Wikipedia talk:Trifecta: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:59, 22 January 2007

Evaluation

Hmm, while having a triumvirate (I mean trifecta) of policies to guide us is very nice in theory, I'm not sure it delivers what it promises.

Original research could very tentatively be described as following from NPOV, for example, but deletion explicitly does not deal with neutrality of topics (POV forks are the rare exception, as this are indeed blatant violations of NPOV); most of what goes on as deletion has nothing to do with being neutral, but with making sense, or respecting copyright. Similarly, style advice on neutral writing obviously follows from NPOV, but the rest is just rules we've picked because we've found them to work in most cases—this has little or nothing to do with NPOV. Claiming that all of this follows is not very enlightening. Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopedia—some things follow from the "encyclopedia" part, not the NPOV part. Britannica does not claim NPOV (though it would love to be seen as "objective", of course, whatever that's supposed to be), but it arguably has style and verifiability and all that jazz. Encarta... no, let's not lower our standards like that.

Likewise, implying that consensus follows from everyone not acting like dicks (as opposed to voting) seems to require a very strenuous line of reasoning. You'd have to turn "don't be a dick" into "don't put your own interests ahead of the encyclopedia". In this form, you could conceivably claim this as the root of all social policy, although it's worth pointing out that the individual rules (stay cool, assume good faith, no personal attacks) are individual inventions: they prop up the policy, but do not follow from it—rather they follow from things observed in practice to work better than their alternatives (edit warring does not improve articles more than staying cool; assuming bad faith does not match reality; being rude is less likely to keep discussion open than being polite).

Ignore all rules, finally, is the most special rule we have, because it emphasizes the fact that, in spite of all trappings of order and regularity, this is still a wiki, and everyone is fundamentally free to act as they see fit (notwithstanding that every action has consequences). Does "be bold" follow? Not quite. IAR does imply you should be bold rather than do nothing for fear of disturbing an imagined balance or breaking rules you haven't yet seen applied, but it does not encourage you to edit outright. "Be bold" does. Without "be bold", people could talk endlessly over changes without ever implementing them, rules or not (and they do!)—IAR says nothing about that. IAR is the speed boost you need to get over hurdles; BB is what gets you moving in the first place.

Am I overanalyzing it? Of course! I don't suggest you start seriously thinking about it now—that this page presents exactly three cardinal principles from which to have everything follow is the appeal, not that everything lines up just right. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Yeah, JRM, you're way overanalyzing things. Notice that these are only suggestions, and the first two should be interpreted in light of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The whole idea is that Wikipedia policy is far too complicated, and, by gosh, wouldn't things be a lot better if everyone just understood a few basic ideas and was nice to each other for a change. That's also why these aren't policy suggestions. It's a rough philosophical framework. Wikipedia is a state of mind.-- Seth Ilys 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I just compared it to mine and wrote down the differences. If it works for others, then it works for others. You can even adopt it as policy for all I care—I disagree with the structure, but of course the individual suggestions are fine. Then again, I'm not in the audience; I have no problem working with a lot of rules in the background, nor with determining when not to apply them strictly. JRM · Talk 10:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Additional note: While NPOV doesn't follow from us being an encyclopedia (although our style conventions sorta do), it is a basic stylistic policy. "Don't be a dick" doesn't necessarily follow from us being a community; there are plenty of marginally functional communities where people are dicks to each other all the time. But we think that these are generally good ideas, and we take them seriously, but not too seriously... so if you're not enjoying yourself most of the time on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't be here, and if you don't follow these rules, you don't have to. (Adopting WP:IAR recognizes other people's right to do the same.) - Seth Ilys 05:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IAR is a paradoxical rule because you cannot apply it without understanding why you would need to apply it, and if you can do that, you don't need IAR as a rule in the first place. Which is probably why it's so appealing. JRM · Talk 10:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

From above and from below

This is an independent observation and shouldn't be on this talk page, but since I got it while writing the above, I'm going to stick it in just to prove I can ignore all rules and hijack talk pages for my own personal drivel whenever I want.

There is a big difference between NPOV and not putting yourself ahead of the encyclopedia (or not being a dick, if you prefer). The former is a given, imposed from above. Right or wrong, this is how Wikipedia works; if you don't like it, you're free to fork, but Wikipedia itself won't budge. The latter is not imposed, but trickles up from below. We codify this in policy to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. There were times when each of these was not policy, and Wikipedia worked—but as it grew, so did the opportunities for engaging in unproductive behavior with others, and it needed to curtail some of it to prevent efficiency from dropping off too far. Again: I stress that without such policies, Wikipedia would still work (this is important, because you'll often hear people claim that Wikipedia would explode without additional rules—this is not true, IMO; Wikipedia will work without them as long as everyone is still convinced it should be an NPOV encyclopedia). Productivity would just go way down without these basic rules, but it wouldn't drop off to zero.

And now, by Jimbo, I have to go edit some damn articles, because if I gaze at my navel any longer I'll go blind. JRM · Talk 21:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

Nice idea. I agree that the first two principles are fundamental to how Wikipedia works, but not convinced about the "bedrock" nature of the third. I'm also not at all clear about a couple of the corollaries: how are style conventions (for example) meant to flow from NPOV? — Matt Crypto 01:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matt: They don't strongly follow, because we've ignored all rules in drawing corollaries, except of couse for common sense, which is a corollary of WP:DICK, which is one of the rules we aren't ignoring because ignore all rules tells us that we have to ignore that rule too, so there have to be at least some rules we don't ignore. Are you seeing how this works yet? Besides which, the third is only a suggest policy for personal action, rather than being foundational. We must have freedom to act as we see fit, after all. -- Seth Ilys 05:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Seth, I just wanted to say "thank you". This is a very well-put document, and perfectly accurate. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Just linked it on my userpage. - David Gerard 14:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UC's changes

Uninvited Company's changes have greatly improved this page, IMO. But now shouldn't User:Seth_Ilys/Trifecta be updated to include these changes? I am reluctant to do it because it is in someone's userspace, though. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the change replacing WP:IAR with WP:BOLD. BOLD is not a substitute for IAR, and IAR more clearly describes the attitude that Seth, myself, and others who subscribe to the Trifecta believe in than does BOLD. (For example, WP:BOLD doesn't describe our common dislike of instruction creep as well.) After a discussion on IRC, I've decided to leave the replacement of "don't be a dick" alone; while I still like that formulation better, it does break WP:BEANS and it is taken the wrong way by many people. "Be civil" isn't quite as catchy, but it'll have to do. Kelly Martin 15:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer Don't be a dick - it is fundamentally true, and gets the point across. Looking through the comments above it's clear the original three choices were very popular. Dbad also survived the meta RfD, by the way. Dan100 (Talk) 14:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

WP:DBAD

Everything old is new again

Apparently Kosebamse had it over a year ago: [1]. Just stumbled across this again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Don't be a dick

Do we have to call it that? While I realize that Wikipedia isn't censored for children, the trifecta could be a bit cleaner. I think the policy would have more power if it was a bit more appropriate in that regard. McKay

What do you suggest as an alternative? --JWSchmidt 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, well, you could chose a contraposition, like "Be nice" or "Choose the Right", or something a little less mean, "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be mean" It happens to be a corollary of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. You could pull the definition: "Don't be a highly contemptable person" Following links around, we could do something like "Don't be a hinsist" or something like that." We already have a page at "don't be unpleasant." McKay 06:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you McKay. The idea is good, but the language to convey it (dick) is immature. Improves community while subtly detrimental to community at the same time in my opinion. --Electric Eye (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with rewording it to "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be mean". (though, according to m:Don't be a dick, dick was originally itself a euphemism for "fuckhead". so at least we've improved past that, and also have precedent for rewording) --Quiddity 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not usualy one for censorship and am certaily not afraid of strong language but seeing the word dick used offended me a little in the way that it insults the spirit of the poject DJW2tone 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is less the offensiveness of the term per se, as the presence of an uncivil term in the title what's supposed to be a call for civility (among other things), which leads to its popularity as a "clever" way of calling someone a dick (or fuckhead, or jerk, whichever is chosen). That the page itself points out (to paraphrase) that one would be a dick to go around calling people dicks seems to prevail not. (Or maybe it'd be much worse were this not there, who knows.) As it's a metawiki page we're discussing it in the wrong place, of course (unless what's at issue is whether it's linked to/what's linked to). Alai 06:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned any rewording would do. I was recently a target of such personal attack, in which someone poked the WP:DICK at me. While in theory such remark could perhaps be defendable (I didn't call him a fuckhead, I merely noted he might have violated WP:DICK), the difference is close to none. Any commonly-acceptable non-offensive term would do. //Halibu tt 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't understand, Halibutt refers to this edit of mine. I will post a refutation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ghirlandajo, I wasn't referring to that edit of yours. Sorry to disappoint you. And yes, I'm still in for any change in the wording that would prevent people from poking offensive vocabulary at others. //Halibu tt 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a userbox to go with it

I created this userbox. Feel free to use it. -- Michalis Famelis 23:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox looks great! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

I'm asking for feedback on some merge-related suggestions, please come give input at Wikipedia talk:Simplified Ruleset#Merge suggestions?. Thanks :) -Quiddity 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally

I think WP:V is more fundamental than WP:NPOV, because if a fact is objective and verifiable, it's hard for it to be biased. NPOV is a bit unclear to take as the iron-clad base, but they both aim for the same goal of including only objective knowledge in an unbiased fashion. Maybe it's just me not liking to push it to secondary status. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, might I suggest taking a peek at Wikipedia:Five pillars where there's not even a need for this sort of debate? (→Netscott) 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting concept. The way I have it in my head is that m:Foundation issues has NPOV as the end towards which to strive. Verifiability and reliable sources are necessary means to reach NPOV, but they are not sufficient by themselves.

See what happens if you bring your ideas up on meta? --Kim Bruning 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:Don't be a dick?

How is that part of the policy trifecta? It is not even labeled as policy. (→Netscott) 09:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liable to shortly submit this page for MfD as a POV fork of Wikipedia:Five pillars. What purpose does this page serve that isn't already covered by Wikipedia:Five pillars? (→Netscott) 09:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's just another viewpoint on reducing Wikipedia's complex rules to a small set of principles. What's wrong with that? The idea of this being a "POV fork" is silly, because NPOV is a policy which applies only to the main article space. (And this page is actually older than Wikipedia:Five pillars.) — Matt Crypto 10:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, slightly older than Five pillars but with less than 50 edits total on it... there's ~ 540 links to this page with the overwhelming majority of them stemming from user pages (via a userbox). This page has the official sounding name of "Trifecta Policy" when effectively a third of it relies upon non-policy in its construction. Wikipedia:Five pillars has more than 60,000 links to it, cites only official policy/guidelines, has been edited over 350 times and has actual official recognition. Again, what puprose is this page serving that can't be more effectively served by the official Wikipedia:Five pillars page? (→Netscott) 10:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A diversity of ideas is healthy, and an alternative construction of a set of fundamental principles for Wikipedia is not harmful. The "official-sounding name" notwithstanding, the page quite explicity states that it's not defining policy. — Matt Crypto 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree... particularly when this page has such an official sounding name. Presenting a non-policy as though it was policy is just bad and sets up confusion particularly for new users. Citing WP:DICK tends to be frowned upon as the citation of it can be itself a "dick move". Not a good idea to be setting up new users to be citing it as though it wasn't a dick move to do so. I have to be honest and say that if this page were renamed to something less official sounding then a more forgiving view of it would be warranted. (→Netscott) 11:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:DICK tends to be frowned upon as the citation of it can be itself a "dick move": you've misunderstood this. That sentence is in respect to telling an individual that they're in violation of WP:DICK. That can certainly be a "dick move" in many circumstances (perhaps not all), but that's altogether nothing to do with a general page making reference to it. But back to the point, this page can hardly be said to present non-policy as though it was policy not least because of the sentence that reads, "this is not proposed policy" (emphasis not mine). — Matt Crypto 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend something like "Principles trifecta" or an equivalent name... again the word "Policy" is too official. (→Netscott) 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a policy trifecta, because it is a summary of policy, and can, in fact, with some thought, be used as a drop-in-replacement for the largest part of it. I've gotten by fine. :-)

Note that WP:DICK is generally considered to be policy, in such circles where they make such hair-fine distinctions.

Finally, I typically use this page to question "young whippersnappers" who are up for admin. I ask them to give their opinion, and based on that , you get a pretty good idea if they're admin material at that time or not. So, do you think you pass? :-)

Kim Bruning 02:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rename

This page was moved back to the current name for the reason that "it's a summation of all policy" even though it rather obviously isn't. More importantly, this page isn't policy, and thus shouldn't be called policy. Wikipedia is byzantinely confusing enough for novice users without such inaccuracies. >Radiant< 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a summation of policy. And you've got it backwards. This is one of a small subset of pages we've been using to summarise and REDUCE the amount of work it takes in teaching newbies the ropes.

Just because you don't use it that way, doesn't mean that others don't. :-P --Kim Bruning 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with User:Radiant! here, in fact I'd go so far as to support an MfD of this page as being an unecessary duplicate of the much more recognized (and official) Wikipedia:Five pillars. (→Netscott) 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try :-P. All your points were covered in the discussion above. See there. --Kim Bruning 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there lists of the Five Policies and the Three Policies? Are there five or three principles that guide WP? Why does the site need both? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice. It's 2 different approaches. 5 Pillars tries to cover a lot of ground, and is more suited to new users. The trifecta is more rigorously minimalistic, and is something more advanced users use. At any rate it is utterly impossible to deny that people use the trifecta. About 200 people link to the trifecta, thereby stating that they subscribe to it as their own "personal policy". --Kim Bruning 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to Trifecta principles, or even simply Trifecta. It doesn't really seem appropriate to have "policy" in the name when it doesn't actually consist of policies. And why was the rename tag removed, shouldn't it be discussed first? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not proposed

This text below is in line with the KISS principle to kill all muckups with all kinds of templates, proposed vs not proposed, and all the rigmarole. You choose to either follow the trifecta as your personal policy or not. Entirely up to you.

This is very different from "this is not policy". Subtly different wording. :-)

This page doesn't represent policy, pure and simple. Why allow this masquerade of it not being proposed (and thereby possibly established)? (→Netscott) 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my "personal policy", and that of >200 other people, at the least. Whether or not you understand why or how it is used may well be irrelevant to the discussion. It is in use, pure and simple. :-) --Kim Bruning 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right... now you're supporting a concept like POINT... and we can all just start running around operating under our own notions (ie: "personal policy"). Wrong. (→Netscott) 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not disrupting wikipedia, and I'm not making a point. I do not support the concept of disrupting to make a point either. Your statement does not make sense.

Next, Ignore All Rules explicitly states that if you do not harm the encyclopedia, you may proceed. If I wish to adopt a set of rules that go past the basic m:foundation issues, and I choose to hold myself to them, then that is my personal option. In fact, since I'm only adopting additional rules, I'm well within actual wikipedia policy, and may simply do so. --Kim Bruning 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you misunderstand the purpose of the wording." Actually, I don't understand the point of the wording or what it's trying to say. Right now I think that last bit is an unnecessary mess. I doubt most newbies would figure it out either. So what is it trying to say, and can it please be rewritten to actually say that? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"don't stick a tag on this page, because we're using a different mechanism." --Kim Bruning 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We're letting people choose for themselves whether they want to apply this. They can put a tag on their page if they want to let other people know, but even that is optional". --Kim Bruning 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an essay

Dangit! It said so in the text of the page even. I wish the 3 revert rule had an exception for "patently clueless edits". I also wish it had an exception for "refusing to discuss". *Sigh*.

You can't really call it an edit war if people aren't even discussing though. Just plain --sillyness--. --Kim Bruning 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of 3RR, it looks like you've broken it on this one. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was keeping a count, I generally go for WP:HEC. My sole exception being when someone does not take it to talk immediately, I revert again to remind them. In this case I did an additional revert in a row, and talked to the person on their personal talk page. They should have responded earlier, but did not. It happens. --Kim Bruning 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you include the RM tag which was posted in the wrong location, you're probably even right. Wow. Darnit. (though RM counts as spamming in some quarters, including mine) --Kim Bruning 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert counting expresses entitlement to 3 reverts (an edit warrior trait if ever there was one)... obviously doing that is wrong per WP:3RR. (→Netscott) 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not quite. More like "hello, wake up, you're being reverted, take it to talk already!" --Kim Bruning 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RM counts as spamming? What is that supposed to mean. I guess the RM tag goes on the talk page, not the article page, but it's a bit harder to AGF on the "wrong place" thing when you removed it from the talk page as well. So why did you remove the RM? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RM is not policy, and has had a long standing reputation of violating the polling guidelines. Many people have tried reasoning with the owners, to no avail. Possibly radiant is applying RM more nicely than the procedure itself warrents, but it's still spam. --Kim Bruning 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning, now you're just talking nonsense..... you've totally thrown the assumption of good faith out the window if you're describing Radiant!'s requested move tagging as "spam". (→Netscott) 19:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure does advocate spamming templates and polls violating the Wikipedia:Polling guidelines across much of wikipedia, and is not to be recommended. My standard MO is to delete RM tags and polls on sight. I'll admit that Radiant applied it more deftly than most however. Hmmm. --Kim Bruning 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I, Kim and JJay agree that the essay tag isn't really needed. but JJay is concerned (I think) that "Policy Trifecta" could be read as "A trifecta that is a policy" rather than "A trifecta of policies." To me, this is an unimportant distinction, and the latter meaning is clear enough. Thought? I'd like to hear from others before removing the tag again. Demi ^T/_C 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem (as mentioned above) is that this is not a trifecta of policies... WP:DICK is not policy. Demi, if you have not already done so, please read the above discussions as they are directly pertinent to this last discussion. Thanks. (→Netscott) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, WP:DICK *is* policy. Read the tagging on meta most carefully as well. --Kim Bruning 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly about that tagging makes you think it's policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No tagging, just it's been policy for as long as I remember. Why wouldn't it be?

And "for as long as you remember", what made you think it was policy? Did it used to be policy? I'd have to assume it's not policy since it doesn't say that it is. Why would I assume anything marked as an essay is policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search me, I didn't invent tagging! :-) And of course it's policy to not be a dick, um, you think it's ok to be mean to people? --Kim Bruning 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning, both Radiant! and I (long time experienced editors) know the difference and have expressed as much. Your awareness is a bit off. On January 9, Radiant! changed the m:Template:essay tag to try to say that an essay on meta could be a policy or guideline elsewhere (while Radiant!'s edit was BOLD there was no consensus for such a sweeping change). (→Netscott) 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Radiant and I have roughly the same goals, but we seem to be working at crosspurposes (again) atm. I'm working along the WP:SR->WP:TRI->WP:5P axis, while Radiant is working along a template axis. This sometimes collides, and we'll have to sort that out. --Kim Bruning 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting a minor part here: the closest to a definition or description of "essay" in Wikipedia context that I've found is on m:Category:Essays. It describes an essay as a description of thoughts about Wikipedia etc. An essay, in the normal use of the word, is not usually a bulleted list, but a text that discusses and explains things. This page is hardly an essay. // habj 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's not an essay, someone needs to suggest some sort of tag (I'd be fine with a custom one) that gets across what it is, and that it's not policy. Anyone have a suggestion? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a none-of-the-above page. By design, surely! Whatever categorization rules we are trying to apply here, perhaps we can make an exemption, hmm? That's also my feeling about the attempt to take the word "Policy" out of "Policy Trifecta" as well. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I expressed on User talk:Kim Bruning there's two reasons the name "Policy trifecta" is bad. 1. It leads to new user confusion as to what pages in fact do constitute officially recognized policy and 2. It lessens the "punch" of actual offically recognized policy pages. (→Netscott) 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand either point. What confusion has this caused, and what other pages has this lessened? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives the mistaken impression that it is policy, and that the things listed are all policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try violating any one of the concepts on this page, and see how long it takes for you to go straight to arbitration, not pass go, and not collect $200 ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That just means that the essays on this page agree with policies (like DICK/CIVIL). That doesn't make them policies. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, but it's such a short page to need that sort of thing, and when the last sentence is so clear. How about now, does it stand out enough? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is a complete mess. If the page didn't have "policy" in the name and the last line was rewritten, that would help. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Milo H Mindbender: WP:DICK antedates WP:CIVIL, by quite a distance. In fact, IIRC an earlier discussion about WP:TRI actually spawned WP:CIVIL, but I'm not entirely certain if my memory serves. --Kim Bruning 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that's the case or not, does that make it policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the rewording is policy, then so is the original wording. :-P --Kim Bruning 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it apparent to the novice user that one is a rewording of the other? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the next problem we're going to have to deal with, and that's in fact a bit of an older problem. We're going to have to talk with the policy/guideline/essay tagging folks. --Kim Bruning 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief!

My god, you're all overanalyzing this. I invented it, so I think I'll Be bold and move this to Wikipedia:Trifecta just so all of you will end one of the most pointless arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. If you still want to fight over it, though, don't... just drop it into my userspace instead of the Wikipedia namespace.

-- Seth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethant (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Much better... :) Thanks for the rational move there Seth. (→Netscott) 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Falls over laughing> --Kim Bruning 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 -- Seth <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Sethant|Sethant]] ([[User talk:Sethant|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sethant|contribs]]) 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
 :Much better... :) Thanks for the rational move there Seth. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
+<Falls over laughing> --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)