Style people have requested monthly updates of two policy pages, WP:NAME and WP:NFCC. That's probably all I have time to cover, but if anyone wants to be a total hero, and solve the problem that comes up from time to time of inadequate discussion over policy changes, you're more than welcome to add monthly updates of any policy page to the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have less time available for this. I think I can keep the 7 content policy pages covered. Anyone is welcome to cover any guideline or policy cat here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, now I have more time. I should be able to keep the general style guidelines and the 7 content policy pages covered. I'd appreciate it if someone would doublecheck my work, and I think everyone would be happy to see monthly updates of any category of guidelines or policy pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding policy pages
Please see Wikipedia:VPP#Removing text from a policy page and then transcluding. Starting now, I'm going to stop editing any of the pages that are covered in the WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also considering adding Category:Wikipedia conduct policies to the Update; please weigh in at WT:LOP#Quick thought, because it would only make sense if we add a conduct policy section to that page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how this figures in, because the policy hasn't changed in effect, but the username policy has been largely rewritten. Ah...I see from looking at the history that Dan might already know the page has been changed. ;) Protonk (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did the update of that page early to give us a baseline because of the expected changes. Btw, hi Protonk :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm active on both of these pages, so I'd appreciate help with the update for these two pages from anyone who considers themselves neutral but knowledgeable. In months when there are just a few changes, I can do the update, but for months like July when a lot changed on both pages, the best I can do is just to say that the pages changed "substantially", and if someone else wants to fill in the details, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another problem someone might want to look at: see WT:CON#"essay opposing use of consensus to violate the editing policy". - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep up the good work :) Skomorokh 23:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Skomorokh! Okay, one more selected version: CITE. Fewer than I expected. I look at the diff of the last week of the month, and if nothing controversial happened in that week, then I use the last version of the month. All the deletion processes and WP:RFA assume that one week is enough to give the community a chance to weigh in, so I'm assuming the same, that one week gives people a chance to get an edit in if it's important to them. Also, versions from earlier than the last week of the month will usually be missing some acceptable edits from later in the month that I wouldn't want to discard. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Selected versions so far this month:
- Okay, I'm done for September. I was late with the August Update since I was just getting started with selecting versions and there was a lot to work out; I used to get the Updates done on the first of the month, and I got this one done on the first, and odds are good that I'll be able to keep getting them done on the first, but I can't promise it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Late addition: I decided to wait and see whether discussion and reversions continued in WP:Linking to gauge consensus; they didn't, and I've added that to the list of selected versions above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
No selected versions this month; I guess that's a good thing. I've split the General style guidelines off to WP:Update/2; per request, I'm using more discretion and including a bit less in the diffs than I do for policy. Also, I'm doing just a month-end to month-end diff at WP:Update/2 rather than selecting versions. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Lots of pages changed from one policy subcat to another on Nov 30 and more on Dec 3. Since I did the diffs for WP:POLICY, I might as well list it here, but it's now an "uncategorized" policy page:
- Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
- In the introduction, added: "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies."
- In WP:POLICY#Derivation, added: "See also Role of Jimmy Wales."
- In WP:POLICY#Role, added: [Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy] "normally" [takes precedence.]
- In WP:POLICY#Not part of the encyclopedia, added a footnote: "Conversely there is no absolute ban on external references if it is helpful and appropriate to support and explain our policies or guidelines."
More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just one selected version this month: PROTECT. The last edit of the month was quickly reverted, and talk page discussion indicates that there may be a further tweak to the language. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Selected versions so far:
- BLP: I don't see any discussion at WT:BLP or WP:VPP about taking this page out of the content policy category, and there's no corresponding edit at WP:LOP.
- NOT: Last edit has been reverted.
- - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- V: This excludes the last unreverted edit of the month, a footnoted comment: "This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to compose a citation to the source of the statement. See this comment by RexxS (talk · contribs)." On the one hand, that's more or less right, and I don't usually "count off" for (or even follow) links. On the other hand, there's no discussion, the edit was on the last day of the month, that's not the only reason for that sentence (hundreds of perspectives have been offered over the years), we don't attribute edits to users on policy pages (and the fact no one has reverted the edit for that reason suggests people haven't gotten around to reviewing this edit yet) ... and the link begins "@Camelblinky: Strawman argument. Nobody is in favour of some button-masher ..." - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No selected versions this month, which is a good thing, I suppose. Also, re-reading the previous section, I realized that I can't be "discriminating" against edits made on the last day of the month, but OTOH, I'm only guessing how the community feels about them if I don't wait a few days for comments or reversions, so starting this month, I'm doing the updates approximately 3 days before and 3 days after the first of the month, rather than doing the final one on the first day of the month. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)