Wikipedia talk:Overlapping policies and guidelines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd support merging. If the pages become too big, then we can have subpages under the same policy heading. So, for instance, Wikipedia:Deletion Policy may need to have '/undeletions' - but at least we'd keep it all together and have a composite introduction to the various parts--Docg 10:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see the point. Can I suggest that Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No legal threats be merged to a new page, Wikipedia:Behavioural policy, so that each page could have its own section and shortcut, because I would hate to see those useful statements declared in the page headers disappear. They have a vitality, an emphasis, which is needed here. Might also be worth considering merging Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Category deletion policy to Wikipedia:Deletion policies for a similar rationale. Hiding Talk 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the existence of {{Policylist Deletion}}. Separate pages are still possible if they are linked enough. Very large pages can put people off reading them. I've suggested "executive summaries" with "detailed subpages" in the past. Also, please don't confuse policies and "how-to guides". The latter are helpful when kept separate from the policies. Carcharoth 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some suggesitons[edit]

  • I think we could keep most of the old names intact (e.g. Deletion Policy, and What Wikipedia Is Not) simply because most people know those names. Not sure about BLP though, it's a rather awkward name. >Radiant< 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think BLP needs to stay. It is one policy that we are often having to refer non-Wikipedians too in regard to OTRS. Thus the name needs to be self-explanatory. It must not be confused with libels - else we get the 'it is true' 'they won't sue' responses. As the policy isn't just about bios but also bio material in other articles, perhaps we could rename it Wikipedia:Biographical information. It is really a sub policy of WP:V in reality.--Docg 11:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The libel page may just be a distraction. Having a policy that emphasizes the distinction between libellous and non-libellous material is probably a bad idea if, as you mention, that distinction is not the important or operative one. Merging LIBEL into BLP seems like a good idea to me. On the other hand, the libel policy is brief and to-the-point rather than bloated and cluttered like BLP, so it would be a shame to lose it. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I would characterize BLP as a sub-policy of verifiability; it is at least as much about NPOV. Well-sourced smears are easy to write. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

Just to give some suggestions, here's a possible Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Draft. It still needs work, of course, feel free to edit. If people disagree with merging DEL, UNDEL and other pages, well, the main DEL page could use a rewrite anyway. >Radiant< 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raised on WP:AN[edit]

Doc G directed me here to avoid parallel discussion ... I would not like to see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy merged, as blocks and bans are explicitly not the same thing. Same goes for undeletion/deletion. Keeping them separate makes it easier for editors, particularly newer editors, to see what they need to see, rather than having to pick out the applicable parts of a huge page. Copyright violation and Copyrights are separate for good reason. I am not even sure how Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Usurpation are meant to overlap. Libel and BLP could be merged, though, as WP:LIBEL has very little content that isn't duplicated on BLP already. Proto ► 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I disagree with all of this. Whilst merging anything is not necessary, it may be advantageous. New users do tend to get confused by multiple policies. If related things can be kept together, so we've only got a few policies and less alphabet soup, all the better. No, blocks and bans are not the same thing, but they are related and often confused. Setting down the differences and how the relate to each other on one page may be very beneficial. Same with policies on user behaviour, or on user accounts. However, BLP and Libel should NOT be merged. They are NOT the same thing. BLP covers many instances where libel is not in view, and if the two were confused, we'd have real dangers of less care being taken by people who were sure they weren't libeling - but were opining negatively without citations.--Docg 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If our blocking policy also covers unblocking, and our protection policy also covers unprotection, why shouldn't our deletion policy cover undeletion? Of course they're not the same thing, but they're very closely related. >Radiant< 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm sitting, sock puppetry and usurpation are both policies which apply to accounts/usernames. In fact the word username is used in the first sentence of both policies. The overlap is therefore that they are both policies which apply to usernames. It seems expedient to try and keep related policies close together, and to try and reduce the number of policies, since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We shouldn't have six pages to which we direct a user so that they understand one point. That's my opinion. Hiding Talk 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subpage approach may help here. Have the front page summarise everything, and then allow people to drill down to different layers to find what they want. If they arrive at a deep layer, they can drill upwards towards the front page. Subpages are not used in article space for good reason, but subpages are useful in policy space, I think. The one thing needed to avoid confusion is a good way to list subpages below a page (the thing at the top shows pages above a page, but I don't know whether it can be changed to show pages below a page). At the moment, the policy pages are sort of organised this way using categories, but I suspect subpages would work better. ie. Organise things loosely using categories (ie. different flavours of Wikipedia pages and articles), but organise hierarchies in Wikipedia space using subpages. A workaround for showing subpages can be done using Special:Prefixindex. For example, see the subpages of Wikipedia:Deletion... pages. Carcharoth 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could do some things with opening/closing sections, the way DRV presently works. Just a thought. >Radiant< 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the village pump[edit]

We should make this a policy! Blueboar 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound like a great idea -- if only we could have done it much, much, much earlier. I personally don't like the merge, but that's not a reason not to do it :) Each page has taken on its own character, and its own connotation/meaning. I'd rather group policies and guidelines by their goal rather than by their subject matter, as a personal preference. GracenotesT § 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this one a week or so ago as well :) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and information content strategy would help for a start, then all the content policy and supporting guidance should cascade from there. Just got no idea where to start (on introducing it to WP, not information strategies)....ALR 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the following can be done:
  1. Clip bits from policies or guidelines that are covered in other ones
  2. Transclude all pages related to one subject matter onto one specific page, separating each one with the text "= Policy name ="
How does this sound? I would prefer to keep each on a separate page, with specifically designed functions. Also, some Wikipedia culture will be destroyed by performing the suggested mergers; it's not as though this is horrible and oh no! you're killing the community!, but it is still something to consider. GracenotesT § 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could reduce the number of policies to just one, by combining them all into one large policy, called Wikipedia:Wikipedia policy.
Okay, a super-long single policy is obviously undesirable. It's also undesirable, I think, to focus simply on reducing the count of policies. Rather, overlapping information should be reduced.
Take Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The first is roughly twice the length of the second. There is very little overlap - a dozen lines or so, perhaps five percent of the first policy. Combining the two would result in WP:NOT being roughly 50% longer, with a third of the policy covering just one of the ten "nots". That isn't, I think, a persuasive argument. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary page is pretty bloated, at least 3/4 of it could be dropped in a merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Too many policies makes progress on Wikipedia bureaucratically slow. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


re: merger of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

  • I oppose this particular merger proposal. WP:NOT is the primary page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a drill-down page that explains the issue in more detail. This is an issue that confuses many new users. The extra detail is useful. In a perfect world the pages could be merged. In practice, it would bloat WP:NOT and make it less readable and less useful. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't either/or. Perhaps moving this to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/a dictionary might allow a number of 'drill down' pages with attendant detail, and yet make it clear that it is still part of the same policy. --Docg 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Manual of Style tells us to strongly avoid the use of subpages. You could seek an exception but I'm not sure that it would be worth it. Rossami (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, _but_...[edit]

I'm very much in favor in reducing the amount of policies, guidelines, and general alphabet soup. However, especially with policies, it is very important to make sure that the spirit of the new version matches that of the old versions without leaving anything out. Do we have any experienced wikilawyers on board with this? --Random832(tc) 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hang all the lawyers". But I think we're clear that the aim is not to change any policy (not even any substantial changes to wording), but to reorganise what we've got. Besides which, we will want to wait for a lot more comment before doing anything drastic.--Docg 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright policy[edit]

There's a semi-official policy which is missing from the official copyright policy pages, or is not clearly stated there, regarding permission to use copyright material. I've actually been tempted to create a page describing the steps an editor must take to use copyright text in WP; which I suspect would be a candidate for merging into the copyright page. Αργυριου (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and legal threats[edit]

There's a huge difference between WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL. WP:LEGAL should remain a separate page rather than becoming a sub-section of an article on how to be nice to eachother. Threats are SERIOUS BUSINESS :) The same can be said about WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. WP:LIBEL is 100% serious legal shit. --- RockMFR 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We know it's "not the same". It's not a problem if a policy deals with multiple issues that are "not the same" (witness WP:NOT). The idea is that related issues may be clarified by putting them together. >Radiant< 10:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection policies[edit]

Comments on User:Steel359/Protection policy are welcome over at its talk page. -- Steel 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy" in names of policies[edit]

When we write new policies, such as the unifications going on here, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 11:38Z

WAS said,[edit]

in the edit summary, "BLP is based on morality, LIBEL is based on the law. we do not gibe IBM the special consideration due to humans". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

on article deletion[edit]

some merging could possibly be done on Wikipedia:Deletion process Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and the various deletion policy pages. Also, we have an article on Wikipedia:Speedy keep which says it's part of the deletion policy. So maybe that should also be merged into the actual deletion policy page? (wasn't too sure how to add these to the project page) --`/aksha 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a plan. There's been quite a bit of confusion about this lately. >Radiant< 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for/against merging[edit]

There are two sides to merging, really: having all related policy on one page for passive reading, and having then on separate pages for active referral in debates. We should avoid redundancy, clearly, but ideologically, I personally think that the latter is more important than the former. I occasionally discuss, with another Wikipedian, about "who" vs. "whom", and why the latter should or should not be encouraged. In my opinion, if we lose distinctions between such things as direct and indirect object pronouns, past and present tense, or adverbs and adjectives, the English language may be simpler, but it will be a wholly unremarkable thing. It's possible that two separate policies or guidelines exist because the people that created them were not the coordinating type, but it's also possible that there's a special ideological difference. GracenotesT § 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly. It is not a given that everything listed here will be merged. Probably not. The intent is to reduce confusion by reducing duplication. For instance, the protection and unprotection policies were overlapping, and also somewhat divergent, leading to confusion. That has now been fixed. I don't think we'll be merging all of {{IncGuide}}, for instance. >Radiant< 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I thought that things were listed there iff there was small amount of consensus to merge them. GracenotesT § 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

using templates instead[edit]

How about using templates for subsections which are common to two different guidelines? That way the text would change on only one spot, and be visible on two spots, maintaining consistency. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies vs. processes vs. definitions[edit]

One of the things that I think is confusing many people on wikipedia, is that everything that relates to a wikipedia topic is slammed onto that page and then the thing is lifted to "policy" status. In my opinion we need more seperation between wikipedia terminology, the policies and the processes to guide the policies. "Semi-protection" is no more then a technical measure in Wikipedia. It should be explained and link to the policies that deal with it, but no more. So you should have "Protection policy" (detailing the rules and regulations of protection), "Semi-protection"/"Full-protection" (defining the terminology and the technology) and "Request unprotection", "Request protection" (that deal only with the procedures. I think this is the original idea behind most of the pages, but everything has become mixed up a bit over the years. Also, I think it would be good to have "policy" and "guideline" in the name for policies and guidelines. That would be so much more handy for the less experienced editors. And I think all pages should have a "familiar" structure. For a policy for instance: Start with a lead-in (wikilinking the technologies), List the processes that are used to guide the policy and then detail the rules and regulations of the policy. For a process: give a short lead (wikilinking the policy, but not the technology), list the techniques/templates used in the process, list the process itself or the subprocesses. Clear seperation of these respective elements is required, as well as consistent navigation boxes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This does not mean that merging isn't a good idea many times. You just have to consider what you are merging. Are you merging a definition/process into a policy? Or merging two actual policies. Or is one of the pages "creeping" into the other page? Also redirects to subheadings of a "larger" topic might be very useful at times. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on a related note I think that we should clearly separate process from policy. Currently at Wikipedia:Deletion process, for example, the circumstances surrounding when a non-administrator may close a deletion are detailed when they should be in the deletion policy. (I just added those two to the project page.) --Iamunknown 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose almost all[edit]

Although I sympathize with the goal here, I can think of a good reason to keep every one of them separate. Sometimes you need to point someone to a page that discusses a particular aspect, and not make them wade through a monolithic document. Most of those are for that. I agree with:

  1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary & Wikipedia:Not Wikipedia
  2. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines with Wikipedia:How to create policy
  3. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes (guideline) and Wikipedia:Categories vs lists (essay)

and the two in progress. ←BenB4 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If any of our policies is remotely monolithic, it is obviously in need of pruning. >Radiant< 11:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Overlapping_policies_and_guidelines&oldid=1137431401"