Wikipedia talk:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies

This page was nominated for deletion on 2009-01-10. The result of the discussion was Procedural keep.

Undue weight redirect

I think this should be a redirect to WP:UNDUE Verbal chat 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is about no more regulations or policies. I can't see how this is connected to WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. (logos) 00:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep? That's almost exactly the same idea, but better stated, fleshed out, and more established. NJGW (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that NOMORE is a good link for UNDUE - it doesn't matter what this essay was supposed to be about. However, NJGWs suggestion is good too. Verbal chat 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW's suggestion is a good idea. Maybe we can transfer this discussion to the deletion page. Dr.K. logos 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note there. Hopefully we'll get a speedy close out of this. NJGW (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a really good match -- add this stuff there if there is to be a redir. Collect (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about which "this stuff there" you suggest is neccessary? NJGW (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, and has an idea that is not included in the WP:CREEP, namely a requirement for a broader input than was given during guideline/policy creation. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add that to wp:CREEP. Per NOMORE and CREEP, having both NOMORE and CREEP is not advised. NJGW (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOMORE is a policy proposal, CREEP is not. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you don't like what this page says, just say so. It won't be long before someone who dislikes this page puts it up for deletion. I wish editors would be more tolerant of the views of others. Ikip (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirect to wp:CREEP

(also from RfD) These two comments were made from before a redirect option was given

Keep.Properly marked. Edited within two months, hence not "too old" or ready to be "historical." Collect (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Roux. This can always be marked as historical or rejected without deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

212.200.241.72 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(first 3 comments are from the RfD)

Support redirect. Verbal chat 09:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Redirect per my discussion with Verbal and NJGW. Dr.K. logos 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support redir, else historify/etc pending talkpage outcome. //roux 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support NJGW (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep lets be a little more tolerant of other people's views please. Ikip (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested on this discussion. Third opinions are reserved to discussions between only two editors. As this has received input from multiple wikipedians, I have removed the request. I would encourage you to list this discussion in appropriate wikiprojects or follow alternate steps to dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

historical/rejected

this proposal needs to be marked as such and not redirected/deleted. or should i try some dispute resolution mechanism? 212.200.241.72 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why can't it just be redirected to an essay which covers the same material? Are you the original author of this piece? Verbal chat 16:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why can't it just be redirected to an essay which covers the same material? your comprehension of this proposal is different from mine. although they are on the same topic, they do not cover the same idea. this proposal suggests a mechanism for accepting new policies, while CREEP doesn't have that. also, CREEP is an essay, this is a policy proposal, and as such, needs to be in the 'proposed policies' category.

Are you the original author of this piece? it's irrelevant.

212.200.241.72 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comprehension of a proposed policy is different from mine. There was a tag placed, but no indication that procedures for proposal where initiated (see Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies). If the original author thought it needed to be a policy, they should have followed through with it. At this stage it is an abandoned essay that wasn't ready to be moved from userspace. NJGW (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I will be doing all those things listed now. 212.200.241.72 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in using your account. Verbal chat 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as though 212.200.241.72 (talk · contribs) is intending to move this project forward. Wikipedia policy is that users are not required to create an account, so no user should insist that one is created. It seems reasonable to give 212.200.241.72 a few days to complete the process of nominating this proposal (even thought I think it will be declined). NB: there is no consensus, when looking at the AfD from a few days ago and the few comments above, that this article should be redirected. Furthermore, this is a policy proposal, not at essay, and should thus remain as a separate entity until it has gone through the policy proposal process or has remained inactive for a sufficient time. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user does have an account. Verbal chat 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

policy or guideline

I'm not sure which one this should be, and hope other users will contribute with their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.241.72 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to existing policy-making procedures

Oppose making this a policy or guideline:

Existing policy-making procedures mean new policies don't come into force unless there is a consensus that they should. In most cases, these new policies reflect existing practice anyways, or at least, they should.

"There should be no more policies or guidelines unless a guideline or a policy is really shown to be necessary by a community that is wider than community of that policy's or guideline's editors." For new policies that are properly advertised on noticeboards, everyone who is watching the noticeboards is put on notice. I'm not sure how much of a wider community you want.

This would make a nice essay, and as an essay it should encourage wide advertisement of proposed policies and guidelines, but it should not itself be a guideline or policy, at least not yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discussion at village pump

you can also share your views here: Village Pump thread 212.200.241.72 (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the status of this page

Editors thinking this should be marked as a failed proposal

Editors thinking this should be marked as an essay

Editors who are okay with either outcome

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who think neither should be done at this time

Editors thinking this page needs more work

Editors thinking this should be marked as guideline

Editors thinking this should be marked as policy