Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nutshell


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was keep and tag as essay. — A itias  //  discussion  21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell
This page is essentially one user's (slightly disordered) spin on "all" Wikipedia policies. It aims to do pretty much the same as what WP:LOP does - give a list of policies and a brief description - but doesn't accomplish it terribly understandably (yes, I know it's under construction, but the bits that have been done aren't all that brilliant). It should probably be tagged as an essay, or preferably userfied, if not deleted. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tag as essay first of all. WP does not require brilliance, as many articles show.  As it is in WP-space, it is editable/correctable.  Collect (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is redundant in both aims and content to WP:LOP. I'm unclear as to why both of them should exist, since once Nutshell is ultimately completed, it will be fundamentally identical to WP:LOP. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to take a different point of view as to organization, which suggests that it is not a doppelganger of the other article. Hence, I find insufficient reason for deletion.  Collect (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tag as essay Per Collect. Hi878 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I created and am working on that page. LOP gives brief 'common-sense' outlines of policy, this page explicitly details what the policies are. The intent is to help WP:PROJPOL with evaluating what our policies actually are, how they can be made more clear for new users, and so on. If anything is distorted or 'spun', this would concern me and I would appreciate correction. I think that the current header template is appropriate because the page contains (or should contain) nothing except actual Wikipedia policy. It states that the page is a work in progress, and directs readers to the extended-explanations of policy throughout. Suppose someone split one of the sections out of WP:V into a new page, and put a 'policy' heading on top. There might be a reason to merge, but I don't think that there is a reason to remove the 'policy' heading - unless the page is not accurate. This page is, or attempts to be, an exact and accurate account of policy. M  19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still not 100% clear. When your page is ultimately completed, what helpful features will it offer to WP:PROJPOL that aren't already exhibited by WP:LOP? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the WP:ADMIN policy page, you'll see that several paragraphs explain and give background to the idea that "admins are nothing more than editors with access to certain tools". (Jimbo's quote isn't actually part of the policy, it serves to explain it.) The actual policy (in quotes) is small and manageable, but is difficult to extract and difficult to track. It takes up the lead and first section, yet it's not found in the LOP summary. There's a reason that laws are written in a sort of 'point form' - it's not to make them over-specific and stifling, it's to make them clear and manageable. How many thousand words of policy do we have? Are all the important components of each policy found in LOP? Certainly not, because that's not the intent of that page. The intent of this page is to lay out actual policy in a comprehensive, clear, and concise manner.     M    07:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and tag as an essay. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to essay. any restatement of policies and guidelines is going to be somewhat controversial. Some of them deliberately balance of ambiguous words in order to maintain acceptance, and sometimes the wording conceals a fight that will break at at the least modification. Even the plainest statements need elaborate explanations and interpretations, sometimes codified, sometimes not. I honor your attempt to simplify and codify; perhaps you will be successful. Often one person can cut through barriers that will leave a crowd confused. But ubnntil you finish and have something  ready to show, it belongs in user space. Then we can decide what status to give it. DGG (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the hints that this page itself is policy. It looks like a useful summary once it is tidied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A worthy attempt to work on Wikipedia's mess of policies and guidelines, but it could use a warning that it is not official.  Not sure that essay is best.  Perhaps Brainstorming.  Perhaps is should be in userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Tag Per above.-- SKATER  T. 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.