Wikipedia:Correct

A common but flawed argument
A common argument in discussions is that a particular action is correct, accurate, or some similar term, or that the current situation is wrong.

For example, in move discussions, it may be argued that because an official name has changed, the article title should change too; often this is the entire rationale for a move request.

It's not that simple, and these good faith arguments occupy a great deal of time. Perhaps it is not wasted time, in that it does help to bring these often-new editors up to speed on Wikipedia's policies, practices and polity.

This essay is to help in that process.

What is correct?
What is correct? Most of the time, the correct title for an article is simply the one that best meets the criteria set out in the policy on article titles. This should always be the first port of call in such discussions, and there are many, many places where this is stated, including but not only: (You'd think people would read at least one of these before raising an RM. And sadly, you'd often be wrong.)
 * The header of each RM, which reads in part Please base arguments on article title policy... where article title policy of course links to the policy.
 * The lead of WP:Requested moves, which reads in part Please read our article titling policy and our guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move (my emphasis).
 * The detailed instructions for opening an RM later on the page.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines represent the historical consensus and a great deal of time and effort by many editors, themselves members of a community of which you are part. They are not set in concrete, but they should be violated only after some careful thought.

Similarly for deletion discussions. In most cases, the correct decision is the one best supported by existing policies and guidelines. These should always be consulted before action is taken, and admins do this, and that's part of their job, and a particularly important part of the job in those cases where others have not done so.

But it's not only the job of admins, and one of the best ways to reduce the backlogs of things waiting for admin action is for all editors to consult policies and guidelines too.

And similarly for matters of style. The first port of call in discussing and deciding these is always the Wikipedia Manual of Style, a comprehensive set of style guidelines tailored to the unique goals of Wikipedia, and which is being continually refined according to consensus within the community of editors.

What you think matters. But what other people think matters too, including all of those in the wider Wikipedia community who have worked hard to build our policies and guidelines. That's the whole idea of building and assessing consensus, which is assessed by viewing the arguments through the lens of policy... That is, taking into account not just the opinions expressed in the discussion, but also those expressed by those who formed a consensus to adopt the policies and guidelines.

But the rules are sometimes wrong
Yes. Always bear in mind that those cases, that small percentage of cases, where the best action does violate existing policies and guidelines are very important. Consensus can change – that's why we have the policy that allows us to ignore all rules and improve Wikipedia in the short term, hopefully while we also work on the policy or guideline to better address similar cases in the future. Most improvements to policies and guidelines start out in exactly this way.

If the best action violates existing policies and guidelines, then the next question is, is this an isolated case or will similar ones come up too? If consensus is strong that this case isn't well covered by existing polices and guidelines, and it's likely there will be others, then a change to the policy or guideline is a good investment (but if not, it's a waste of time).

How to change consensus
In order to build a new consensus, the first step is understanding the old consensus expressed in the existing policies and guidelines, in order to explain why it should not apply to this new case.

On the other hand, if it becomes clear that you haven't bothered to do this, there's a reasonable and understandable risk that nobody will go through the trouble of reading your stuff either.

Why am I here?
If you have been directed to this page, take heart. It's not a bad thing. We are all learners here... or at least, most of us are (including, and perhaps particularly, the old hands!), and the rest are hindrances and will fairly quickly be shown the door one way or another. It seems to work that way, perhaps surprisingly.

So assuming you're in the learner category, welcome, and thanks for being part of that whole process!

Examples
''It's probably a very good idea to read wp:attack page and reread wp:attack before even thinking of adding an example, and assuming you're involved in the discussion surrounding the example, it may even be better to raise it on the essay talk page instead... TIA''


 * Again, please let me know how to push this edit through so that Wikipedia can reflect reality in terms of our company page (my emphasis). While we respect your company's desire to promote its corporate identity, reality in Wikipedia is mainly assessed by referring to reliable secondary sources. Your company website is a primary source, which does count but its use is very restricted.
 * Chapathi is the proper transliteration as the 'th' in chapathi is not pronounced as a hard "T" like in "Tea" or "Tank" but rather a 'softer' 't' like in 'thin' or 'third'. Adding to this there are several published references with this proper spelling,not to mention numerous videos detailing proper pronunciation. Furthermore, the indian languages use the letter in their respective scripts denoting the softer 'th' sound to spell chapathi. All true, but irrelevant. We use English here, and the English word is chapati, and perhaps English usage should be changed but this is not the place to campaign for that.
 * This proposal is irrelevant as per Russian and Kazakh grammar rules, official languages of the University. Here are additional links to social network accounts that support initial version... Agree with native English names, but this is inappropriate for Russian name. In English initials are used for name and middle name, while in Russian for name and father name. Gramatically, name and father name must be written together. Kazakh language follow the same rule.  There currently appears to be no specific guideline on Russian and Kazakh personal names, feel free to propose one but there seems no justification above, and until there is such a guideline or at least a proposal for one the guideline is Naming conventions (people).

Article names

 * Article titles, the official Wikipedia policy on article names
 * Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, the (many) specific naming conventions that apply to specific topic areas

Style

 * Manual of style (the name says it all)
 * Simplified Manual of Style (ditto)

Content

 * Verifiability, one of the three core content policies and one which makes some subtle points that most people miss

Similar essays
The Parable of the Ants, Minimum waste of time and Verifiability, not truth are three other essays that make similar points