Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Quotations vs. italics

A lot of people ask about the use of quotations versus italics. I would like to add the following or some version of it to the "editing policy" page; what do you all think? --KQ

Movies, books, CD/LP/8-track :-) titles, TV series, magazines and epic poems (The Iliad, The Odyssey) are italicized; short stories, songs, episodes of TV shows, articles, and most poems are in quotes.

Perhaps more importantly, quotes are never, ever used for emphasis. The single-quote, single-quote notation for emphasis is misleading in this respect.

Talk vs. discuss

The body of the text says the bottom of each page has a link "Talk". They don't, it is "Discuss this page". Does this matter? User:SGBailey

the link text has been changed since that bit was written. Feel free to update it! :-) -- Tarquin

Merge with Wikipedia/Policies_and_guidelines?

It seems to me that this page probably could be merged with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines... or not?... -- Viajero 13:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

not I think.... they serve differing purposes, though this article is probably poorly titled. Martin 14:06, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

agreed, how about something livlier, like Joy of Editing... -- Viajero 15:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Slight edit

Change note: I changed "rephrasing while preserving content" to "rephrasing or accurate precis while preserving content", under acceptable reasons for removing material, which I think correctly interprets the existing policy. Please rollback if you disagree. -- The Anome 16:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

multiple comments?

This is probably more of an etiquette question than a policy question, but I didn't find a page on that subject. Anyway, what I'm wondering is if there is a 'policy' for when someone wants to comment several times in the same talk/voting page. On the one hand, commenting in each section individually probably makes experienced users happy, because Related Changes/Recent Changes/Page History shows "→SectionTitle summary" correctly; on the other hand, it is faster and less disruptive to Watchlists (which I presume most novice users still rely on) to do a single Edit this page and summarize to the best of your ability. What do you all think? nae'blis _(talk) 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

One line summary

There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. Please don't remove it simply because you think the summary is inaccurate for this guideline. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Splash removed the summary, citing again, this template is a profound misstatement of the idea: "leave it in whatever state you like"? that's an excuse to vandals. My summary was this: Improve any page without hesitation, regardless of the state you leave it in. Avoid removing information wherever possible. The word "improve" should rule out vandalism being acceptable. Stevage 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• I object to "regardless of the state you leave it in". It encourages sloppiness. I also object to "avoid removing information" in a oneliner; there is often a good reason for removing things, and putting it right at the top could lead to people ruleslawyering "hey, our editing policy says you cannot remove my information" (see WP:0RR for a related discussion about some 'pedians who believe it is never appropriate to remove other people's work). Radiant_>|< 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I was trying to capture the two important ideas from this guideline:
    1. You should not avoid improving a page simply because it will still be in a bad state afterwards.
    2. You should try to avoid removing information un-necessarily.
  • So how about: Improve any page without hesitation: you don't have to make it perfect. Avoid removing information unnecessarily. Stevage 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The first sentence is good; the last one is still awkward. What about something that focuses on the difference between verified facts and unverified speculation, which seems to be most of what gets removed, besides vandalism? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A Proposal for a Change in Editing Policy

Acknowledging that Wikipedia was set up and is designed to be a resource for all people seeeking knowledge, and

Fully Believing in the vision of Wikipedia as a place where anyone can contribute to this website, and

Noting that a lost of people have and are putting a lot of time and effort into the articles in Wikipedia, and

Deeply disturbed at the amount of senseless vandalism that occurs in Wikipedia, and

Noting that this vandalism is disrespectful to Wikipedia, legitimate contributors, and potential information seekers, and

Whereas the most comment culprits of vandalism on Wikipedia are anonymous users without an account with Wikipedia, and,

Be It Hereby Resolved That:

1.) Make the editing of articles only permissible to those with accounts with Wikipedia.

2.) That a special discussion page be set up so that anonymous users may propose article changes with their reasoning for the change.

3.) If the users change is reasonable then the change can be made. If it is nonsense the it can be ignored.

(Steve 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I spend as much time reverting vandalism from anon accounts as I do editing. Seconded.Michael Dorosh 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing an edit from anynymous IP with no user page and no talk is signal to check the edit and this way one can easier catch an unsophisticated vandal. If everyone gets a name such hint will dissapear and the huge number of newly created names will make the subconcious decision what to check harder. There's no hope the situation can be changed until stable versions will be implemented, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been proposed before:

• Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users
• Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement

Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Not sure what stable version means. But I think if we want to encourage participation (and I believe we do) then we need to let anon users edit because, in all honesty, that's one of the things that got me hooked. If we don't permit it, the likelyhood of new users joining up and helping will be reduced. At the same time, that IP address is like a red flag. On all the pages I monitor, I check those first. Granted, they may be vandals but most that I came across are just inexperienced users who want to contribute. --Mmounties (Talk) 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - Granted, most are in fact vandals from my own past experience on the pages I go to. Another point in favour is that anyone using a name to go with their edit adds a little bit more credibility. I'd even go so far as to suggest a 'real name' policy such as amazon.com has - not required, but lets a person put their personal credentials behind what they are posting. Personally, I don't place much faith in what donaldducksass|Talk has to say about cold fusion.Michael Dorosh 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak opposition Although vandalism presents a serious problem for Wikipedia, I don't think that restrictions on editing are the answer. I think that the problems with vandalism could be solved by recruiting more administrators to clear the endless back logs of articles, where a consensus has been met to delete. More admins could also clear the Speedy delete nominations a lot faster. Some users such asCooksey are knocked back as admits because standards are currently set far too high. Bobby1011 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So we should "recruit" people to just go around and revert vandalism? What is the point of that? Get rid of the vandals and concentrate on content. I don't understand your comment on "back logs (sic) of articles"...what does this have to do with vandalism to articles not meriting deletion in their entirety? Michael Dorosh 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification I was talking about the backlogs of AfD artilces, where a consensus has been reached, but no admin has gotten around to closing the debate. Bobby1011 02:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mild opposition. Creating a username is no large hurdle, true, but I would never have started editing Wikipedia had it not been possible to do so anonymously. For articles where vandalism is really a significant problem, we have semi-protection. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite annoyed I hate proposing changes on the talk pages of protected pages, anons would be much the same. also, I don't see why there's an obscure form of voting going on. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY. MichaelBillington 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Why is there no article for Article Structure?
This lack of article structure creates by far the most problems in Wikipedia because it does not focus editors who often have only fragmentary knowledge of their contribution on the actual discrete part of the articles.
Then lack of structure also means that conflicting contributions create editing wars which sap the strength of the editors and administrators alike.
What I'd like to propose is that rather then have articles created in free-hand or freehand(?), the article should be created from start with a template that requires the editor to assess their own ability to contribute by presenting them with the options of creating:
a) an introductory section which covers the subject in general terms,
b) an advanced or more sophisticated section which expands on the general terms and adds general detail, and
c) a third section which requires expert knowledge contributions with hard facts.
Each section can be given a quality tolerance rating. In addition the expert section can not contain any unreferenced sentences, and only contributors to this section can participate in writing an article conclusion or summary (fourth section). Other templates may be created for specific field of knowledge articles that assist in structuring content. Its really just like in urban planning, architecture and building. If people are allowed to build anywhere and without consideration for the safety of designs and materials used, invariably you will find yourself in the middle of a shanty town which is neither good for Wikipedia nor for the editing expereince.
Of course "Rome was not built in one day" either, and also started with a fight :) --Mrg3105 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold editing versus (innocently, in this case) sneaky deletion

Everyone knows; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

I live by that, of course.

But at WP:DYK I submitted a hook [CAUTION: think of the general case here, not the specific!]. There was a tiny bit of discussion, I didn't want it changed in any way but begrudgingly trimmed it a little. All of this is quite normal, tedious, boring, etc. I'm quite normal in wanting to preserve my original test; DYK is behaving normally in wanting to trim it. Nothing to see here– yet.

As the hook was being moved from Template talk:Did you know to Template:Did you know/Next update, though, the hook was considerably shortened as a part of the process of cut and paste. I'm not screaming for blood here, I'm sure they do it all the time, I'm sure they mean well and I'm even sure they do a good job trimming in this fashion. But regardless.. WP:BOLD only applies when your edits show up in the edit summary of the original page. If content is changed between the version on one page and the version on a separate page during cut/paste, that is sneaky deletion. Well-intended sneaky deletion, honorable sneaky deletion, probably even profitable sneaky deletion– but in my opinion it is still sneaky deletion & thus Bad Form. Thoughts?

Please don't rush to defend those noble and honorable DYK editors; think of it in the abstract. Thanks Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 14:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My answer would be "maybe". If a change is made which is felt in good faith to be an improvement, I can't fault the person who made the change. That the change was made while text was copied from one page to another is no particular sin... it's convenient to be able to look at diffs, but you spotted the change here anyway. If it's a question of wanting the right to change it back once it's on the protected Main Page, you can always petition for that on the talk page, though it's hard to get a protected page changed in a timely manner -- and that's assuming you could get an admin to agree that your version was better.--Father Goose (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ling Nut seems to be proposing his own novel twist on WP:BOLD here - that the BOLD principle is somehow rendered invalid if an edit is altered in the transition between one page and another. But there is no such caveat in the guideline.

Ling Nut claims that he is defending a principle rather than responding from personal pique at having his DYK hook altered by yours truly at the last moment, but I can hardly fail to notice that he has just MFD'ed an article I spent considerable time on, which features prominently in the credits on my user page.

Be that as it may however, I have attempted to explain to Ling Nut on his talk page why it just isn't practical to consult with DYK nominators over every copyedit made to nominated hooks, but it appears he hasn't accepted those explanations. But to put this alleged "problem" in perspective, I have worked solidly for the last eight months preparing DYK updates, I am the second most prolific promoter of hooks ever, and in all that time I have had exactly two complaints about copyediting of hooks, both of which were made a day or two ago. In that light then, I think I might be forgiven for regarding Ling Nut's position on this matter as at best a fringe view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Urp. I'm being extremely civil and rule-following about the DYK thing. I'm disappointed you mentioned Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of battles and other violent events by death toll here. Really, you think I am fighting against you, but I am not. No really. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Demote to a guideline

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)

• 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)

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)