This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ.
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per above. I'm no fan of the status quo but in this case we're not talking about a substantive change. And the proposal will affect years of practice by thousands of editors and links to subsections. -
Oppose Alphabetical is a default ordering if there isn't a conventional or more logical ordering. More important first is the usual convention when things differ in importance. Anyway you should brought this up twenty years ago when the page was created ;-) NadVolum (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even more important is that editors who have been around for some time know this by the current name or abbreviation. No good reason has been provided to deviate from the status quo and I can see none. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Ca, I'm not sure about all the changes you're making. Off hand, here are a few that stood out to me:
"a summary of the most pertinent principles": We specified that that WP:5P is a "popular" summary, to be clearer that it's not an "official" or "complete" one. 5P is IMO an excellent summary, but it's also just a five-point re-write of WP:Trifecta to sound more formal and avoid some slang. There's nothing magical about it.
"Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices": We specified "pages" here because there are multiple meanings of policy. This paragraph is specifically talking about the written pages, rather than standard practices. (Consider, e.g., "our country's foreign policy": you don't expect that to be a single document with the word "Policy" in a fancy box at the top.) The written pages do this; the actual policies ("a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions") is what editors do at RecentChanges or AFD, not what we write on the page.
This is partially a consequence of our WP:NOTSTATUTE approach. Wikipedia uses a style closer to the British constitution than to the American one. That is, what matters is the principles that we support, rather than the exact wording. US law occasionally makes decisions based on the presence or absence of a comma. Wikipedia is more concerned with the overall effect: Does this help us improve or maintain Wikipedia? If yes, then that's what we want. If not, then Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
Another way of looking at this: WP:5P is Wikipedia's policy, but it's not a {{policy}}.
"Additionally, the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page.": The problem of people misinterpreting the WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts is perennial and significant. For example, there are hundreds of shortcuts that start with WP:NOT but don't point to WP:NOT. On occasion, we'll even see people arguing that WP:THIS requires us to do this, and WP:NOTTHIS requires us to never do this ...and they're pointing at the same section of the same page, only the editors didn't know this, because they were just guessing that the shortcut matched the rule, so they never bothered to actually read the rules.
This is not an exhaustive list, but I also want to say that I don't object to every change you've made. What would you like to do to resolve some of my concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind and lengthy feedback. Here is a list of changes I will make later, based on your suggestions:
Reintroduce popular as descriptor
Reword the page–attitude distinction to be clearer
Re-add "shortcut is not the policy" with clearer wording
I've seen a couple of claims, during the last year or two, that proposals for WP:PGCHANGES should happen at the village pump, instead of on the talk page for the affected policy/guideline/similar page. It is generally poor practice to do this deliberately, as one sometimes has Group A making a decision about Page B, and then totally surprising Group B when Group A implements the changes. There are, however, times when it makes sense (e.g., when multiple guidelines could be affected, you don't necessarily want to pick one talk page over the others) and other times when it's just what happens (e.g., a discussion takes an unexpected turn). I wonder whether we should make this more explicit. Something like "Changes to a single guideline or policy should normally be discussed on the talk page for that guideline or policy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t think the venue of a policy discussion matters - what DOES matter is that as many editors as possible know that the discussion is taking place, and where to go to participate in it. So, leave lots of neutral notifications (everywhere you can think of) clearly linking to the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We say "Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page......start a request for comment (RfC) about your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page. Include the {{rfc}}..." Should we be more blunt? Moxy🍁 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, WP:Village Pump (policy) says that it should be “used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.”
So… I can see why people are confused. Especially if you think there is only one “correct” to do things. I don’t. I don’t think the location of an RFC matters as long as max people are notified a) that it is taking place, and b) where it is taking place.
People should defer to existing policies and guidelines over administration pages. How long has this been there at the village pump? Village pump should be there to direct people to the right page not be the page itself in my view as outline in our policy page "The RfC should typically be announced at the policy and/or proposals village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups". Should be fixed as per WP:POLCON. Moxy🍁 00:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite as simple as that. Usually, you need to defer to the most specific information. For example, WP:V says that "Reputable newspapers" are reliable sources, but MEDRS says that they're not reliable for biomedical information. You defer to MEDRS because it's more specific, not because guidelines inherently outrank policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venue
For small-to-medium discussions affecting a single page: Prefer the talk page for that policy, guideline, or other page.
For small-to-medium discussions affecting multiple pages: Start the discussion at the talk page for one of the affected pages or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Notify the other pages about the central location.
For long discussions: Create a separate page (e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YOUR SUMMARY HERE) or as a subpage of the policy or guideline (e.g., Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence).
Maybe a note like one of these? Or maybe this is overkill?
Recommended venues –
Do your best to notify other relevant pages
I think it is a bit of overkill. I agree with Blueboar that leaving notifications at the relevant pages is the most important guidance. The location of the discussion is flexible and can be moved to a separate subpage on an as-deemed-useful basis. isaacl (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. (closed by non-admin page mover) – 
Y
N
