Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This template was within the scope of WikiProject Policy and Guidelines, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Rollback[edit]

Hi, I find that you have reverted my edit on 'Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines' because of the reason 'edit created 50% empty space in the template', I use opera v 9.50 Alpha at 800 x 600 resolution, I have tested the template on IE v 7.0.5xxx.11 and Mozilla v 2.0.0.11 at same resolution and have not faced the problem as mentioned by you. It seems that you use resolution above 800 x 600 as on changing the resolution of my screen to 1024 x 768 I started facing the problem as mentioned by you (However on using the current version of template in 800 x 600 resolution makes half of the template outside horizontal page limit). Recently I have made similar edits [1] , [2] , [3] etc. however my edits were not reverted nor reported (I may add that few of the templates that I edited were used at many different article). It seems to me that the reason for the apparent 'conflict' is due to 'screen resolution' differences between users, I would like to request you to suggest changes so as to find a solution LegalEagle (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have in fact a resolution of 1400x900 widescreen. This is how "my" version looks for me, and this is "yours". From your given similar edits, only the second ([4]) looks good, because of the align=center. My personal preference is to let the screen resolution regulate the look, and not introduce the <br> at all. – sgeureka t•c 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Though I am tempted to agree with your suggestion on letting the screen resolution regulate the look of templates, I would like to point out that users having lower resolution would need to unnecessarily drag their pages to be able to properly view the template (if possible pls lower your resolution to 800 x 600 and chk my edit), while if the <br> edit is effected the higher resolution screen would be asthetically harmed (as you have rightly proved) but there is no user discomfiture. So I shall request you to reconsider your decision about the revert. LegalEagle (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What, do I understand this right that you have to use a vertical horizontal scrollbar to see/use the template properly ("would need to unnecessarily drag their pages")? Because this would suck big time and requires something to be done. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You have perfectly understood the problem (but it is the horizontal scrollbar that needs to be dragged), and as you have said this is disturbing as after a change to the navbox template source all the templates are geared towards higher resolution screens (if not tempered with <br> edit). I would like to hear what you propose to do now LegalEagle (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant horizontal, sorry. We can of course go back to your version in this case. This discussion should be continued at the template talk page; maybe someone can help out with the wiki markup so that everything looks good for low-res wikipedians even without the use of <br>. – sgeureka t•c 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for support, I have copied the discussion to the template talkpage, hope the sysops would also come forward and find some meaningful solution so that, as you have put, 'low-res wikipedians' can also use the other templates without much hassle. LegalEagle (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want a pro to review it, take it to Template_talk:Navbox and you should have it resolved rather quickly. Regads.--12 Noon  16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in navbox itself is causing this problem, and all the revision of this template look fine in both IE6 and Firefox. My guess is that LegalEagle is having a problem with his display settings. There is no assignable cause that should cause the contents of any template not to wrap correctly. EdokterTalk 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Im going to have to jump in on this discussion as the creator of this template. I am going to revert back to the original version. When I created this template I actually took it to the WP:Village Pump to get comments about its usage. I would have to say that at least 8 different Wikipedians reviewed it and edited the page, while many many more purely reviewed it. Not one of these people found any problem with the formatting of this template. From the sound of it, it looks like you are having a problem with your computer screen, and although we do value how each Wikipedian views Wikipedia, we cannot make changes that make the template look good on one screen and crappy on many millions of others. I would also advise LegalEagle to not make edits like these on templates anymore as they do not fix any problems rather these cause formatting issues on many other computers. Thanks.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Question[edit]

So where does WP:OA belong? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This template is used more for the commonly cited and used policies. The policy is rarely used and effects even less users. The policy says it has only been implemented less than 1000 times. That said, I wouldnt be opposed to it being in the template, but IMO it doesnt belong here.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS (links)#Context[edit]

From MOS (links)#Context: Do not use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles. In using the WikiCleaner disambiguation software, it showed several WP pages that have had their page names changed, for good reason. The navbox should reflect the current full page names (w/o the WP, of course), for those pages. This is according to the MOS and normally would not be a debatable topic. Thank you. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair - (You can help!)[edit]

Had to run WikiCleaner again, to repair link that was reverted and not fixed. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also corrected formating for patent nonsense, according to MOS, the words for WP should not be included in links, but piped instead to the page name. Also matched the piped links to the exact WP page names, should not use abbreviations that may be interpreted differently or may not be immediately understandable.

Funandtrvl (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe next time don't make five edits in a row making small misc changes? That's what the preview button is for. It makes it very difficult to revert edits when there are a bunch in a row. I also did try to restore the non-controversial edits here. Obviously I just missed one that you fixed. This is a widely used, and widely agreed upon format. When I created this template and implemented its, there was a lot of discussion on talk pages and edit summaries gaining consensus for the format of the template (including a long discussion just on the name i.e. the "Key" part). Obviously, it was well within common practice to ask for consensus for major changes to such a template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good template[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that this is a good template. Would it be possible to have it set to auto-collapse, instead of collapsed? I think I found one page (naming conventions) that wasn't linked to it, that really should be. Thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gurch's edit[edit]

While I disagree with a lot of the other overly BOLD edits that Gurch has been unilaterally making on policy pages, I agree with him that removing the shortcuts from this template makes it much more readable.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vilage pump[edit]

Since we're obviously not giong to agree ourselves as to what Linking guidelines should be listed here, I've raised it at WP:VPP#Guideline templates. Let's leave both disputed entries there for now as a good compromise, and wait to see what others say.--Kotniski (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I propose merging {{Guideline list}} into this template. Please see discussion at Template_talk:Guideline_list#Merge. Rd232 talk 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

What do you think about adding the core notability policies to this template? Ocaasi c 00:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the subject-specific notability guidelines? No, they're linked from WP:N, and this template, which is supposed to be key policies and guidelines, is well big enough. Rd232 talk 01:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

The consensus was to change the layout as implemented in the edit here. Cunard (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to change a the layout to make it more user-friendly. It would look like this:

The biggest changes are the added subheadings for policies and guidelines and the removal of the links in the subheadings since almost all link to the same page (the list of policies and guidelines). Overall I believe this improves the navigation of the template. Would anyone object to the change? Atón (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think this is an improvement. The main problem is the size: it's almost twice the size of the original. Having this size makes it a bit intimidating and unwieldy. I !vote to keep the original. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
You are right about the size. It's bigger because I added some policies and guidelines that I believe are key (like the enforcement policies or the deletion process guideline). But that's another discussion, and I agree the size should be compact. If we keep only the policies and guidelines that are already in the template it's possible to improve the layout without making it bigger. It could look like this:
To me this layout looks more organized and easier to navigate while mantaining a compact size. What do you think? Atón (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
OK I still don't see it as an improvement. It looks more complicated and less "friendly". I can't really see the point of separating policies from guidelines: for example, the content guidelines "flow" from the content policies, and it makes sense to group them together. So the arrangement is less logical, as well as being less streamlined, at least from my point of view. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken it a bit further and changed it following your comments:
Note that I've removed the links to the Wikimedia Foundation, just for the sake of the experiment. As for the rest, the headings are less wordy, the 'groups' of policies and guidelines are more easily recognizable and the size is more compact while maintaining all the links to the policies. What's your opinion? Atón (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this looks better:
I've removed the row of the Wikimedia Foundation and added a row for policies related to enforcement. For the rest, I've maintained all other links. If there are no objections I'll upgrade the template. Atón (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering there is not really that many watching this page.....I suggest you set up a WP:RFC...Because won't get far in trying to change the banner with only a few people talking about it.--Moxy (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfc layout proposal[edit]

Should we simplify the template as shown in the proposal? Atón (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Version B (Wikimedia Foundation row added, contrast in luminosity between two colors increased. Added 9 june 2017)

Survey[edit]

  • Support. The current 12 headers are too many to navigate. The proposal seems more user-friendly to me and brings the template more into line with the style of Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines Atón (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this gets rid of a bunch of links, and I really don't see the point. The current one is not of excessive size, and many of the links removed seem fairly important. There really is not too many to navigate imo.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Support "Version B" since most of links have been reinstated. That my only problem with the redesign really. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like a pretty big improvement to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that the current one is fine, this is also a utility template though which many visit a page for the first time... There also may be an accessibility (WP:ACCESS) issue with the colored arrows in this template revision. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Some previously missing links which I found important were recently added. The colors of the arrows have been tested for accessibility. —PaleoNeonate - 18:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — I like the improvement. It gets rid of lots of essays and presents what is actually enforced in a way that is legible to new and old editors. Carl Fredrik talk 10:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose as it includes no link to WP:MEDRS which is a heavily enforced guideline. Carl Fredrik talk 10:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The new proposed version looks like a nice upgrade. Not Version B though, the check marks are annoyingly faint. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. WP:MEDRS should probably be added. Alsee (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I've made a new version that addresses the problems mentioned (see Version B above). This version includes all policies and guidelines' links of the current template as well as links to the enforcement policies. More links can be added, nothing in the template prevents it. Further, the contrast in luminosity between the two colors has been increased. This seems to be enough to avoid WP:ACCESS issues (proof). The point is to make the template more clearly organized, more visually attractive and more concise. Atón (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) PS: I've added the link to WP:MEDRS. Atón (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Diff[edit]

Because I didn't find it straightforward to immediately compare the two templates visually, perhaps this may also help others evaluate. Here is a diff of the links provided in the new (version B) template, versus the original. Links starting with + are found in the original but not in the new one, links starting with - are in the new template but not in the original. To generate this list, I simply extracted the wikilinks from each to a separate text file, used the unix sort command on each, then the unix diff command to generate a third file which I manually pruned/cleaned-up to save space (and remove overlapping links which were in both but were included because of link naming change).

An interesting point is that the original also provides links to categories which may be useful, although in theory navigation templates and categories may be equivalent in the end (categories are more useful for automated software, but the amount of detail depends if categorization was done properly).

+[[:Category:Wikipedia administration|Overview]]
+[[:Category:Wikipedia guidelines|Guidelines]]
+[[:Category:Wikipedia policies|Category: Policies]]
+[[:Category:Wikipedia_categories|Classification guidelines]]
-[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]
-[[Wikipedia:Banning policy|Banning]]
-[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Blocking]]
+[[Wikipedia:Broad-concept article|Broad-concept article]]
+[[Wikipedia:Core content policies|Core content policies]]
-[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|medicine]] 
+[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Behavioral|Behavioural guidelines]]
+[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Content|Content guidelines]]
+[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Style|Style conventions]]
+[[Wikipedia:List of policies#Content|content policies]]
+[[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Paid editing disclosure]]
-[[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Plagiarism]]
+[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Project namespace]]
+[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people|Proposed deletion of BLP]]
-[[Wikipedia:Protection policy|Page protection]]

PaleoNeonate - 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I've made a table of it:
Removes Adds
The proposal removes the links of the headers because the template already links to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. It's a bit overkill to also link the categories (or individual sections of the lists) in the headers. I must have forgotten three of the policies, so I've added them to the proposal and striked them out from in table. Again, thanks for pointing them out. More links can be added (or removed) if necessary. But please note that these proposal is about the layout, about grouping the links to the policies and guidelines more clearly under thematic headers. Atón (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions. Do you think that Wikipedia:Core content policies could be added under content guidelines? I agree with you for the other links and categories. —PaleoNeonate - 18:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm actually it would not be a guideline but explanatory notes about policy... —PaleoNeonate - 18:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's an "explanatory suplement", not really key, and it's linked in Template:Content policy list which appears in all content policies. Atón (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see there is consensus so I've made the layout change and removed the Rfc template. Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for working on this and for the excellent interaction during the process. —PaleoNeonate - 23:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.