Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

BLPs

This page is being cited on Talk:Joe the Plumber to claim that the rules about BLP inclusion of disputed material do not count as this page is more important. To what extent is this page supposed to supplant the rules and guidelines on WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:RS and WP:V? Collect (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I simply quoted both policies WP:BLP and WP:PRESERVE working together. I didn't say that BLP was not important or doesn't count.

I can answer your question, this page is supposed to work in concert with WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:RS and WP:V. :) travb (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet you appear to be editing one of the guideline pages -- no? Collect (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to preserve

The "Preserve information" section as it stands is not feasible. "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." is simply too general of a statement considering the large number of exceptions. The lists provided are inadequate. Transwiki is not given as an alternative to plain removal of content, and violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not should be obvious candidates for removal, but that is not listed. Furthermore, why is "irrelevancy" with no link listed? Doesn't that essentially mean someone thinks the material doesn't belong? Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information—unless you think it doesn't belong! Finally, why is this a subsection of "Editing styles"? Is "Preserve information" a style of editing that we can choose to adopt or not? Surely there's no legitimate "Whatever you do, destroy information" style. It would be much plainer to reword along these lines:

When possible, preserve information that meets or can be modified to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Possible alternatives to removal of content include: rephrasing poorly-worded content, restructuring poorly-organized content, correcting inaccuracies, moving misplaced text to another article or unsuitable text to another wiki via the transwiki process, adding content to provide balance, and requesting citations for unsourced material.

That's a rough draft off the top of my head, please feel free to suggest changes or additions. If anyone thinks certain policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are important enough to warrant a mention, we can add those in. Pagrashtak 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and see also my comments in the next section --PBS (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The below conversation is getting derailed, and debating the policy/guideline status of this page is a separate matter from this rewording, so—we have one agreeing editor and no disagreements to this rewording. If there is opposition or a suggested change to my proposed wording, please speak up. Pagrashtak 17:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can wait little longer for more input from other editors. 3 editors don't really constitute a WP:CONCENSUS. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you post here original text next to your modification. It will be easier to think about it. Thanks. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for more input—that's why I asked for comments instead of editing the page. You can see the original text on the page now. Pagrashtak 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about User:Kww's suggestion in the next section? --PBS (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep a prose form instead of a bulleted list, but I like stating that removal is good in some cases. Pagrashtak 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Without looking down yet, and simply looking at the proposed change, I would be inclined to say with respects that no change is required. "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information" is as succinct and valuable as the Five Pillars themselves, and encourages editors to seek ways to NOT needlessly remove informations that might otherwise improve Wiki. Added references to changing guidelines unneccessarily complicates the simple and clean statement, and could actually encourage editors to remove informations if their subjective interpretation allows... quite the opposite of the intent of WP:PRESERVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Demote to a guideline

This has had a few weeks. This is a dusty old statement of principles, describing principles of editing conduct that have since been described in greater detail in other guidelines and policies. This doesn't mean these principles are any less valid (a fact noted by almost all of the "Oppose demotions"), only that the policy page is pretty dang old and hasn't much been noticed in the interim. It's clear that the core policy principles described here - perfection isn't required, be bold, try to reuse before deleting - are still true to this day. Appropriately, WP:PRESERVE is sound advice for how to deal with this page: there may be cause to mark this {{Historical}} (as redundant or just too old to update), split tangental points off or move those points to other pages (personally I'd say WP:PRESERVE begs to be moved to WP:DP from here), or rewrite this page to better interlink it with current guidelines and policies. In short, while the hows of this policy are somewhat antiquated, but the whys ring true as ever, so demotion to guideline is not appropriate.

For these reasons, this was not demoted. I would urge everyone who participated here to also participate in the discussion on how to clean up, rewrite, and update this policy to reflect current practice, as reason for not demoting was not because the arguments to demote were baseless, merely that demotion was not a suitable solution to the identified problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

There is a lot wrong with this page specifically the sections "Boldness" and "Preserve information". It contradicts lots of other policies and practices. The Boldness section is an invitation to edit war. The section "Preserve information" means that AfD should be restricted, and it is in direct contradiction to WP:PROVEIT.

I think article should be demoted to a guideline so that it can not undermine the three content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. --PBS (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Preserve" has been horrendously overused quite recently by a handful of editors (who appear to be well-co-ordinated in this use.) Its list of "exceptions" is not accurate (it is not just "unsourced" material which does not belong in a BLP -- unsourced material anywhere is deletable) and as read it implies that articles should grow to near infinite complexity even where simplicity results in a far better article. I would suggest that the "list of exceptions" be removed as it is being used as a bright line by some, and that the guideline should be "Material essential to the simple understanding of the subject under discussion in the article should not be removed without a clear consensus, nor should controversial material be added to any article which is a biography of a living person or directly associated with such a person without such a consensus. The goal of every article is to provide useful information to readers and not to provide every single citable detail about a subject. If a claim is made without a clear citation or which does not fall into the category of obvious fact, or a fact for which multiple citations are clearly available, an editor may insert a "fact tag" to indicate that a cite is desired. If a claim is made which an editor feels is not relevant to the subject of the article, then a "relevance tag" should be added. These tags retain the information while any discussion is being undertaken on a Talk page, rather than being deleted and reinserted in an edit-war. " Or thereabouts. Collect (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The short cut to the section was added at 01:44 on 24 May 2008 --PBS (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Editing_policy: Demote to a guideline:

At the moment the Wikipedia:Editing policy seems to be a little overlooked and that it contains sections that give advice that is contrary to the advise in some of the three content policies (WP:NPOV,WP:NOR and WP:V)

So that there can be no confusion, between policies, I have proposed on the talk page of the "Editing policy" that it be demoted to a guideline, because AFAICT it does not cover any areas which are not already covered by other policies and guidelines so there is no need for it to remain a policy.

Even if the current problems are fixed, it will have to be kept up to date with the content policies, which means that if it remains a policy it will always be in danger of giving contrary advise to that of the main content policies. If it is a guideline then this is not such a problem because "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." (WP:policies and guidelines) --PBS (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In which event, the page should be clearly marked as not superceding any policy in any way, and that it should not be used as an "authority" to go against actual policies. (as it, unfortuneately, has been twisted to do recently). Collect (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is wrong information on the page, surely it should be corrected or removed? Once that's done we can see whether what's left is suitable content for a policy page (but it's the accuracy and usefulness of the content that's matters more than what tag appears at the top).--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is policy then what makes this advice wrong and the content policy pages right? --PBS (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we'd have to agree the changes in the normal way (or someone could just be bold and make them, and perhaps no-one will object).--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first step should be rewording the preserve section, using either the language I suggested in the topic above this or Collect's language. Once we have this page cleaned up we can see where it stands. Pagrashtak 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is only a temporary fix unless you want to monitor it for ever, it is the same problem we had with WP:ATT. --PBS (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is a temporary fix. Pagrashtak 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this policy contradicts others. Can you give an example. As I see it, its purpose is to preserve content contributed by new editors not familiar with WP policies. Easiest thing is to delete, and this policy tells that before deleting, you should try to fix. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting is the right thing to do if the text is in breach of the content policies like WP:NOR. --PBS (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after one has tried to verify it. (request a citation by adding the tag) 212.200.243.116 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you are taking part in a policy discussion why not create an account? One does not have to try to verify text, please read what WP:PROVEIT says, and beside leaving text in an article that is a SYN is not the correct thing to do. It is problems like this why this should be a guideline and not a policy. --PBS (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...why not create an account? Why not read my talk page? Where is this policy talking about preserving synthesized contributions? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings. NJGW (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, you seem to have a difficulty understanding what a sockpupet account is. Why am I not surprised. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even your cited policy WP:PROVEIT sais: Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Challenging is fine, but not deleting before challenging. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support demotion. Good call, PBS; the fact this page got so out of sync with content policies is proof enough that it's something of a backwater and will be hard to keep in sync. But there is some good stuff on this page that should be folded in to existing content policies. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support better text I think that the solution is to make this page explain that it's not intended to contradict WP:PROVEIT. In fact, I think that 'preserve' is really more about "when you have good information in This article that properly belongs in That article, then move it, don't delete it," and "if it's very likely that newly added information is accurate and on topic, then don't delete it immediately; ask for a source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) who is not watching this page

  As I said above yes we can alter the text, but it is only a temporary fix unless you want to monitor it for ever, it is the same problem we had with WP:ATT. If this is a guideline then we can still fix the text and the advise is still useful, but if it gets out of sync with the content policies, then that is not such a problem because the content polices will take precedent, which currently not true because this is a policy page. --PBS (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it any harder to monitor this page than it is to monitor the other policy pages? (The best solution, of course, would be to combine WP:OR, WP:V, WP:POV and this into one easy-to-follow policy page, but the preference of the community seems to be to keep things complex.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That it so out of kilter with the content pages is evidence that is is not being monitored and even if it is monitored it will always allow a second front to be opened in a dispute over the content of one of the three content policies. This was the major argument for demoting WP:ATT. If this page is to survive in its current form (as a policy on content) then the content pages should be changed to say that this is one of four content policies. This I know would be rejected, so the simplest thing to do is make this a guideline, delete it. I think a guideline is a better solution than deleting it. --PBS (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• While I don't care one way or another whether this is a policy or a guideline, the language of PRESERVE definitely needs to be changed. As Dank puts it, it's way out of sync with our current policies and guidelines. Not all information is good; removal of information is sometimes the best option to give a balanced view of the subject per WP:WEIGHT. For instance, an plot summary of a television episode that is too long and too detailed (thus failing WP:NOT#PLOT) is reduced by removing extraneous details not necessary for understanding of the plot. Retaining information in that case simply isn't viable because it's not conducive towards a balanced view on the subject. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would like to see here something like: A from this policy contradicts B from that policy. (additional read[1]) 212.200.243.116 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I wrote in another section of this talk page, mention of "true" and "false" from WP:PRESERVE contradicts "verifiability, not truth" from WP:V. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • From WP:PRESERVE But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. Therefore, it only asks an editor who removes the statement to place the same into discussion page. I don't see the contradiction. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Demote I'd support demoting it, and rewriting WP:PRESERVE in the process. As a whole, this page tends to contradict other policies, and WP:PRESERVE is horrible. Would be much better as

Removal of text and articles is a normal part of the editing process, and should be encouraged if the removal will improve the article or Wikipedia as a whole. While editing is encouraged, editors should endeavour to preserve valuable information. Before removing text, consider:

• rephrasing
• correcting innacuracies while keeping the remaining content
• move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

Exceptions include:

• Material which violates existing guidelines and policies
• duplication or redundancy
• irrelevancy

—Kww(talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww: 102 articles put up for deletion, and only 4 articles created. I can see why a policy which encourages editors to work together before deleting would hinder what editors who delete other editors hard work are trying to doing here. Ikip (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Demote to guideline if "preserve" is severely rewritten, otherwise change to essay / historical / rejected. Fram (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Same as Kww. Fram: 322 articles deleted. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose demotion and strengthen WP:PRESERVE. Editors regularly ignore the tenants of WP:PRESERVE causing the media to universally criticize Wikipedia's deletion policies, calling wikipedians who delete "Bullies" and "self-appointed deletion guardians". Deletion already has an incredibly negative effect on new users, the majority of pages deleted are created by new users. So, whatever you do, preserve information. has been part of this policy since 18 October 2001 when this article was created. Ikip (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious and common sense strong oppose as well. Our priority needs to be deleting WP:Notability at this time or marking it as an essay. By contrast, no reason to demote this policy as it is one of the most logical/reasonable ones we have. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose demotion one of the founding pricipals of Wikipedia. To ask such because one does not like its interpretation to a guideline would be even easier to ignore. There is a reason it is a Policy. What's next? Demoting WP:V and WP:CIVIL? As a Policy it acts to improve and expand Wikipedia. Editors should pay more attention to it as A Policy and understand that it trumps guideline when it comes to improving wiki. WP:IAR keeps wiki alive and growing. What IS required is to correct guidelines to fall back into line with WP:POLICY, not modify POLICY to better match the later guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Demotion This proposal can't be serious... AfD hero (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose demotion. This policy is necessary for promoting collaborative editing which is what Wikipedia is fundamentally based on. Arbitrary removal and deletion of information goes against the principles of collaboration. This policy doesn't "conflict" with other policies and guidelines, it works with them to encourage proper development of articles. It clearly doesn't conflict with WP:NOR as it lists "original research" as an explicit exception. It doesn't conflict with WP:V, as that policy clearly says that you should allow for sufficient time to provide references for unsourced material, tagging in order to encourage the search for reliable sources—with the exception of info about living persons—listed as an explicit exception here as well. It doesn't conflict with WP:NPOV either; that policy does not say that the way to solve NPOV problems is to delete information, but to present information on a topic in proportion to how reliable sources treat the topic. It does not say we can't talk about minority viewpoints themselves in an article specifically about the minority viewpoint; it says that the minority viewpoint shouldn't occupy excessive space in an article documenting the consensus or majority viewpoints. So if there is excessive detail about something in an article, and the information is not original research and can be verified from independent reliable sources, the answer is not to simply remove the information, but to perhaps split it into another article about the specific subtopic, or merge the information into a more relevant article—but if no notable topic can be found to merge the information in, note that this policy even contains an exception for "irrelevancy" for that purpose. This policy is needed to counteract mindless deletion and removal of valid information; the way to preserve information and adhere with our content policies is to make the same efforts you would demand of your fellow editors—look for sources, and find ways to preserve information in a way that adhere to our content policies. It is often easier to remove or delete than to actually do fact-checking, but that is no excuse for ignoring this policy. DHowell (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose demotion and any rewrite as well. Getting my voice out here while I unfortunately cannot commit to writing properly elaborate arguments right now. I'm too tied up with meddling with the unstable political situation of my country. Suffice it to say that this does not conflict with the three content policies for reasons detailed better elsewhere, and the losses in being considerate and collaborative editing, our life's blood and things that are very easily lost in formalized, over-complex thickets of restrictions, would outweigh any gains in rules. The rules are what we built for ourselves as tools to help with our collaborative editing. --Kizor 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Demotion, if we demote this we might as well rip up the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded. This page is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, it's one of the oldest and it is one of the very formative platforms on which the project has been built. I agree with everything DHowell has said. This policy is a long-standing one with a huge amount of consensus behind it, given the page history stretches back almost eight years. Hiding T 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• It does not look like a policy to me - it's just a parent article that refers to a few policies. Such things, usually, are not even guidelines around here. Essays maybe. I rarely see this one invoked in practice. It's also poorly written. The section on "boldness" reads like an essay, and a loosly written one at that. It's written in the royal we..."Virtually no one behaves" is not even standard formal English.Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose All one needs to do to return this page to its noncontentious form is to remove WP:PRESERVE entirely. It was, after all, added without discussion or debate only a few months ago. Themfromspace (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 28 July 2003 is hardly a few months ago, when the list was created.[2] I would suggest striking this incredibly incorrect statment. "So, whatever you do, preserve information." has been part of this policy since 18 October 2001 when this article was created. WP:Notability was only made in 20 April 2005.[3] Ikip (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just plain false?

From the policy page:

Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false.

This sounds misleading, as Wikipedia's policy is not to give a bat's behind about truth. The only way something can be "false" on Wikipedia is if it has no citation or it contradicts the cited sources. Ideally, in the case of article text vs. source conflicts, one could find a reliable source discussing the misconception presented by the text, such as Snopes or The Straight Dope. And in the case of source vs. source conflicts, one could describe both sides of the issue. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I object

over 200 editors participated in making this policy[4][5], and only a handful of editors decided it should be demoted to a guideline status. WP:CONSENSUS states that there should be adequate exposure to the community.

212.200.243.116 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

212.200.243.116 the opinions of IP addresses are not counted when considering policy. --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer statment is patently false. Anon, your opinions are important, and welcome. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's why I didn't even bother to 'refute' it. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As do I. A survey of five editors with divided opinions is hardly the kind of consensus needed to spontaneously "demote" an eight-year-old policy. At a minimum, start an RfC and advertise the discussion on the village pump.

I agree that the "preserve information" section needs tweaking. But make an attempt to fix the policy instead of deciding it should be swept out of the way because you disagree with some aspect of it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was advertised at (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Editing policy: Demote to a guideline). See the arguments above fixing the wording it will fix the problem, unless we are going to change the content policies to say that there are four content policies and include this one. --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with hindsight we can say that that didn't prove to be enough visibility. You've been bold, which is fine, and have found some interested parties as a consequence. But given what a Big Deal policy is on Wikipedia, this issue will need broader participation before one can claim the community has endorsed it.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont give a rat's tanned @$$ about what they did in 2004, this is now and if the reality is that it currently defies every content policy that we have, then demote it without mercy.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your disruptive actions on the main space page must stop. your false claims of consensus, must stop. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw that were demoting it AND YOU WILL LIKE IT YOU BICH PSNMand (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked indefinitely. Strike-through by me. --Kizor 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BIG STRONG OPPOSE to demoting this policy. This has been marked as Wikipedia official policy at least since October 2004. It's going to take far more the agreement of 3 or 4 editors, in a weeklong discussion which was closed by the proposer, to demote something that has been Wikipedia policy for over four years. DHowell (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DHowell have you read the reasons for demoting it? what are your objections? --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also object to demoting policies without adequate input. This poll should have been widely publicized, and even then it is doubtful whether a simple poll is sufficient to demote a long-standing policy that hasn't had substantial opposition. It also appears that the same editor who made the proposal closed the discussion and made the determination. That's not the best practice. The closing of polls should be done by uninvolved parties.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Editing policy: Demote to a guideline) and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Editing policy. Why have you not participated in the debate until now? There was little point in keeping the poll open when no one had objected to the proposal if there had not been a clear consensus then I would not have closed the debate so soon but how long should such a debate remain when no-one has objected to the proposal? Having read the arguments do you have any objections other than procedural to demoting the policy to a guideline?--PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that this proposal should be put before a much broader sample of the community before deciding whether to implement such a significant step. Perhaps a note at the WP:Village pump might help get such a discussion started. That said, this page has always been functionally a guideline that serves mostly as an informal introduction to new users. And to date at least, it's never contained much information or summary material about the three core content policies--certainly that's a major aspect of WP editing policy... Kenosis (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  It was advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Editing policy: Demote to a guideline) and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Editing policy as that was the major content policy that this violates.--PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Yes, this was demoted to a guideline based on the input of a small number of editors. So let's assume a little good faith and chalk it up to PBS using the WP:BRD cycle to jump start a stalled discussion after a public notice on the village pump was unable to stir up sufficient interest. Now that we've got your attention, please tell us—do you object to demotion on other grounds, or would you like to see it demoted if done so properly? Pagrashtak 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the manner in which some editors use the word "policy" in order to try to force others to comply with their preferred approach, either it should be totally rewritten to reflect actual policy, or it should be demoted to a guideline. Frankly, at present it reads like an essay. To reflect actual WP policy, it appears to me to need a total rewrite. I'd advocate changing its status to that of a guideline without too much adieu. Later, if editors are able to bring it up to a standard that is consistent with the accepted WP editing policies, it can readily be proposed again as a candidate for policy status if there appears to those involved to be adequate reason to do so. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a rewrite. I believe most of what's laid out on this page is well-enshrined Wikipedia principle that is completely in tune with other Wikipedia principles outlined on other policy pages. There are errant portions, which will require rewriting, and the tone should probably be made more formal. But like you say, some editors "bully with policy", and I'd say this policy is a necessary counterbalance to other policies which have been the target (and source of) a huge amount of wikilawyering. I suppose those policies, and the heated discussion they generate, have come to overshadow this policy, which outlines the core means and principles by which our collaborative action produces this encyclopedia. We'd be fools to lose sight of -- or to "demote" -- the principles outlined here.

I also note that this is a conduct policy, not a content policy. If it strays into dictating what is acceptable content, then that must be amended.

So, where do we start the rewrite?--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What conduct do you consider is unique to this policy? --PBS (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is to be a policy then it should make a statement which is not found in any other policy. If all it does is give guidance on other policies it should be a guideline. What policy statements are unique to this policy or should be unique to this policy? --PBS (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Might this need the additional exposure on {{RFCpolicy}}? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means advertise it as widely as possible. Perhaps those who do not think it has been widely enough advertised would like to do the honours and put advertise it more widely.--PBS (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But as a first step, I'd like to discuss what changes to the text of the policy you feel are warranted. If your objection is that some of policy's language is errant, address that problem; don't just "demote" it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is a guideline then the rest will fall into place as it can be re-written to comply with the content policies. From what you said above "this is a conduct policy, not a content policy" you would in any case be in favour of removing PRESERVE as that is about content not conduct. --PBS (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes needed are the complete removal of PRESERVE and the next subsection "major changes" from this policy. I seriously doubt that there is a consensus about any of these, but they are used in AfD discussions by a few users just in an attempt to make most deletions (except hoaxes and attack pages) impossible. Taking preserve to the letter, we should not be deleting any articles on garage bands, self-published books, ... as long as they have a myspace page or other evidence of existence. When policies contradict one another, parts without clear consensus should be removed to avoid the discrepancy. Fram (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Preserve should be strengthened if anything as we are here to make a comprehensive encyclopedia that appeals to a broad audience. If members of our community believe this information relevant, then it shouldn't matter if some do not. If anything, we should abolish the general notability guideline as that seems to be used as an obstruction to expanding our catalog of human knowledge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have only just learnt of the attempt to demote this policy and so echo the complaints that the matter was not properly advertised or discussed. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The complaints are reasonable, but FWIW, it's much harder to get people to participate in policy discussions now that it was in 2004-2007. This is a good thing; people are more focused on content, and less focused on "Isn't it neat that we can make our own rules!" But it does create some problems; one of the problems is that every time we try to make a change in policy, people show up and cry foul that so few people are engaged in discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FICT which has had megabytes of discussion lately. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting on to the primary issue

Regardless of how this policy itself turns out, the language in PRESERVE is patently false right now and is being used in a way that is highly contrary to our current policies and guidelines. If PRESERVE actually was true, then the entire CSD process (save patent nonsense or copyright stuff) is against policy. It also inherently violates WP:WEIGHT; sometimes the best way to be NPOV is to remove information to achieve a balanced viewpoint rather than adding more unnecessary information. As such, this section needs to be either overhauled or simply removed. Recommending that editors attempt to preserve information during say merges is perfectly fine. Requiring it is not feasible, practical, or desirable. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That suggests that WP:WEIGHT rather than preserve might be thr problem. No reason why not to change that instead. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, WEIGHT isn't a problem. Go ahead and suggest changes to it at WT:NPOV and you'll have absolutely no consensus for it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, PRESERVE isn't a problem as it's consistent with what an online encyclopedia is and that's why there's no consensus to remove it. In any event, one can remove information from articles without having to also delete the edit histories of redirected articles. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a problem because some information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Take for instance a garage band. By virtue of having no sources beyond a Myspace page, it should be speedily deleted per CSD A7. Per PRESERVE, the information should be retained somewhere. That is incorrect. The information should not exist in this encyclopedia. Explore Special:NewPages and it becomes painfully apparent that many other articles (on unnotable people, web content, or whatever) should be similarily deleted. Not only does PRESERVE not work in this situation, it obviously does not reflect current practice and consensus. As for your consistent edit history condundrum, it's irrelevant here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the "Preserve" part goes - I would opt for "Improve the quality of the information" As far as the argument that information doesn't belong, that should be stated on the XfD pages (If I understand the "XfD" correctly to be inclusive of speedy and all other delete issues). That said - I'm new, and primarily here to learn how policy and guidelines are decided, so I am still very open to suggestions, and my opinions are likely to change. (hi folks) — Ched (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the quality of the information doesn't always help. This also goes beyond AfD pages; it's part of the basic editing process. Say for instance on the article of a politician, I write four perfectly well-sourced paragraphs on his two year career as a state legislator. I indulge in a bit too much detail; I cover some of the minor legislation he was involved in that wouldn't merit coverage (say an online archive of the law with simply his name as the proposer as the source). Conversely, I write three well-sourced paragraphs on his six year career as a U.S. House representative. I adequately summarize details about his involvement in legislation over that time, scandals, elections, and whatever. Now, the solution isn't to write more information for his career in the House, which has received its due coverage, but reduce the excessive coverage I wrote about his career as a state legislator. PRESERVE would say that this is incorrect, and I have to go into excessive detail on his career as a legislator to achieve balance. This inherently goes against WP:NOT#INFO – we shouldn't cover everything he's done, but rather give the information its due weight per its importance. As his House career was more prominent and longer, it receives the longer amount of coverage, while his relatively uninspiring state legislator years don't merit that much coverage. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems a misread of preserve or at least not how I think it is written. It says "Exceptions include: original research". As MySpace would be a primary source, only citing Myspace would be original research and thus an exception. A correct read of Preserve would thus not protect the hypothetical garage band. Besides, it says "Instead of removing, try to..." I emphasize the try, i.e. it allows for a reasonable inference that if it cannot be rephrased, corrected, moved, added, etc., then that's that. It seems more a call to make a serious effort to find sources if they could be found or keep a mind as to if sources possibly exist rather than to just delete with no attempt to look for sources or consider if there's a realistic chance they might exist. One should be able to reasonably ascertain if a "garage band" that only has a MySpace page does not realistically have any other sources and cannot be merged anywhere. Even I would not defend such articles and I would not, because I do not believe the current wording of preseve protects them. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, it wouldn't be OR. The material is not necessarily original research. The problem is that it blatantly fails our notability guidelines, and should be deleted. Take another example. A registrary of people from the 16th century lists all the inhabitants of a town and their occupation. I could write that "Joe Smith was a carpenter in Town X during Year Y.[citation to town registrary published by some random scholar]" That's a perfectly well-sourced article. No OR. Doesn't mean that Joe Smith needs to be covered on Wikipedia because he was a random bloke in a town registrary. In any case, the "try" clause is not enough so long as people are misusing this to insinuate that material cannot be removed because the list of exceptions is so thin. I don't care about its intent – that people should try to preserve information, if appropriate, during mergers and rewrites and the like. I care about its misapplication – that information cannot be removed, i.e. a violation of WP:NPOV – that it's contrary to the current deletion process. Clarity is important here; a simple whitelist and blacklist is far too limiting. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the registry is the only source and the article cannot be expanded beyond one sentence, then there's not much we can do there, but it's not the policy's fault for misapplications. If that was the case then we would have to get rid of notability guidelines for all the subjective claims of non-notable for stuff that is actually notable. No matter how stuff is worded someone will probably misapply things. I'm not seeing it as being counter to non-neutral point of view, because people are aware of that as well and understand that articles should also be neutral as an unstated aspect to it and again, maybe it's the current deletion process that is contrary here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the policy is being misapplied, that's a sign that the policy needs to be changed, or at the very least, the language needs to be clarified to account for that misapplication. The absolute nature of the current wording, namely the whitelist and blacklist, is the problem that is producing the misapplication. When people are misapplying a policy due to a patently stupid interpretation of it, then it's not a problem. When people are pointing to the letter of the policy and can say, "Hey, this says that you can't remove information here," then that's a problem. And also, if you can't see how the NPOV issue is a problem, then I don't have much more to say on that. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, notability definitely needs to be changed as it is really misapplied. In practice, when I see Preserve used, I haven't seen it in used in a detrimental way to our project. And again, the try being there does go a long way toward an interpretation as being do the best you can to salvage the content, although of course not everything could or should be salvaged. I don't see it conflicting with deletion policies, because deletion policy essentially has Before, which is similar, i.e. try to save it and then go from there. But I guess we just see it differently. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any point in continuing this conversation if you're going to change this into a discussion on notability, which we obviously disagree on. Again, if you can't see how it conflicts with NPOV and our deletion processes, then I really don't have a whole lot to say to you. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We should be open-minded to changing whatever else seems to be in conflict as perhaps there is where the problem lies. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) Ok. I'm missing something. "Improve the quality of information" is being countered - I differentiate that from the quantity of information. And I think I'm understanding as I write it out here - but even if "more" information is referenced well, that doesn't make it of a higher quality. I can't really discuss the AfD guidelines very well because I'm still getting a handle on the basic NPOV, WP:V, BLP, etc stuff. I would have thought those g7 guideline things would cover most of what was needed, but like I said - I don't know. — Ched (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the quality sometimes doesn't matter. In my example, I assume that the information is perfectly sourced with perfect prose. Doesn't mean that we keep it due to it being undue weight. Quantity is sometimes what is more significant as a result of appropriate depth of coverage. The appropriate depth of coverage in this case means removing information, which the language in PRESERVE suggests is inappropriate. As such, I want it rewritten to reflect actual editorial practice. As for AfD stuff, that's another issue. What people are basically arguing is that stuff can't be deleted because the information must be kept somewhere as a result of PRESERVE, which is not true. There's times when we simply don't cover stuff per WP:NOT#INFO. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- If the information in PRESERVE is in a guideline, and not in a policy, then the details will work themselves out, because as WP:policies and guidelines says "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature". As advice in a guideline, then all the caveats the exist in the content polices will automatically apply, but if it remains policy then all of these caveats have to be spelt out and whenever a change is made to one of the three content policies that effect PRESERVE, the same change will have to be made here, which will probably lead to a debate a long as the one that occurred on the talk page of the content policies, and may end up with a different consensus in which case the policies will contradict each other. This is the reason why after a very long debate it was agreed to demote WP:ATT. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK .. I'm not able to make an intelligent decision on the "demote to guideline" yet. I'll be back as soon as I can, and try to add my thoughts and questions without disrupting the flow of this discussion. — Ched (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• As an admin who does speedy deletions and article rescue work, I don't see a conflict. All we need to do to fix WP:PRESERVE if anything, is add an "things outside Wikipedia's scope as defined at WP:NOT" exception. Simple enough? Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Under which policy do you usually decide to speedy delete something? --PBS (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly added "material which meets the criteria for speedy deletion" as an explicit exception to preservation of information. Can we now stop using the supposed conflict with CSD as an objection to this being policy? DHowell (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody cut it out

Like, right now. The next person who moves this page, I swear I'll pull this encyclopedia right over and come back there and block you kids. - brenneman 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that have an emoticon of some kind attached? ;-) Not that I wish to get caught in the middle of this, but I should note that PBS is also an admin. I recognize it's arguable that discussion in the section above might have been closed a bit hastily, and that proper respect must be paid to those who've gradually brought this page to its present form bit-by-bit over some five years. All the while it has been called "policy". Yet it has never read like policy but rather more like an informal set of advice to inexperienced editors. In other words the advocates of reducing it to "guideline" status appear to have a reasonable point to make. Father Goose has asserted in defense of keeping policy status that the page is more a conduct policy rather than a content policy -- this appears to me to deserve further discussion and clarification. Certainly some of this discussion above revolves around what we mean by "editing policy" and indeed what we mean by "policy", along with the question of how strictly users would be expected to respect and follow the assertions put forward on the project page. WP:Policies and guidelines describes policy as something that's arguably quite inconsistent with the present content of the page, project-page content that quite arguably never was consistent with notions of "policy", except perhaps at the very outset of the wiki when notions of policy were far more general and informal than they are today. So there's some obvious tension here, although it seems to me it doesn't quite rise to the level of RfC at this stage of the discussion. Perhaps it would help to open up a channel among administrators to facilitate further discussion of this proposal above? Any other ideas? Hopefully it isn't necessary for someone to file a policy RfC in order to get broader feedback from the community. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

How about moving the page (over redirect) to just Wikipedia:Editing? We don't title the pages Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (it's a redirect) or Wikipedia:Notability guideline. That way, regardless of the outcome of the policy vs. guideline discussions, this page would be at the right place.

As an aside, count me among the editors who feels this should be a guideline, and that the specific WP:PRESERVE section is completely inconsistent with current Wikipedia practice, and so should not, as currently stated, be part of any policy or guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need "policy" or "guideline" in the name. But is "editing" really a good name? Aren't all WP policies and guidelines about editing? Perhaps we can do without this page altogether, and just move the relevant portions (insofar as they accurately represent good practice) to appropriate places in our trinity of core content policies?--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Policies or guidelines that extend beyond editing include Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Harassment, just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others. Pagrashtak 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? Even if "all" was an obvious exaggeration, calling a page of limited scope like this just "Editing" (or Editing policy, Editing guideline or whatever) is not very helpful to anyone. What would you call it? Indeed, why do we need it (as a separate page)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't understand that you meant that as an obvious exaggeration. Sometimes those kinds of things don't come across well in text. The more I read this page, the more it seems redundant. At this moment, I'm not convinced it needs to stay in the end. I think if we start removing redundant sections and rewriting the problematic sections we will find that this page is transforming into something else. Whether that results in policy, guideline, essay, or the dissolution of this page into other pages remains to be seen, but I think we should focus on the clean up effort, and then worry about renaming once the final product comes into view. Pagrashtak 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that status (as not policy) should be agreed first, see my previous comment that starts "If the information in PRESERVE is in a guideline..." --PBS (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now I would say that this should not be policy. However, my point is that it will need to be cleaned either way and we might very well end up with something that could be policy. Pagrashtak 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you see as unique to this page, that no other policy page covers? I think if it is to remain a policy page then we need to decide what it is that this page does that other policy pages do not do. A mission statement for want of a better term. --PBS (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that most of this page repeats other policies or guidelines. I think we're more or less headed to the same goal, but we're taking different paths. Pagrashtak 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeat of WP:NOTFORUM

I find this section:

In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. Some consideration of etiquette would not hurt.

to be unnecessarily duplicative of WP:NOTFORUM. Considering that WP:NOT is already listed in the see also, I do not see a reason we need to repeat this advice on this page. I suggest we remove it. Pagrashtak 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For a start, I've marked it as a duplicate using {{main}}. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This policy only mirrors several guidelines and essays already

1. Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
2. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
3. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
4. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort.
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
6. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is a redirect to part of this policy, not an independent page or policy (and has always been). Guest9999 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, I will take that out to avoid confusion. (refactor) Ikip (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other policy that explicitly says to preserve material. The links above concern deleting entire articles, not preserving text within an article. Am I missing something?   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose demotion one of the founding pricipals of Wikipedia. What's next? Demoting WP:V and WP:CIVIL? As pointed out by Ikip, preserve acts to protect wikipedia and improve it in support of all other policy and guideline. Editors should be urged to pay it greater heed when it comes to improving wiki, rather than promoting its demotion in order to serve the removal of informations and the diminishment of wikipedia. That's moving Wiki in the wrong direction. Time to brush off the cobewbs and remove the ivy from the walls. Wiki needs to be a continually expanding and mutable entity or it will go the way of the Commodore 64. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I started editing wikipedia, there was a help page or something explaining (paraphrasing): leave sentences unfinished, make mispellings, place citations needed tags, do similar small things that will help new visitors get involved into editing... what happened to all that. are there no new visitors on wikipedia? now there are some who seem to want to not only not encourage new visitors to edit, but also to discourage them by immediately removing their "imperfect" contributions. I think this policy is essential to preserve the spirit of Wikipedia mission. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

preserve exceptions

Added: "any other exceptions made by WP policies, or established by any mediation or arbitration " as being succinct and accurate, and preventing misuse of the section in the future. Collect (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No other policy has such a wide exception, I changed this to "established by any mediation or arbitration". Which I feel is a good comprimise, considering the editor is attempting to add content to a established policy, with no prior discussion on the talk page first. Ikip (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other exceptions in other policies -- why do you wish to dispute that any such exceptions exist? The list should not be intended as including evey possibility, though that is what some appear to interpret it as being. And the discussion about WP:PRESERVE exists, and my position there was stated. This is not a bolt from the blue. Collect (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly fiddled with it. Let's not split hairs about "Exceptions include". I've focused on what should be done instead of deleting, and linked WP:NOT offhand for what's not appropriate, keeping only the emphasis on the illegal-ish stuff. I'd like to add a bit more emphasis on what to do before deleting, since that's the point here; any suggestions how to do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the list of exceptions. Keep just "With this in mind, do not preserve content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Listing a set of exception tends to give the impression that these are the only exceptions that exist. Also, I would suggest "however" instead of "With this in mind". Since the paragraph up to that point does not imply exceptions. Taemyr (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I expanded on your text slightly to cover WP:NOR and WP:LIBEL. Hiding T 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Make it a guideline, then the three content policies take president and the wording of the section becomes much easier. While this is a policy that continues to step into the area of the three content polices, then it is always open to an interpretation that conflicts with the content policies and processes such as AfD which depend on the content policies. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Once you make it clear this policy cannot supercede the four content policies, there should be no tension at AFD. It doesn't need a demotion to guideline, and it shouldn't be demoted to guideline status, it's a long-standing policy which describes what we do as well as what we strive to do and is vital to the proper management of a wiki style encyclopedia. Hiding T 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW, my initial wording actually would work? Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've played with it slightly, but for me, yes. Hiding T 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with adding a line to say it should be subservient to the content policies is a band aid because as a policy that can be removed at any time with a bold edit and we are back to the current mess. If it is a guideline then it will take a serious debate to promote it back to being a policy, that contradicts the three content policies. --PBS (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is excessively legalistic. Nobody's arguing that this trumps [[WP:NOT] et. al, just that this means that failing WP:NOT does not immediately equate to deletion if there's another use for the information. The fact that it doesn't reference later policies is just because this is an old scrap of mostly-forgotten, mostly-assumed policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reference to WP:NOT is unacceptable because that page is so bad, being so full of contradictions and falsehoods that it should be deleted as nonsense. I myself have tried to use in the past to remove dictionary articles about words such as dude but got nowhere. Most recently, we see that its statements regarding statistics are false. The biggest joke is its subsection WP:BURO which is nonsense on stilts, being violated yet again as we speak. I am also not content with references to mediation and arbitration as they focus mainly on interpersonal conflicts between editors and may be quite local in scope. As they are, by their nature, ad hoc, it seems best to leave them out of the list of main exceptions which should focus upon the indisputable stuff like copyright violation and libel. I have edited accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Having no reference to WP:NOT is unacceptable, given that WP:NOT is a long-standing policy page, and I don't think you should enforce your own opinion in the face of a wide consensus that supports the policy. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your edits, please. Hiding T 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Why was the conversion to prose reverted? The bulleted lists here are horrible. I myself suggested changing to a paragraph format at #Changes to preserve, and no one seemed opposed to it there. I should think this is one improvement we could agree on that is completely separate from any change in meaning. Pagrashtak 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, if we're married to the lists, let's cut the weasel-wordy crap. It already says that exceptions are not limited to the list, so we don't need to add:

• extra emphasis to the fact that there are other exceptions.
• vaguely-worded bullets that link nowhere. (And mediation decisions aren't binding anyway!)
• ANOTHER catch-all, like "any other deletable content."

The idea is that people just try to find a way to use content instead of and before deleting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thorough rewrite

Over the past week, I've been drafting essentially a complete rewrite of the page. Although I fully support the core ideas it espouses, the page as a whole was in need of some serious restructuring and streamlining. I'll roll out the changes piece by piece, to make it easier for people to evaluate what I'm doing. I'll leave the "preserve" section alone for now, as it is attracting the bulk of dispute.

First change: "Boldness", "Preserve", and "Major changes" don't meaningfully fall under the heading of "Editing styles". Further, what's in the "Editing styles" section is fairly redundant with the "Perfection" section. So I'm going to scrap it and move all its subsections to L2 headings.

Second change: the page needs a lede. I've written an overview similar to what was in "Editing styles", though far less redundant with "Perfection".

More to come after I get some feedback on these changes.--Father Goose (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please show us your draft in a sandbox to save unnecessary reversion and chaos. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this will progress least chaotically if I pitch one change at a time and solicit feedback. So, first of all: do you disagree with adding a lede or removing the "editing styles" section? Do let me know.--Father Goose (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please post your suggested change here. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. What I'm suggesting is that a lede be added to the page -- I think the one I wrote is adequate, but if you want to change it or write a different one, go ahead.

I'm also suggesting that the "Editing policy" section is basically just a repeat of the third paragraph of "Perfection is not required", and that the "Boldness", "Preserve information", and "Major changes" sections don't group very logically under it. So I suggest removing "Editing policy" and promoting its three subsections to L2 headings.

I also removed the first sentence sentence and a half of the "Boldness" section ("There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be. Generally, most of us think we should..."). WP:BOLD is well accepted by now, so we shouldn't be using ambivalent language toward it.

Here's what the above three suggestions would look like if implemented. If you disagree with any of the changes I'm suggesting, let me know why.--Father Goose (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am reverting the lead added by User:Father Goose for the following reasons:

1. It seems a non-sequitur, having little to do with editing policy
2. A lead should summarise the article not develop separate points
3. We already have a summary of the article in the nutshell
4. Any additions require justification per WP:CREEP

Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-added the lede, since I agree with Father Goose and disagree with Colonel Warden, and therefore believe that consensus has changed an the lead should remain until other voices join in. Hiding T 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's move on to the next issue: the "Editing styles" section seems like an arbitrary grouping to me, and the text redundant with what's in the "Perfection" section. Further, the "be bold" section opens with ambivalent language toward WP:BOLD, despite that rule's broad acceptance. (suggested changes) Comments?--Father Goose (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it on this page that needs to be policy and not guidance? --PBS (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it about WP:IAR that needs to be policy and not guidance? Once I understand that, I will be able to answer your question. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE sections are the heart of this policy, and to the extent that they describe sound principles, they are policy material. (This is why IAR is policy as well: it outlines an extremely sound principle.) Most of the other sections, however, are already well covered on other policy pages, so I'll continue the rewrite and try to get this page focused on its core topic -- which I perceive to be "collaborative editing".--Father Goose (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)