User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey, so I noticed you said this "(essay needs to note that it may be regarded to supplement the guideline by either a small minority or a large section of the community)" in your edit note for the essay at WP:GENDERIDENTITY. While I'm not averse to the idea of adding the banner you added, I'm not sure it needs to be added (especially given that WP:GENDERIDENTITY was not the only supplemental essay lacking the disclaimer in question). Also, I'm pretty sure that it shouldn't contain the link to WP:NOTPOLICY. that space appears to be intended for links to the page you are on, not a link to WP:NOTPOLICY. If you'd like, we can talk about this on WP:GENDERIDENTITY's talk page, but I figured I'd reach out to you here as you'd probably notice the message faster. Thanks! Cam94509 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any essay should lack that disclaimer so I'll hunt for ones that don't have it. I just copied that disclaimer from somewhere else, feel free to remove the link to NOTPOLICY. (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok. My only concern is that the disclaimer is something of a duplicate, given that WP:GENDERIDENTITY already had the "while this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the MOS:IDENTITY guideline, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." disclaimer. If you'd like, I can help you hunt down some of the supplemental essays that only have the disclaimer WP:GENDERIDENTITY had before. Cam94509 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'd prefer it if a new disclaimer was made which can combine the two to make it more clear and less repetitive. Perhaps you know how to make one? Yes, that would be good, thanks. (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually no expert on formatting and Wikipedia. A combined disclaimer might be a good thing, but I'm not really comfortable doing it. Anyway, WP:AFDP and WP:AAAGF both lack the second disclaimer. (I'm ignoring things with a "this page in a nutshell", because otherwise the entire letter A for supplemental essays would lack that disclaimer.) I'm wondering if their may be a consensus on "Not using it for supplemental essays" or something, because, well, it seems to almost never be used in the context of supplemental essays. Cam94509 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This is particularly a problem with that disclaimer: "which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." This implies that the essay is an authority that should be followed except for parts where it contradicts the guideline. (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd honestly figure out whatever the pathway of discussion is for that particular disclaimer, and discuss your objections there, as it seems to be *the* disclaimer for supplemental essays. Cam94509 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be best. I'll try finding where I can do that. (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright. If it's OK with you, I'm going to revert your edit on WP:GENDERIDENTITY, as I think it's probably best if WP:GENDERIDENTITY looks like other supplemental essays, and it looks to me like the standard setup for a supplemental essay doesn't include the disclaimer you've added, and I think you're going through the appropriate pathway for fixing the problem. Cam94509 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Already removed it. (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Cam94509 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)