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Easter egg title?

The title "Editing policy" is misleading. The page is principally about "Editing articles", despite specific sections on the editing of policies. Surely a better title can be found. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the most obvious title (WP:Editing) had already been taken when this was first written. What about: WP:Policy on editing? Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to solve the problem, if others find it acceptable. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To ponder on a new name when the question of whether this should be a policy or guideline seems to be putting the cart before the horse. -- PBS (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really ... if we do end up demoting this to Guideline status, we will have to change the title anyway... so a discussion on what to call it seems in order no matter how we answer the Policy vs Guideline question. (I am of mixed opinion on whether to demote... but if we do demote, I would suggest calling the page "WP:Guidelines on editing" rather than "WP:Editing guidelines", since the latter title would have the same potential for confusion - i.e. is it "instruction on guideline pages" or "guidelines on how to edit"?) Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk and edit section

The Signpost recently had an article about civility and I suggest the following changes to the "Talking and editing" section to help improve civility. The overall tone of the current Talking and editing section is fairly aggressive clearly stating that editors should be bold but only consider talking to previous editors if they think an edit may be controversial. I suggest the tone of this section should be changed to reflect more respect for changing recent contributions. I will put my suggested edits in bold and struck-through to make them clear on this talk page. An example of behavior which prompted this suggestion is from my recent experience of having hours of research, even referenced work, promptly deleted; a very discouraging experience. In my experience the Bold, revert, discuss cycle on recently added contributions is uncivil. I think editors who have recently made contributions should usually be contacted before major edits or deletions are carried out. The exception to this is in the Biographies of living persons.

I suggest the first paragraph read as follows: Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes, however it is much more civil to discuss significant changes to contributions which were recently added. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page), or if the previous edit was made within one month. A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.

Also in the sub-section "Be cautious with major changes: discuss" I suggest the following changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing discuss them first if the edits were made recently. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be is best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can take a while to learn what sources and information are appropriate for Wikipedia in general and a specific article, so there may be good reasons for a removal. There often also are capricious, "ownership" related reverts that are against policy. It can take a while to figure out which it is, especially if it is in a contentious area. That's what talk pages are for. And study and utilize WP:Dispute to deal with those editors who are just plain recalcitrant. CarolMooreDC 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. I only mentioned having edits deleted as to communicate that I am suggesting changes from experience. I am surprised no one had commented directly the main topic of this section: my proposal to change the tone of this section to be less BOLD and more civil. I will wait longer and maybe bring this up in a chat room before making any changes. Jim Derby (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not add the one month time limit... any edit can be BRDed, even one made several months ago. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiny minority viewpoints

I know we've been through this before, and I haven't recently pressed the issue on WP:UNDUE (which keeps reverting to a Jimbo's dubious "Word of God" on the matter), but, yes, "tiny minority views" can deserve their own articles. Zoroastrianism for example, has maybe ~10K non-prominent adherents out of the current world population of 6,000,000,000, but not having an article about such a sourcable and verifiable topic would certainly not be in the spirit of WP:5P. If I had my druthers, what view a certain percentage of living people currently held -- prominent or otherwise -- would have no bearing on our policy, no matter what Jimbo rambled about once, and as such, I hope my recent parenthetical addition will stand. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the correct interpretation. It would be fine to have an article on a group of 100 adherents, if WP:N were met. However, the article would be written from the mainstream point of view, according to WP:RS. The article would not be written from the point of view of the 100 adherents. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not correct either, per WP:YESPOV. The article would be written to include as many RS/V (reliably sourced and verifiable) POV's as editors chose to put in. There's no such thing as a "mainstream" point of view in our arithmetic, last I checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember inclusion isn't a binary thing. Inclusion of viewpoints has three tiers... 1) Viewpoints that deserve their own dedicated article; 2) Viewpoints that deserve to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia (in some related article) but not in article on their own; and 3) Viewpoints that are so fringe that they don't deserve to be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia.

As for your example: A religion with 10K adherents is a minority... but I would not call it a tiny minority. Certainly Zoroastrianism can not be classified as "Fringe". On the other hand, if there were a religion with only 5 adherents (world wide) that religion would not rate an article. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)