Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

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


So I created this shortcut because I think it best captures the general spirit of this policy which is that improvement is preferred over plain removal.

However, User:TransporterMan deleted my addition of the shortcut to this page, saying "Don't need another shortcut for this (and PRESERVE is widely and commonly used); seek consensus on talk page)".

This is why I'm making a talk page entry here: I agree that a new shortcut for this isn't needed per se and this probably won't become a more used shortcut than the currently most used, however I still think it's useful for being more explanatory and on-point. Also 4 shortcuts isn't that many.

Maybe some other editors can give their opinion on this?

--Fixuture (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit late... but I do have a concern about the proposed shortcut. It perpetuates the common misconception that the only way to improve an article is by adding stuff to it... neglecting the fact that it is also possible to improve an article by removing stuff from it. So... if we are going to have a shortcut that says IMPROVE DON'T REMOVE... then we would need to balance it with a companion shortcut that says IMPROVE BY REMOVING. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This policy complying with servers?[edit]

I have edited Wikipedia for almost a dozen years, including by using IPs in 2005. Recently, I read the policy as a whole. Nevertheless, I thought about how the servers can hold up data of all encyclopedia articles written here. I went to "WP:servers", which redirects to meta:Wikimedia servers, tagged as outdated. It contains information about which servers are used to preserve data of everything, including history logs. I know that "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required." Question: how effective is this policy if servers may have technical difficulties, i.e. something goes technically wrong with the servers? --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I am not sure I understand the question... could you give an example? Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for being less clear, so I'll provide examples. From what I read at Meta-wiki, there will be some testing on April 19 for 20 to 30 minutes, resulting in delays of editing anything. Also, though Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, what if a server dies down or is dying down, affecting the data? --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I still don't understand ... You obviously see a connection between what happens to the servers and what is said on this policy page, but I don't know what that connection is. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty of editing Wikipedia[edit]

Sorry for the mess earlier about the servers and all that, so I struck the above section out and then moved on to the different topic instead. The subject is how easy or difficult editing is. I have edited Wikipedia for almost a dozen years, including by using IPs in 2005. I thought I understand the spirit of the policy, but I wonder how easy or hard editing is. In fact, I have used a lot of referencing templates for better reading, and I have used HTML coding for easier reading and access. Also, I have created and edited articles. Recently, I read this NPR article and then wonder how easy or difficult editing is, especially for newbies, mobile and tablet users, and ordinary people. I tried using mobile phones to edit Wikipedia, but I found it difficult. Also, there is this year's movement strategy, goaling to reach 2030. Yet I read some criticisms about the difficulty of editing Wikipedia. There are many questions to come up with, but I can think the following:

  1. Is Wikipedia more desktop-oriented?
  2. How can Wikipedia strive in a mobile age while editing in portable electronics is still difficult and less convenient?
  3. How is editing Wikipedia easy for newbies currently? Ordinary persons?
  4. Can editing be easier in the future?

Many more questions, but I can think just above four (or five). --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with policy? --NeilN talk to me 16:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll rephrase to connect: how effective is this policy if editing Wikipedia becomes more difficult, especially in mobile phones? George Ho (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC); edited. 21:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Talking and editing" section[edit]

I started two discussions above that were deemed irrelevant to this policy. This time, I hope I am discussing this policy correctly. One of its subsections, "discuss", says this: "Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page." However, some article talk pages have been empty for long time. Also, if discussing a non-free image, sometimes using an article talk page is less effective. Instead, I use a user talk page and FFD; sometimes, DRV. Well, discussing free images in article talk pages works usually; not the same for non-free images. Speaking of "usually", I want to add "usually" like this: "Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on usually the article's talk page." It's just a teeny-tiny edit, but I want to be sure whether it's okay. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Or "discussing such edits, preferably on the article's talk page." Other talk pages are equally valid if they get the same exposure, or more valid if they get more exposure. It might be a good idea to link to the discussion from the article's talk page for archival purposes. Bright☀ 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"preferably" might do as well. May I add it right away then? --George Ho (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps wait a week, as customary for minor changes in policy pages. Bright☀ 15:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
One week later, BrightR. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:Silence and consensus. You can in good faith presume consensus exists. Bright☀ 12:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 Added "preferably" as suggested. --George Ho (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, I disagree with this edit (followup edit here). I disagree because such edits should be discussed on the article talk page, not elsewhere. Or the article talk page should at least have a link to the matter being discussed elsewhere. I am aware that such a matter is sometimes discussed elsewhere. But that "elsewhere" is usually on an editor's talk page, which deprives watchers of the article and passerby editors/readers from seeing the issue. I ask that you self-revert that change to this policy page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Reverted. About non-free images, should they be discussed in article talk pages besides FFD? Why have user talk pages been used to discuss individual NFC? George Ho (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have an alternate proposed wording we could add? Maybe we should add an additional comment about the article talk page aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
What about mentioning user talk pages and discussion processes, like FFD and RFD? Talk pages of redirect pages are rarely used because... redirect pages themselves are rarely visited. Our best bet is RFD, which... has occasionally regulars there. George Ho (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
What wording do you propose? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, I must be careful with "instructional creep". I can propose this:

Article talk pages may vary, depending on volume of discussions. Even when an article talk page is empty, issues should still be raised at article talk pages. While content issues have been raised at user talk pages, user talk pages are neither encouraged nor discouraged. However, maintaining individual user talk pages may vary by editors' editing preferences per Wikipedia:User pages, so raising such issues there would not be recommended.

However, after my failed proposal at WT:NFC, and after seeing "instructional creep" arguments, I would no longer encourage adding more rules, but you're welcome to propose anything. I recently resisted proposing more rules also because proposed projects have been made at Meta-wiki, where I've explored. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)