Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion

One possible compromise is transclusion.
This suite of pages illustrates that possible compromise. WAS 4.250 16:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pages

 * Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion/Attribute
 * Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion/Verify
 * Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion/No original research
 * Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion/Reliable sources

Maintainability
The talk pages of V, RS, and NOR would redirect to the talk page of ATT so that the maintainability benefits of combining policies is kept.

Suggested sequence of edits

 * 1) I create this using the existing ATT. (done)
 * 2) Opponets of the wording of the existing ATT modify the V, RS, and NOR pages transcluded into ATT to modify the wording but not the transclusion structure. This modification should be as minimal as necessary to correct it. (pending)
 * 3) We see where we stand and go from there.

Comments
Might we move this page to the "Project page" so that we have a TalkPage? And of course, delete this particular comment, please? --Rednblu 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that can only cause confusion. This comment section fuctions as a talk page quite nicely I believe. WAS 4.250 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will experiment a bit with this... I hope that's okay, it's always easy to revert if you don't like it. --Merzul 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this like this now, although there are problems with spacing and some of the "noinclude" marks appear when editing a section where one isn't interested in them, I'm thinking of reverting back to the original version, but on the other hand, I should at least let you guys have a look at this too. --Merzul 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect the talk pages?
Why would you want to protect the talk pages from being edited? The talk pages of V, RS, and NOR would redirect to the talk page of ATT and be protected from editing so that the maintainability benefits of combining policies is kept. Maybe you want to say - The talk pages of V, RS, and NOR would redirect to the talk page of ATT and all 4 articles would be protected from editing so that the maintainability benefits of combining policies is kept.Jeepday 12:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea is to redirect the talk pages to all go to one page so issues can be dealt with in a manner that reflects all the pages as they are all interrelated. No one would be prevented from changing the policy pages or talking about them any more than on other policy pages. This simply centralises talk onto one joint page. WAS 4.250 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This will produce a very long talk page. There is a line between V and NOR, if only one of degree; having separate discussion pages, perhaps with cross-reference templates, may be more convenient. Interested editors will watch all of the pages anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, a centralized discussion page for specific issues (is this edit OR?) would also help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are trying to figure out a compromise between seemingly opposite positions (one policy or three (we now have four!!)) with regard to Wikipedia policies about Attribution. Imagination and creativity are definitely good things in this discussion. Surprise us. WAS 4.250 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Two policies or three, not one or three, unless someone has been pushing to merge NPOV in too... mike4ty4 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)