Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 1

Quotations vs. italics
A lot of people ask about the use of quotations versus italics. I would like to add the following or some version of it to the "editing policy" page; what do you all think? --KQ
 * Movies, books, CD/LP/8-track :-) titles, TV series, magazines and epic poems (The Iliad, The Odyssey) are italicized; short stories, songs, episodes of TV shows, articles, and most poems are in quotes.
 * Perhaps more importantly, quotes are never, ever used for emphasis. The single-quote, single-quote notation for emphasis is misleading in this respect.

Talk vs. discuss
The body of the text says the bottom of each page has a link "Talk". They don't, it is "Discuss this page". Does this matter? User:SGBailey


 * the link text has been changed since that bit was written. Feel free to update it! :-) -- Tarquin

Merge with Wikipedia/Policies_and_guidelines?
It seems to me that this page probably could be merged with Policies and guidelines... or not?... -- Viajero 13:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * not I think.... they serve differing purposes, though this article is probably poorly titled. Martin 14:06, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * agreed, how about something livlier, like Joy of Editing... -- Viajero 15:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Slight edit
Change note: I changed "rephrasing while preserving content" to "rephrasing or accurate precis while preserving content", under acceptable reasons for removing material, which I think correctly interprets the existing policy. Please rollback if you disagree. -- The Anome 16:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

multiple comments?
This is probably more of an etiquette question than a policy question, but I didn't find a page on that subject. Anyway, what I'm wondering is if there is a 'policy' for when someone wants to comment several times in the same talk/voting page. On the one hand, commenting in each section individually probably makes experienced users happy, because Related Changes/Recent Changes/Page History shows "&rarr;SectionTitle summary" correctly; on the other hand, it is faster and less disruptive to Watchlists (which I presume most novice users still rely on) to do a single Edit this page and summarize to the best of your ability. What do you all think? nae'blis (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

One line summary
There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. Please don't remove it simply because you think the summary is inaccurate for this guideline. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Splash removed the summary, citing again, this template is a profound misstatement of the idea: "leave it in whatever state you like"? that's an excuse to vandals. My summary was this: Improve any page without hesitation, regardless of the state you leave it in. Avoid removing information wherever possible. The word "improve" should rule out vandalism being acceptable. Stevage 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to "regardless of the state you leave it in". It encourages sloppiness. I also object to "avoid removing information" in a oneliner; there is often a good reason for removing things, and putting it right at the top could lead to people ruleslawyering "hey, our editing policy says you cannot remove my information" (see WP:0RR for a related discussion about some 'pedians who believe it is never appropriate to remove other people's work). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was trying to capture the two important ideas from this guideline:
 * You should not avoid improving a page simply because it will still be in a bad state afterwards.
 * You should try to avoid removing information un-necessarily.
 * So how about: Improve any page without hesitation: you don't have to make it perfect. Avoid removing information unnecessarily. Stevage 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is good; the last one is still awkward. What about something that focuses on the difference between verified facts and unverified speculation, which seems to be most of what gets removed, besides vandalism? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How about: Improve any page without hesitation, and try leaving it better than you found it. Avoid removing information wherever possible.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal for a Change in Editing Policy
Acknowledging that Wikipedia was set up and is designed to be a resource for all people seeeking knowledge, and

Fully Believing in the vision of Wikipedia as a place where anyone can contribute to this website, and

Noting that a lost of people have and are putting a lot of time and effort into the articles in Wikipedia, and

Deeply disturbed at the amount of senseless vandalism that occurs in Wikipedia, and

Noting that this vandalism is disrespectful to Wikipedia, legitimate contributors, and potential information seekers, and

Whereas the most comment culprits of vandalism on Wikipedia are anonymous users without an account with Wikipedia, and,

Be It Hereby Resolved That: 1.) Make the editing of articles only permissible to those with accounts with Wikipedia.

2.) That a special discussion page be set up so that anonymous users may propose article changes with their reasoning for the change.

3.) If the users change is reasonable then the change can be made. If it is nonsense the it can be ignored.

(Steve 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I spend as much time reverting vandalism from anon accounts as I do editing. Seconded.Michael Dorosh 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing an edit from anynymous IP with no user page and no talk is signal to check the edit and this way one can easier catch an unsophisticated vandal. If everyone gets a name such hint will dissapear and the huge number of newly created names will make the subconcious decision what to check harder. There's no hope the situation can be changed until stable versions will be implemented, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been proposed before: Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease -- ProveIt (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Editors should be logged in users
 * Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement

Oppose - Not sure what stable version means. But I think if we want to encourage participation (and I believe we do) then we need to let anon users edit because, in all honesty, that's one of the things that got me hooked. If we don't permit it, the likelyhood of new users joining up and helping will be reduced. At the same time, that IP address is like a red flag. On all the pages I monitor, I check those first. Granted, they may be vandals but most that I came across are just inexperienced users who want to contribute. --Mmounties ( Talk )   22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - Granted, most are in fact vandals from my own past experience on the pages I go to. Another point in favour is that anyone using a name to go with their edit adds a little bit more credibility. I'd even go so far as to suggest a 'real name' policy such as amazon.com has - not required, but lets a person put their personal credentials behind what they are posting. Personally, I don't place much faith in what donaldducksass|Talk has to say about cold fusion.Michael Dorosh 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak opposition Although vandalism presents a serious problem for Wikipedia, I don't think that restrictions on editing are the answer. I think that the problems with vandalism could be solved by recruiting more administrators to clear the endless back logs of articles, where a consensus has been met to delete. More admins could also clear the Speedy delete nominations a lot faster. Some users such asCooksey are knocked back as admits because standards are currently set far too high. Bobby1011 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So we should "recruit" people to just go around and revert vandalism? What is the point of that?  Get rid of the vandals and concentrate on content.  I don't understand your comment on "back logs (sic) of articles"...what does this have to do with vandalism to articles not meriting deletion in their entirety? Michael Dorosh 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification I was talking about the backlogs of AfD artilces, where a consensus has been reached, but no admin has gotten around to closing the debate. Bobby1011 02:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mild opposition. Creating a username is no large hurdle, true, but I would never have started editing Wikipedia had it not been possible to do so anonymously. For articles where vandalism is really a significant problem, we have semi-protection. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite annoyed I hate proposing changes on the talk pages of protected pages, anons would be much the same. also, I don't see why there's an obscure form of voting going on. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY. MichaelBillington 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Full oppose, perennial   This is a perrenial proposal and each time it has been declared that the Wikimedia Foundation allows anon editing. Take the issue up with the Board of Trustees if you disagree.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Whether an edit is from Mr.Anonymous IP or a named user account, it still must meet the same requirements for inclusion. There are already procedures in place to counteract vandalism from anons. With respects, this proposal will not answer concerns and is an added level of (unneccessary) beauracracy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Article structure
Why is there no article for Article Structure?

This lack of article structure creates by far the most problems in Wikipedia because it does not focus editors who often have only fragmentary knowledge of their contribution on the actual discrete part of the articles. Then lack of structure also means that conflicting contributions create editing wars which sap the strength of the editors and administrators alike. What I'd like to propose is that rather then have articles created in free-hand or freehand(?), the article should be created from start with a template that requires the editor to assess their own ability to contribute by presenting them with the options of creating:

a) an introductory section which covers the subject in general terms,

b) an advanced or more sophisticated section which expands on the general terms and adds general detail, and

c) a third section which requires expert knowledge contributions with hard facts.

Each section can be given a quality tolerance rating. In addition the expert section can not contain any unreferenced sentences, and only contributors to this section can participate in writing an article conclusion or summary (fourth section). Other templates may be created for specific field of knowledge articles that assist in structuring content. Its really just like in urban planning, architecture and building. If people are allowed to build anywhere and without consideration for the safety of designs and materials used, invariably you will find yourself in the middle of a shanty town which is neither good for Wikipedia nor for the editing expereince.

Of course "Rome was not built in one day" either, and also started with a fight :) --Mrg3105 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold editing versus (innocently, in this case) sneaky deletion
Everyone knows; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

I live by that, of course.

But at WP:DYK I submitted a hook [CAUTION: think of the general case here, not the specific!]. There was a tiny bit of discussion, I didn't want it changed in any way but begrudgingly trimmed it a little. All of this is quite normal, tedious, boring, etc. I'm quite normal in wanting to preserve my original test; DYK is behaving normally in wanting to trim it. Nothing to see here– yet.

As the hook was being moved from Template talk:Did you know to Template:Did you know/Next update, though, the hook was considerably shortened as a part of the process of cut and paste. I'm not screaming for blood here, I'm sure they do it all the time, I'm sure they mean well and I'm even sure they do a good job trimming in this fashion. But regardless.. WP:BOLD only applies when your edits show up in the edit summary of the original page. If content is changed between the version on one page and the version on a separate page during cut/paste, that is sneaky deletion. Well-intended sneaky deletion, honorable sneaky deletion, probably even profitable sneaky deletion– but in my opinion it is still sneaky deletion & thus Bad Form. Thoughts?

Please don't rush to defend those noble and honorable DYK editors; think of it in the abstract. Thanks Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 14:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My answer would be "maybe". If a change is made which is felt in good faith to be an improvement, I can't fault the person who made the change.  That the change was made while text was copied from one page to another is no particular sin... it's convenient to be able to look at diffs, but you spotted the change here anyway.  If it's a question of wanting the right to change it back once it's on the protected Main Page, you can always petition for that on the talk page, though it's hard to get a protected page changed in a timely manner -- and that's assuming you could get an admin to agree that your version was better.--Father Goose (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ling Nut seems to be proposing his own novel twist on WP:BOLD here - that the BOLD principle is somehow rendered invalid if an edit is altered in the transition between one page and another. But there is no such caveat in the guideline.


 * Ling Nut claims that he is defending a principle rather than responding from personal pique at having his DYK hook altered by yours truly at the last moment, but I can hardly fail to notice that he has just MFD'ed an article I spent considerable time on, which features prominently in the credits on my user page.


 * Be that as it may however, I have attempted to explain to Ling Nut on his talk page why it just isn't practical to consult with DYK nominators over every copyedit made to nominated hooks, but it appears he hasn't accepted those explanations. But to put this alleged "problem" in perspective, I have worked solidly for the last eight months preparing DYK updates, I am the second most prolific promoter of hooks ever, and in all that time I have had exactly two complaints about copyediting of hooks, both of which were made a day or two ago. In that light then, I think I might be forgiven for regarding Ling Nut's position on this matter as at best a fringe view. Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Urp. I'm being extremely civil and rule-following about the DYK thing. I'm disappointed you mentioned Miscellany for deletion/List of battles and other violent events by death toll here. Really, you think I am fighting against you, but I am not. No really. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BLPs
This page is being cited on Talk:Joe the Plumber to claim that the rules about BLP inclusion of disputed material do not count as this page is more important. To what extent is this page supposed to supplant the rules and guidelines on WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:RS and WP:V? Collect (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I simply quoted both policies WP:BLP and WP:PRESERVE working together. I didn't say that BLP was not important or doesn't count.
 * I can answer your question, this page is supposed to work in concert with WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:RS and WP:V. :) travb (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet you appear to be editing one of the guideline pages -- no?  Collect (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Demote to a guideline
 demote to a guideline and fix the text so it is compliant with the content policies --PBS (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with this page specifically the sections "Boldness" and "Preserve information". It contradicts lots of other policies and practices. The Boldness section is an invitation to edit war. The section "Preserve information" means that AfD should be restricted, and it is in direct contradiction to WP:PROVEIT.

I think article should be demoted to a guideline so that it can not undermine the three content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. --PBS (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Preserve" has been horrendously overused quite recently by a handful of editors (who appear to be well-co-ordinated in this use.) Its list of "exceptions" is not accurate (it is not just "unsourced" material which does not belong in a BLP -- unsourced material anywhere is deletable) and as read it implies that articles should grow to near infinite complexity even where simplicity results in a far better article. I would suggest that the "list of exceptions" be removed as it is being used as a bright line by some, and that the guideline should be "Material essential to the simple understanding of the subject under discussion in the article should not be removed without a clear consensus, nor should controversial material be added to any article which is a biography of a living person or directly associated with such a person without such a consensus. The goal of every article is to provide useful information to readers and not to provide every single citable detail about a subject. If a claim is made without a clear citation or which does not fall into the category of obvious fact, or a fact for which multiple citations are clearly available, an editor may insert a "fact tag" to indicate that a cite is desired. If a claim is made which an editor feels is not relevant to the subject of the article, then a "relevance tag" should be added.  These tags retain the information while any discussion is being undertaken on a Talk page, rather than being deleted and reinserted in an edit-war. " Or thereabouts.  Collect (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The short cut to the section was added at 01:44 on 24 May 2008 --PBS (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Village pump (policy):  At the moment the Editing policy seems to be a little overlooked and that it contains sections that give advice that is contrary to the advise in some of the three content policies (WP:NPOV,WP:NOR and WP:V)

So that there can be no confusion, between policies, I have proposed on the talk page of the "Editing policy" that it be demoted to a guideline, because AFAICT it does not cover any areas which are not already covered by other policies and guidelines so there is no need for it to remain a policy.

Even if the current problems are fixed, it will have to be kept up to date with the content policies, which means that if it remains a policy it will always be in danger of giving contrary advise to that of the main content policies. If it is a guideline then this is not such a problem because "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." (WP:policies and guidelines) --PBS (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC) -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In which event, the page should be clearly marked as not superceding any policy in any way, and that it should not be used as an "authority" to go against actual policies. (as it, unfortuneately, has been twisted to do recently). Collect (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is wrong information on the page, surely it should be corrected or removed? Once that's done we can see whether what's left is suitable content for a policy page (but it's the accuracy and usefulness of the content that's matters more than what tag appears at the top).--Kotniski (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is policy then what makes this advice wrong and the content policy pages right? --PBS (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we'd have to agree the changes in the normal way (or someone could just be bold and make them, and perhaps no-one will object).--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the first step should be rewording the preserve section, using either the language I suggested in the topic above this or Collect's language. Once we have this page cleaned up we can see where it stands.  Pagra shtak  14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only a temporary fix unless you want to monitor it for ever, it is the same problem we had with WP:ATT. --PBS (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is a temporary fix.  Pagra shtak  17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this policy contradicts others. Can you give an example. As I see it, its purpose is to preserve content contributed by new editors not familiar with WP policies. Easiest thing is to delete, and this policy tells that before deleting, you should try to fix. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting is the right thing to do if the text is in breach of the content policies like WP:NOR. --PBS (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, after one has tried to verify it. (request a citation by adding the tag) 212.200.243.116 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As you are taking part in a policy discussion why not create an account? One does not have to try to verify text, please read what WP:PROVEIT says, and beside leaving text in an article that is a SYN is not the correct thing to do. It is problems like this why this should be a guideline and not a policy. --PBS (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...why not create an account? Why not read my talk page? Where is this policy talking about preserving synthesized contributions? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings. NJGW (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NJGW, you seem to have a difficulty understanding what a sockpupet account is. Why am I not surprised. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even your cited policy WP:PROVEIT sais: Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Challenging is fine, but not deleting before challenging. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support demotion. Good call, PBS; the fact this page got so out of sync with content policies is proof enough that it's something of a backwater and will be hard to keep in sync. But there is some good stuff on this page that should be folded in to existing content policies. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support better text I think that the solution is to make this page explain that it's not intended to contradict WP:PROVEIT.  In fact, I think that 'preserve' is really more about "when you have good information in This article that properly belongs in That article, then move it, don't delete it," and "if it's very likely that newly added information is accurate and on topic, then don't delete it immediately; ask for a source."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) who is not watching this page
 * As I said above yes we can alter the text, but it is only a temporary fix unless you want to monitor it for ever, it is the same problem we had with WP:ATT. If this is a guideline then we can still fix the text and the advise is still useful, but if it gets out of sync with the content policies, then that is not such a problem because the content polices will take precedent, which currently not true because this is a policy page. --PBS (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it any harder to monitor this page than it is to monitor the other policy pages? (The best solution, of course, would be to combine WP:OR, WP:V, WP:POV and this into one easy-to-follow policy page, but the preference of the community seems to be to keep things complex.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That it so out of kilter with the content pages is evidence that is is not being monitored and even if it is monitored it will always allow a second front to be opened in a dispute over the content of one of the three content policies. This was the major argument for demoting WP:ATT. If this page is to survive in its current form (as a policy on content) then the content pages should be changed to say that this is one of four content policies. This I know would be rejected, so the simplest thing to do is make this a guideline, delete it. I think a guideline is a better solution than deleting it. --PBS (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't care one way or another whether this is a policy or a guideline, the language of PRESERVE definitely needs to be changed. As Dank puts it, it's way out of sync with our current policies and guidelines. Not all information is good; removal of information is sometimes the best option to give a balanced view of the subject per WP:WEIGHT. For instance, an plot summary of a television episode that is too long and too detailed (thus failing WP:NOT) is reduced by removing extraneous details not necessary for understanding of the plot. Retaining information in that case simply isn't viable because it's not conducive towards a balanced view on the subject. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 11:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would like to see here something like: A from this policy contradicts B from that policy. (additional read) 212.200.243.116 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in another section of this talk page, mention of "true" and "false" from WP:PRESERVE contradicts "verifiability, not truth" from WP:V. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:PRESERVE But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. Therefore, it only asks an editor who removes the statement to place the same into discussion page. I don't see the contradiction. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Demote I'd support demoting it, and rewriting WP:PRESERVE in the process. As a whole, this page tends to contradict other policies, and WP:PRESERVE is horrible. Would be much better as
 * ''Removal of text and articles is a normal part of the editing process, and should be encouraged if the removal will improve the article or Wikipedia as a whole. While editing is encouraged, editors should endeavour to preserve valuable information. Before removing text, consider:
 * ''rephrasing
 * ''correcting innacuracies while keeping the remaining content
 * ''move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
 * ''add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
 * ''request a citation by adding the fact tag
 * ''Exceptions include:
 * ''Material which violates existing guidelines and policies
 * ''duplication or redundancy
 * ''irrelevancy
 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Demote to guideline if "preserve" is severely rewritten, otherwise change to essay / historical / rejected. Fram (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

This has had a few weeks. This is a dusty old statement of principles, describing principles of editing conduct that have since been described in greater detail in other guidelines and policies. This doesn't mean these principles are any less valid (a fact noted by almost all of the "Oppose demotions"), only that the policy page is pretty dang old and hasn't much been noticed in the interim. It's clear that the core policy principles described here - perfection isn't required, be bold, try to reuse before deleting - are still true to this day. Appropriately, WP:PRESERVE is sound advice for how to deal with this page: there may be cause to mark this Historical (as redundant or just too old to update), split tangental points off or move those points to other pages (personally I'd say WP:PRESERVE begs to be moved to WP:DP from here), or rewrite this page to better interlink it with current guidelines and policies. In short, while the hows of this policy are somewhat antiquated, but the whys ring true as ever, so demotion to guideline is not appropriate.

For these reasons, this was not demoted. I would urge everyone who participated here to also participate in the discussion on how to clean up, rewrite, and update this policy to reflect current practice, as reason for not demoting was not because the arguments to demote were baseless, merely that demotion was not a suitable solution to the identified problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kww: 102 articles put up for deletion, and only 4 articles created. I can see why a policy which encourages editors to work together before deleting would hinder what editors who delete other editors hard work are trying to doing here. Ikip (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same as Kww. Fram: 322 articles deleted. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose demotion and strengthen WP:PRESERVE. Editors regularly ignore the tenants of WP:PRESERVE causing the media to universally criticize Wikipedia's deletion policies.  Deletion already has an incredibly negative effect on new users, the majority of pages deleted are created by new users. So, whatever you do, preserve information. has been part of this policy since 18 October 2001 when this article was created. Ikip (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved from talk page (Ikip (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)):
 * This refers to an old comment you made, but which I just now saw? Could you please refrain from commenting on people's supposed motives and stick to the value of their actual comments? You are suggesting that people's opinions can be dismissed becaues they have initiated a lot of AfD's, and/or haven't created enough articles (an argument you wisely did not use in my case, since I created a lot more articles than you did, and none are "articles" which should never have been created in the first place and are now cross-namespace redirects like Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and Constructionism and reductionism (wiki).)
 * You claim in that diff that "a policy which encourages editors to work together before deleting would hinder what editors who delete other editors hard work are trying to doing here": thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. I have worked together with many, many editors, and have achieved great results in doing so. I have also tried to upheld Wikipedia's policies in all cases, both when I deleted articles or nominated them for deletion, but also when I denied speedies, restored pages, or suggested to keep articles in AfD debates. Many of the AfD's I started were not "other editor's hard work" but blatant hoaxes, copyright violations, and so on. Other's were about someone's hard work, which was just not suited for WIkipedia. We are not a free webhost, even though we have nearly unlimited space: we are an encyclopedia, and not everything is suited for inclusion. To decide what is and isn't suited, we have discussions, and I abide by the consensus if it follows our core policies (I have, if I recall correctly, never started a DRV when an AfD by me did not end in a delete, and I have also tried to incorporate the decision from one AfD in my next nominations).


 * I really hope that you will start discussing things in a more friendly and less personalized manner. Fram (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent suggestion, I removed the section, and I apologize. Ikip (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious and common sense strong oppose as well. Our priority needs to be deleting WP:Notability at this time or marking it as an essay.  By contrast, no reason to demote this policy as it is one of the most logical/reasonable ones we have.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose demotion one of the founding pricipals of Wikipedia. To ask such because one does not like its interpretation to a guideline would be even easier to ignore. There is a reason it is a Policy. What's next? Demoting WP:V and WP:CIVIL? As a Policy it acts to improve and expand Wikipedia. Editors should pay more attention to it as A Policy and understand that it trumps guideline when it comes to improving wiki. WP:IAR keeps wiki alive and growing. What IS required is to correct guidelines to fall back into line with WP:POLICY, not modify POLICY to better match the later guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Demotion This proposal can't be serious... AfD hero (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose demotion. This policy is necessary for promoting collaborative editing which is what Wikipedia is fundamentally based on. Arbitrary removal and deletion of information goes against the principles of collaboration. This policy doesn't "conflict" with other policies and guidelines, it works with them to encourage proper development of articles. It clearly doesn't conflict with WP:NOR as it lists "original research" as an explicit exception. It doesn't conflict with WP:V, as that policy clearly says that you should allow for sufficient time to provide references for unsourced material, tagging in order to encourage the search for reliable sources—with the exception of info about living persons—listed as an explicit exception here as well. It doesn't conflict with WP:NPOV either; that policy does not say that the way to solve NPOV problems is to delete information, but to present information on a topic in proportion to how reliable sources treat the topic. It does not say we can't talk about minority viewpoints themselves in an article specifically about the minority viewpoint; it says that the minority viewpoint shouldn't occupy excessive space in an article documenting the consensus or majority viewpoints. So if there is excessive detail about something in an article, and the information is not original research and can be verified from independent reliable sources, the answer is not to simply remove the information, but to perhaps split it into another article about the specific subtopic, or merge the information into a more relevant article—but if no notable topic can be found to merge the information in, note that this policy even contains an exception for "irrelevancy" for that purpose. This policy is needed to counteract mindless deletion and removal of valid information; the way to preserve information and adhere with our content policies is to make the same efforts you would demand of your fellow editors—look for sources, and find ways to preserve information in a way that adhere to our content policies. It is often easier to remove or delete than to actually do fact-checking, but that is no excuse for ignoring this policy. DHowell (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose demotion and any rewrite as well. Getting my voice out here while I unfortunately cannot commit to writing properly elaborate arguments right now. I'm too tied up with meddling with the unstable political situation of my country. Suffice it to say that this does not conflict with the three content policies for reasons detailed better elsewhere, and the losses in being considerate and collaborative editing, our life's blood and things that are very easily lost in formalized, over-complex thickets of restrictions, would outweigh any gains in rules. The rules are what we built for ourselves as tools to help with our collaborative editing. --Kiz o r  21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Demotion, if we demote this we might as well rip up the principles upon which Wikipedia was founded. This page is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, it's one of the oldest and it is one of the very formative platforms on which the project has been built. I agree with everything DHowell has said.  This policy is a long-standing one with a huge amount of consensus behind it, given the page history stretches back almost eight years.  Hiding T 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not look like a policy to me - it's just a parent article that refers to a few policies. Such things, usually, are not even guidelines around here.  Essays maybe.  I rarely see this one invoked in practice.  It's also poorly written.  The section on "boldness" reads like an essay, and a loosly written one at that.  It's written in the royal we..."Virtually no one behaves" is not even standard formal English.Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose All one needs to do to return this page to its noncontentious form is to remove WP:PRESERVE entirely. It was, after all, added without discussion or debate only a few months ago. Themfromspace (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 28 July 2003 is hardly a few months ago, when the list was created. I would suggest striking this incredibly incorrect statment. "So, whatever you do, preserve information." has been part of this policy since 18 October 2001 when this article was created. WP:Notability was only made in 20 April 2005. Ikip (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please note that A Man in Black has in the past couple of weeks:
 * tediously argued on ANI against editors inviting other editors to join WP:ARS, despite 260 other templates which do the same thing.
 * demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
 * has accused editors of canvassing by using the tag on AfDs
 * Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue Ikip (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not demoted. Just sayin'. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put back my edits. They should not have been messed with. It is much better that the first part stays as it was as it shows why the article was briefly demoted. No one who is against demotion has clearly expressed the reason why it should not be demoted when it clearly trespasses on the area of the three content policies. What is it on this page that should be a policy as opposed to a guideline? --PBS (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't demoted, nor was there any consensus to demote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS decided to take it upon himself and close this "the consensus is to demote" ignoring the fact that he was deeply involved in the discussion, and that no such consensus exists. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The record shows what happened. There is no need for you to edit other peoples contributions to the talk page. That objections were made after I closed the debate, those can be still be seen and both my the closing of the debate and my moving of the page are facts which should be shown on this page At no time since the page was moved back have I attempted to move it again, and an accurate history on this page of what happened is better than editing the page after the fact which will confuse those who were not present for the debate. Ikip, you did not take part in the initial part of the debate. Why not as it was advertised at Village pump? Did you come to the page to discuss it after the move because you became aware of it because of the move? --PBS (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever your intent, you misread how I closed it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No I did not, and please do not change it again as the record shows what happened and should not be changed. --PBS (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just plain false?
From the policy page:
 * Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false.

This sounds misleading, as Wikipedia's policy is not to give a bat's behind about truth. The only way something can be "false" on Wikipedia is if it has no citation or it contradicts the cited sources. Ideally, in the case of article text vs. source conflicts, one could find a reliable source discussing the misconception presented by the text, such as Snopes or The Straight Dope. And in the case of source vs. source conflicts, one could describe both sides of the issue. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I object
over 200 editors participated in making this policy, and only a handful of editors decided it should be demoted to a guideline status. WP:CONSENSUS states that there should be adequate exposure to the community.

212.200.243.116 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 212.200.243.116 the opinions of IP addresses are not counted when considering policy. --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip Baird Shearer statment is patently false. Anon, your opinions are important, and welcome. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. That's why I didn't even bother to 'refute' it. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As do I. A survey of five editors with divided opinions is hardly the kind of consensus needed to spontaneously "demote" an eight-year-old policy.  At a minimum, start an RfC and advertise the discussion on the village pump.


 * I agree that the "preserve information" section needs tweaking. But make an attempt to fix the policy instead of deciding it should be swept out of the way because you disagree with some aspect of it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was advertised at (Village pump (policy) (see Village pump (policy)/Archive 60). See the arguments above fixing the wording it will fix the problem, unless we are going to change the content policies to say that there are four content policies and include this one. --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, with hindsight we can say that that didn't prove to be enough visibility. You've been bold, which is fine, and have found some interested parties as a consequence.  But given what a Big Deal policy is on Wikipedia, this issue will need broader participation before one can claim the community has endorsed it.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont give a rat's tanned @$$ about what they did in 2004, this is now and if the reality is that it currently defies every content policy that we have, then demote it without mercy.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your disruptive actions on the main space page must stop. your false claims of consensus, must stop. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw that were demoting it AND YOU WILL LIKE IT YOU BICH PSNMand (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has been blocked indefinitely. Strike-through by me. --Kiz o r  21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BIG STRONG OPPOSE to demoting this policy. This has been marked as Wikipedia official policy at least since October 2004. It's going to take far more the agreement of 3 or 4 editors, in a weeklong discussion which was closed by the proposer, to demote something that has been Wikipedia policy for over four years. DHowell (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DHowell have you read the reasons for demoting it? what are your objections? --PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also object to demoting policies without adequate input. This poll should have been widely publicized, and even then it is doubtful whether a simple poll is sufficient to demote a long-standing policy that hasn't had substantial opposition. It also appears that the same editor who made the proposal closed the discussion and made the determination. That's not the best practice. The closing of polls should be done by uninvolved parties.  Will Beback   talk    02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was advertised at Village pump (policy) (see Village pump (policy)/Archive 60) and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Why have you not participated in the debate until now? There was little point in keeping the poll open when no one had objected to the proposal if there had not been a clear consensus then I would not have closed the debate so soon but how long should such a debate remain when no-one has objected to the proposal? Having read the arguments do you have any objections other than procedural to demoting the policy to a guideline?--PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here. Yes, this was demoted to a guideline based on the input of a small number of editors. So let's assume a little good faith and chalk it up to PBS using the WP:BRD cycle to jump start a stalled discussion after a public notice on the village pump was unable to stir up sufficient interest. Now that we've got your attention, please tell us—do you object to demotion on other grounds, or would you like to see it demoted if done so properly?  Pagra shtak  14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this proposal should be put before a much broader sample of the community before deciding whether to implement such a significant step. Perhaps a note at the WP:Village pump might help get such a discussion started. That said, this page has always been functionally a guideline that serves mostly as an informal introduction to new users. And to date at least, it's never contained much information or summary material about the three core content policies--certainly that's a major aspect of WP editing policy... Kenosis (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was advertised at Village pump (policy) (see Village pump (policy)/Archive 60) and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability as that was the major content policy that this violates.--PBS (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the manner in which some editors use the word "policy" in order to try to force others to comply with their preferred approach, either it should be totally rewritten to reflect actual policy, or it should be demoted to a guideline. Frankly, at present it reads like an essay. To reflect actual WP policy, it appears to me to need a total rewrite. I'd advocate changing its status to that of a guideline without too much adieu. Later, if editors are able to bring it up to a standard that is consistent with the accepted WP editing policies, it can readily be proposed again as a candidate for policy status if there appears to those involved to be adequate reason to do so. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm for a rewrite. I believe most of what's laid out on this page is well-enshrined Wikipedia principle that is completely in tune with other Wikipedia principles outlined on other policy pages.  There are errant portions, which will require rewriting, and the tone should probably be made more formal.  But like you say, some editors "bully with policy", and I'd say this policy is a necessary counterbalance to other policies which have been the target (and source of) a huge amount of wikilawyering.  I suppose those policies, and the heated discussion they generate, have come to overshadow this policy, which outlines the core means and principles by which our collaborative action produces this encyclopedia.  We'd be fools to lose sight of -- or to "demote" -- the principles outlined here.


 * I also note that this is a conduct policy, not a content policy. If it strays into dictating what is acceptable content, then that must be amended.


 * So, where do we start the rewrite?--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What conduct do you consider is unique to this policy? --PBS (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your question.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is to be a policy then it should make a statement which is not found in any other policy. If all it does is give guidance on other policies it should be a guideline. What policy statements are unique to this policy or should be unique to this policy? --PBS (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Might this need the additional exposure on RFCpolicy? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means advertise it as widely as possible. Perhaps those who do not think it has been widely enough advertised would like to do the honours and put advertise it more widely.--PBS (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. But as a first step, I'd like to discuss what changes to the text of the policy you feel are warranted.  If your objection is that some of policy's language is errant, address that problem; don't just "demote" it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is a guideline then the rest will fall into place as it can be re-written to comply with the content policies. From what you said above "this is a conduct policy, not a content policy" you would in any case be in favour of removing PRESERVE as that is about content not conduct. --PBS (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes needed are the complete removal of PRESERVE and the next subsection "major changes" from this policy. I seriously doubt that there is a consensus about any of these, but they are used in AfD discussions by a few users just in an attempt to make most deletions (except hoaxes and attack pages) impossible. Taking preserve to the letter, we should not be deleting any articles on garage bands, self-published books, ... as long as they have a myspace page or other evidence of existence. When policies contradict one another, parts without clear consensus should be removed to avoid the discrepancy. Fram (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Preserve should be strengthened if anything as we are here to make a comprehensive encyclopedia that appeals to a broad audience. If members of our community believe this information relevant, then it shouldn't matter if some do not.  If anything, we should abolish the general notability guideline as that seems to be used as an obstruction to expanding our catalog of human knowledge.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have only just learnt of the attempt to demote this policy and so echo the complaints that the matter was not properly advertised or discussed. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The complaints are reasonable, but FWIW, it's much harder to get people to participate in policy discussions now that it was in 2004-2007. This is a good thing; people are more focused on content, and less focused on "Isn't it neat that we can make our own rules!" But it does create some problems; one of the problems is that every time we try to make a change in policy, people show up and cry foul that so few people are engaged in discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:FICT which has had megabytes of discussion lately. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting on to the primary issue
Regardless of how this policy itself turns out, the language in PRESERVE is patently false right now and is being used in a way that is highly contrary to our current policies and guidelines. If PRESERVE actually was true, then the entire CSD process (save patent nonsense or copyright stuff) is against policy. It also inherently violates WP:WEIGHT; sometimes the best way to be NPOV is to remove information to achieve a balanced viewpoint rather than adding more unnecessary information. As such, this section needs to be either overhauled or simply removed. Recommending that editors attempt to preserve information during say merges is perfectly fine. Requiring it is not feasible, practical, or desirable. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That suggests that WP:WEIGHT rather than preserve might be thr problem. No reason why not to change that instead.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, WEIGHT isn't a problem. Go ahead and suggest changes to it at WT:NPOV and you'll have absolutely no consensus for it. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, PRESERVE isn't a problem as it's consistent with what an online encyclopedia is and that's why there's no consensus to remove it. In any event, one can remove information from articles without having to also delete the edit histories of redirected articles.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's a problem because some information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Take for instance a garage band. By virtue of having no sources beyond a Myspace page, it should be speedily deleted per CSD A7. Per PRESERVE, the information should be retained somewhere. That is incorrect. The information should not exist in this encyclopedia. Explore Special:NewPages and it becomes painfully apparent that many other articles (on unnotable people, web content, or whatever) should be similarily deleted. Not only does PRESERVE not work in this situation, it obviously does not reflect current practice and consensus. As for your consistent edit history condundrum, it's irrelevant here. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the "Preserve" part goes - I would opt for "Improve the quality of the information" As far as the argument that information doesn't belong, that should be stated on the XfD pages (If I understand the "XfD" correctly to be inclusive of speedy and all other delete issues).  That said - I'm new, and primarily here to learn how policy and guidelines are decided, so I am still very open to suggestions, and my opinions are likely to change. (hi folks) — Ched (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Improving the quality of the information doesn't always help. This also goes beyond AfD pages; it's part of the basic editing process. Say for instance on the article of a politician, I write four perfectly well-sourced paragraphs on his two year career as a state legislator. I indulge in a bit too much detail; I cover some of the minor legislation he was involved in that wouldn't merit coverage (say an online archive of the law with simply his name as the proposer as the source). Conversely, I write three well-sourced paragraphs on his six year career as a U.S. House representative. I adequately summarize details about his involvement in legislation over that time, scandals, elections, and whatever. Now, the solution isn't to write more information for his career in the House, which has received its due coverage, but reduce the excessive coverage I wrote about his career as a state legislator. PRESERVE would say that this is incorrect, and I have to go into excessive detail on his career as a legislator to achieve balance. This inherently goes against WP:NOT – we shouldn't cover everything he's done, but rather give the information its due weight per its importance. As his House career was more prominent and longer, it receives the longer amount of coverage, while his relatively uninspiring state legislator years don't merit that much coverage. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems a misread of preserve or at least not how I think it is written. It says "Exceptions include: original research". As MySpace would be a primary source, only citing Myspace would be original research and thus an exception. A correct read of Preserve would thus not protect the hypothetical garage band. Besides, it says "Instead of removing, try to..." I emphasize the try, i.e. it allows for a reasonable inference that if it cannot be rephrased, corrected, moved, added, etc., then that's that. It seems more a call to make a serious effort to find sources if they could be found or keep a mind as to if sources possibly exist rather than to just delete with no attempt to look for sources or consider if there's a realistic chance they might exist. One should be able to reasonably ascertain if a "garage band" that only has a MySpace page does not realistically have any other sources and cannot be merged anywhere. Even I would not defend such articles and I would not, because I do not believe the current wording of preseve protects them. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 09:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it wouldn't be OR. The material is not necessarily original research. The problem is that it blatantly fails our notability guidelines, and should be deleted. Take another example. A registrary of people from the 16th century lists all the inhabitants of a town and their occupation. I could write that "Joe Smith was a carpenter in Town X during Year Y.[citation to town registrary published by some random scholar]" That's a perfectly well-sourced article. No OR. Doesn't mean that Joe Smith needs to be covered on Wikipedia because he was a random bloke in a town registrary. In any case, the "try" clause is not enough so long as people are misusing this to insinuate that material cannot be removed because the list of exceptions is so thin. I don't care about its intent – that people should try to preserve information, if appropriate, during mergers and rewrites and the like. I care about its misapplication – that information cannot be removed, i.e. a violation of WP:NPOV – that it's contrary to the current deletion process. Clarity is important here; a simple whitelist and blacklist is far too limiting. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the registry is the only source and the article cannot be expanded beyond one sentence, then there's not much we can do there, but it's not the policy's fault for misapplications. If that was the case then we would have to get rid of notability guidelines for all the subjective claims of non-notable for stuff that is actually notable.  No matter how stuff is worded someone will probably misapply things.  I'm not seeing it as being counter to non-neutral point of view, because people are aware of that as well and understand that articles should also be neutral as an unstated aspect to it and again, maybe it's the current deletion process that is contrary here.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 09:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the policy is being misapplied, that's a sign that the policy needs to be changed, or at the very least, the language needs to be clarified to account for that misapplication. The absolute nature of the current wording, namely the whitelist and blacklist, is the problem that is producing the misapplication. When people are misapplying a policy due to a patently stupid interpretation of it, then it's not a problem. When people are pointing to the letter of the policy and can say, "Hey, this says that you can't remove information here," then that's a problem. And also, if you can't see how the NPOV issue is a problem, then I don't have much more to say on that. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, notability definitely needs to be changed as it is really misapplied. In practice, when I see Preserve used, I haven't seen it in used in a detrimental way to our project. And again, the try being there does go a long way toward an interpretation as being do the best you can to salvage the content, although of course not everything could or should be salvaged. I don't see it conflicting with deletion policies, because deletion policy essentially has Before, which is similar, i.e. try to save it and then go from there. But I guess we just see it differently. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any point in continuing this conversation if you're going to change this into a discussion on notability, which we obviously disagree on. Again, if you can't see how it conflicts with NPOV and our deletion processes, then I really don't have a whole lot to say to you. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We should be open-minded to changing whatever else seems to be in conflict as perhaps there is where the problem lies. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (E/C) Ok. I'm missing something. "Improve the quality of information" is being countered - I differentiate that from the quantity of information.  And I think I'm understanding as I write it out here - but even if "more" information is referenced well, that doesn't make it of a higher quality.  I can't really discuss the AfD guidelines very well because I'm still getting a handle on the basic NPOV, WP:V, BLP, etc stuff.  I would have thought those g7 guideline things would cover most of what was needed, but like I said - I don't know. — Ched (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that the quality sometimes doesn't matter. In my example, I assume that the information is perfectly sourced with perfect prose. Doesn't mean that we keep it due to it being undue weight. Quantity is sometimes what is more significant as a result of appropriate depth of coverage. The appropriate depth of coverage in this case means removing information, which the language in PRESERVE suggests is inappropriate. As such, I want it rewritten to reflect actual editorial practice. As for AfD stuff, that's another issue. What people are basically arguing is that stuff can't be deleted because the information must be kept somewhere as a result of PRESERVE, which is not true. There's times when we simply don't cover stuff per WP:NOT. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- If the information in PRESERVE is in a guideline, and not in a policy, then the details will work themselves out, because as WP:policies and guidelines says "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature". As advice in a guideline, then all the caveats the exist in the content polices will automatically apply, but if it remains policy then all of these caveats have to be spelt out and whenever a change is made to one of the three content policies that effect PRESERVE, the same change will have to be made here, which will probably lead to a debate a long as the one that occurred on the talk page of the content policies, and may end up with a different consensus in which case the policies will contradict each other. This is the reason why after a very long debate it was agreed to demote WP:ATT. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK .. I'm not able to make an intelligent decision on the "demote to guideline" yet. I'll be back as soon as I can, and try to add my thoughts and questions without disrupting the flow of this discussion. — Ched (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As an admin who does speedy deletions and article rescue work, I don't see a conflict. All we need to do to fix WP:PRESERVE if anything, is add an "things outside Wikipedia's scope as defined at WP:NOT" exception.  Simple enough? Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Under which policy do you usually decide to speedy delete something? --PBS (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've boldly added "material which meets the criteria for speedy deletion" as an explicit exception to preservation of information. Can we now stop using the supposed conflict with CSD as an objection to this being policy? DHowell (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody cut it out
Like, right now. The next person who moves this page, I swear I'll pull this encyclopedia right over and come back there and block you kids. - brenneman  12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that have an emoticon of some kind attached? ;-) Not that I wish to get caught in the middle of this, but I should note that PBS is also an admin. I recognize it's arguable that discussion in the section above might have been closed a bit hastily, and that proper respect must be paid to those who've gradually brought this page to its present form bit-by-bit over some five years. All the while it has been called "policy". Yet it has never read like policy but rather more like an informal set of advice to inexperienced editors. In other words the advocates of reducing it to "guideline" status appear to have a reasonable point to make. Father Goose has asserted in defense of keeping policy status that the page is more a conduct policy rather than a content policy -- this appears to me to deserve further discussion and clarification. Certainly some of this discussion above revolves around what we mean by "editing policy" and indeed what we mean by "policy", along with the question of how strictly users would be expected to respect and follow the assertions put forward on the project page. WP:Policies and guidelines describes policy as something that's arguably quite inconsistent with the present content of the page, project-page content that quite arguably never was consistent with notions of "policy", except perhaps at the very outset of the wiki when notions of policy were far more general and informal than they are today. So there's some obvious tension here, although it seems to me it doesn't quite rise to the level of RfC at this stage of the discussion. Perhaps it would help to open up a channel among administrators to facilitate further discussion of this proposal above? Any other ideas? Hopefully it isn't necessary for someone to file a policy RfC in order to get broader feedback from the community. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?
How about moving the page (over redirect) to just Editing? We don't title the pages Verifiability policy (it's a redirect) or Notability guideline. That way, regardless of the outcome of the policy vs. guideline discussions, this page would be at the right place.

As an aside, count me among the editors who feels this should be a guideline, and that the specific WP:PRESERVE section is completely inconsistent with current Wikipedia practice, and so should not, as currently stated, be part of any policy or guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need "policy" or "guideline" in the name. But is "editing" really a good name? Aren't all WP policies and guidelines about editing? Perhaps we can do without this page altogether, and just move the relevant portions (insofar as they accurately represent good practice) to appropriate places in our trinity of core content policies?--Kotniski (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies or guidelines that extend beyond editing include No legal threats, Assume good faith, and Harassment, just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.  Pagra shtak  19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Even if "all" was an obvious exaggeration, calling a page of limited scope like this just "Editing" (or Editing policy, Editing guideline or whatever) is not very helpful to anyone. What would you call it? Indeed, why do we need it (as a separate page)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't understand that you meant that as an obvious exaggeration. Sometimes those kinds of things don't come across well in text. The more I read this page, the more it seems redundant. At this moment, I'm not convinced it needs to stay in the end. I think if we start removing redundant sections and rewriting the problematic sections we will find that this page is transforming into something else. Whether that results in policy, guideline, essay, or the dissolution of this page into other pages remains to be seen, but I think we should focus on the clean up effort, and then worry about renaming once the final product comes into view.  Pagra shtak  15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that status (as not policy) should be agreed first, see my previous comment that starts "If the information in PRESERVE is in a guideline..." --PBS (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands now I would say that this should not be policy. However, my point is that it will need to be cleaned either way and we might very well end up with something that could be policy.  Pagra shtak  18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you see as unique to this page, that no other policy page covers? I think if it is to remain a policy page then we need to decide what it is that this page does that other policy pages do not do. A mission statement for want of a better term. --PBS (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that most of this page repeats other policies or guidelines. I think we're more or less headed to the same goal, but we're taking different paths.  Pagra shtak  20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeat of WP:NOTFORUM
I find this section: "In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it is best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. Some consideration of etiquette would not hurt." to be unnecessarily duplicative of WP:NOTFORUM. Considering that WP:NOT is already listed in the see also, I do not see a reason we need to repeat this advice on this page. I suggest we remove it.  Pagra shtak  19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For a start, I've marked it as a duplicate using main. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This policy only mirrors several guidelines and essays already

 * 1) Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
 * 2) Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
 * 3) Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
 * 4) Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort.
 * 5) Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
 * 6) Guide_to_deletion "consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE is a redirect to part of this policy, not an independent page or policy (and has always been). Guest9999 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I will take that out to avoid confusion. (refactor) Ikip (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other policy that explicitly says to preserve material. The links above concern deleting entire articles, not preserving text within an article. Am I missing something?  Will Beback   talk    20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose demotion one of the founding pricipals of Wikipedia. What's next? Demoting WP:V and WP:CIVIL? As pointed out by Ikip, preserve acts to protect wikipedia and improve it in support of all other policy and guideline. Editors should be urged to pay it greater heed when it comes to improving wiki, rather than promoting its demotion in order to serve the removal of informations and the diminishment of wikipedia. That's moving Wiki in the wrong direction. Time to brush off the cobewbs and remove the ivy from the walls. Wiki needs to be a continually expanding and mutable entity or it will go the way of the Commodore 64.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I started editing wikipedia, there was a help page or something explaining (paraphrasing): leave sentences unfinished, make mispellings, place citations needed tags, do similar small things that will help new visitors get involved into editing... what happened to all that. are there no new visitors on wikipedia? now there are some who seem to want to not only not encourage new visitors to edit, but also to discourage them by immediately removing their "imperfect" contributions. I think this policy is essential to preserve the spirit of Wikipedia mission. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

preserve exceptions
Added: "any other exceptions made by WP policies, or established by any mediation or arbitration " as being succinct and accurate, and preventing misuse of the section in the future. Collect (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No other policy has such a wide exception, I changed this to "established by any mediation or arbitration". Which I feel is a good comprimise, considering the editor is attempting to add content to a established policy, with no prior discussion on the talk page first. Ikip (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other exceptions in other policies -- why do you wish to dispute that any such exceptions exist?  The list should not be intended as including evey possibility, though that is what some appear to interpret it as being. And the discussion about WP:PRESERVE exists, and my position there was stated.  This is not a bolt from the blue.  Collect (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly fiddled with it. Let's not split hairs about "Exceptions include". I've focused on what should be done instead of deleting, and linked WP:NOT offhand for what's not appropriate, keeping only the emphasis on the illegal-ish stuff. I'd like to add a bit more emphasis on what to do before deleting, since that's the point here; any suggestions how to do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the list of exceptions. Keep just "With this in mind, do not preserve content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia."  Listing a set of exception tends to give the impression that these are the only exceptions that exist.  Also, I would suggest "however" instead of "With this in mind".  Since the paragraph up to that point does not imply exceptions. Taemyr (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded on your text slightly to cover WP:NOR and WP:LIBEL. Hiding T 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Make it a guideline, then the three content policies take president and the wording of the section becomes much easier. While this is a policy that continues to step into the area of the three content polices, then it is always open to an interpretation that conflicts with the content policies and processes such as AfD which depend on the content policies. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you make it clear this policy cannot supercede the four content policies, there should be no tension at AFD. It doesn't need a demotion to guideline, and it shouldn't be demoted to guideline status, it's a long-standing policy which describes what we do as well as what we strive to do and is vital to the proper management of a wiki style encyclopedia. Hiding T 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * IOW, my initial wording actually would work? Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've played with it slightly, but for me, yes. Hiding T 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with adding a line to say it should be subservient to the content policies is a band aid because as a policy that can be removed at any time with a bold edit and we are back to the current mess. If it is a guideline then it will take a serious debate to promote it back to being a policy, that contradicts the three content policies. --PBS (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is excessively legalistic. Nobody's arguing that this trumps WP:NOT] et. al, just that this means that failing [[WP:NOT does not immediately equate to deletion if there's another use for the information. The fact that it doesn't reference later policies is just because this is an old scrap of mostly-forgotten, mostly-assumed policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference to WP:NOT is unacceptable because that page is so bad, being so full of contradictions and falsehoods that it should be deleted as nonsense. I myself have tried to use in the past to remove dictionary articles about words such as dude but got nowhere.  Most recently, we see that its statements regarding statistics are false.  The biggest joke is its subsection WP:BURO which is nonsense on stilts, being violated yet again as we speak.  I am also not content with references to mediation and arbitration as they focus mainly on interpersonal conflicts between editors and may be quite local in scope.  As they are, by their nature, ad hoc, it seems best to leave them out of the list of main exceptions which should focus upon the indisputable stuff like copyright violation and libel.  I have edited accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having no reference to WP:NOT is unacceptable, given that WP:NOT is a long-standing policy page, and I don't think you should enforce your own opinion in the face of a wide consensus that supports the policy. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your edits, please. Hiding T 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Why was the conversion to prose reverted? The bulleted lists here are horrible. I myself suggested changing to a paragraph format at, and no one seemed opposed to it there. I should think this is one improvement we could agree on that is completely separate from any change in meaning.  Pagra shtak  14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, if we're married to the lists, let's cut the weasel-wordy crap. It already says that exceptions are not limited to the list, so we don't need to add:
 * extra emphasis to the fact that there are other exceptions.
 * vaguely-worded bullets that link nowhere. (And mediation decisions aren't binding anyway!)
 * ANOTHER catch-all, like "any other deletable content."

The idea is that people just try to find a way to use content instead of and before deleting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even saying "but are not limited to" is weasel-wordy. "Exceptions include, but are not limited to" effectively means "exceptions include anything I want them to", rendering this policy effectively meaningless. If there are other exceptions than what are listed here, then lets be explicit. WP:IAR already covers the case where there may be exceptions not explicitly mentioned here. DHowell (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This begs an ever-expanding list. It would include WP:NOT, WP:WAF, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:VGSCOPE, WP:N, WP:NFCC, WP:CV, all of WP:N's children, WP:VAND, any relevant Arbcom restriction, redundancy, blatant falsehood, WP:LINKS, and WP:CSD and that's just after a couple minutes of thought. (There's two and a half pillars in there!)
 * Not only that, but a lengthy list puts too much emphasis on deletion. The point is not "Here's a list of standards that require deletion," but instead "Rather than deleting content that can be fixed, go ahead and fix it or at least leave it for someone who can."
 * Another potential problem for a proportedly exhaustive list is the potential for wikilayering nonsense with "This doesn't meet [consensus standard] and editing cannot rectify this." "Keep, [consensus standard] isn't called out as a reason for deletion on WP:PRESERVE." That's pretty clearly not the intent of this policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with "Rather than deleting content that can be fixed, go ahead and fix it or at least leave it for someone who can." Recently I cam across the origins of the words "Another for Hector", (see Clan Maclean). This lead to me creating a disambiguation page called  Hector MacLean. When searching Wikipeida for Hector MacLean I came across Hector MacLean, 5th Lord of Duart the trouble is that there is no reliable source that I can find that lists this person, but it is difficult to verify that it is incorrect as one can see by the dab page lots of the clan chiefs were called Hector. I have left a message with the major contributor of the page, for better sources. BUT I am not comfortable with this because it is better that we have no information on something rather than wrong information. --PBS (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're treating "unverified information" as "wrong information". That's pretty extreme.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop it on a talk page. Look for experts. Consult a relevant wikiproject. Make the effort to verify it before declaring it unverifiable. Wikipedia isn't going to fall apart because we're still working on verifying an article on someone whose grandchildren died more than three hundred years ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Father Goose I am not treating "unverified information" as "wrong information" I am stating it is better not to have no information than wrong information. Much better to remove information that may be wrong, and replace it when it is verified, than to allow wrong information to remain on a page. The fail safe should be that the information on a page is correct, rather than retaining information that turns out to be incorrect. That is the whole point of WP:BURDEN. It became an issue because of the publicity Wikipedia received in the press when it was easy to prove that Wikipedia contained incorrect information. Since the introduction of WP:BURDEN the quality of Wikipedia has improved out of all recognition to how it was before. --PBS (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you know, turns out he was the 5th Baron, rather than the 5th Lord. PBS, you did the correct thing by notifying the editor rather than trying to have this article deleted. This is exactly why this policy is trying to encourage us to "preserve information". Deleting this article because you were unable to verify it would have accomplished nothing but create a gaping hole in our coverage, whereas by actually doing proper research an editor was able to correct the incorrect information. And there is a huge difference between incorrect information about currently living people (which can cause real damage) and incorrect information about noblemen who have been dead for hundreds of years (really, is some distant descendant of his going to complain because we called him a "lord" instead of "baron"?). DHowell (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out that is not true, (almost certainly it is a transliteration problem between Laird and an English equivalent) and what is worse the person who created the page then created another to try to band aid the first one, and just created a bigger mess. --PBS (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that whatever "mess" may have been created has been resolved through further research, discussion, consensus, and editing. If the other editor had a good-faith belief that there were two different people, when there was in fact just one, this wasn't creating a "mess" but simply following what he thought the facts were. Upon further research and with your help he discovered his error. It appears in this case that the available sources were not entirely clear on who was who, so it seems you simply had a temporary good-faith disagreement over the interpretation of the sources. But just as this policy advises, it seems that suitable efforts were undertaken to preserve the correct information, and Wikipedia is made better because of it. So I'm not sure what problems with this policy you are trying to demonstrate with this example. To me, this is a great example of how collaborative editing, including "endeavoring to preserve information", works. Do you think Wikipedia would have been made better by simply deleting the article and doing no further research? DHowell (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen that when people remove information solely because it is unverified (and not otherwise controversial), they tend to get reverted. If someone were to go through the encyclopedia removing every unsourced statement they saw, they'd get counseled to stop, and banned if they persisted.  This policy outlines the reasons why; we tolerate imperfection, because in addition to being a reference work, Wikipedia is a work in progress.--Father Goose (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Noting that one editor thinks there are zero exceptions to PRESERVE, I think we may yet have to give the two pages of exceptions we can document which have been made in the past. Collect (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me address these alleged exceptions, one at a time:
 * WP:NOT. Not everything in WP:NOT demands complete removal, and in many case simply requires refactoring, merging, or other types of editing which would preserve information. For example a FAQ about a notable subject, references to a third-party reliable source, should be refactored into an encyclopedic description rather than a question-and-answer format. A lyrics database is typically a copyright violation, already falling under the exceptions listed here. So again, what exactly is it in WP:NOT that we don't have to "endeavor to preserve" and doesn't fall under the exceptions already listed? Note that the this policy doesn't mean that we can never remove information, but it does mean that we should figure out if there is something we can do with the information to make it comply with policies, before considering removal.
 * WP:WAF. This doesn't require removing information, but restating it from an out-of-universe perspective.
 * WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These are already listed as explicit exceptions. Even then, WP:V talks about preserving information in certain cases: "...editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the fact template, a section with unreferencedsection, or the article with refimprove or unreferenced. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."
 * WP:VGSCOPE. Much of this is about organization of information (avoid non-notable spinouts, avoid creating lots of little articles instead of one larger one). The rest could easily fall under original research or unverifiable information.
 * WP:N. The section "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" gives several things to do before considering deletion. Sounds very much a restatement of this policy, not an exception to it.
 * WP:NFCC, WP:CV. There is already an exception for copyright violations listed.
 * "All of WP:N's children". Same as WP:N.
 * WP:VAND. We have an exception for "patent nonsense", though the patent nonsense guideline says that vandalism isn't necessarily the same thing. But I would not have a problem with adding "vandalism" as an explicit exception here.
 * "any relevant Arbcom restriction". What relevant Arbcom restrictions? Be specific, don't make me go through every Arbcom case to figure out what content restrictions they have imposed. And I thought Arbcom usually doesn't decide content issues, anyway.
 * "redundancy". Already explicitly listed.
 * "blatant falsehood". Already explicitly listed as "factual claims that cannot be verified".
 * WP:LINKS. We could add an exception for "prohibited or inappropriate external links".
 * WP:CSD. I tried to add this as an exception and was reverted.
 * So in your long litany of alleged exceptions, I only found three not covered here, and one I tried to add and was reverted, so apparently doesn't have consensus. DHowell (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these are going to result in the deletion of content sometimes. WP:PRESERVE isn't just or even primarily about use of Special:Delete or deleting entire articles; it's about how to deal with imperfect article content. It's easy to get focused on WP:AFD, but the kind of deleting mentioned here is also the kind of deleting any editor can do with the backspace key.
 * You were reverted because a lengthy explicit list is not necessary. It's disingenuous to say "Well, there's no consensus to delete for these reasons, obviously" when I'm telling you, right now, why you were reverted.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, are you talking about being reverted for removing "(but not limited to)", or being reverted for adding "material that meets the criteria for speedy deletion"? That is what I was talking about in #13 above. Adding three items to the existing list would not make this a "lengthy explicit list", and I don't see what else is needed. I never claimed that this policy means we can never remove or delete content. "Endeavor to preserve" does not mean "Always preserve". But the exceptions here are exceptions where we are saying we don't even need to make an effort; that we can remove or delete on sight.
 * On the other hand, having "(but not limited to)" without being explicit about all the real exceptions to this policy gives carte blanche for anyone to remove anything for any reason without making the slightest effort to preserve anything, rendering this entire policy a dead letter. So, really, explain to me again why should I be reverted for removing a phrase which renders the entire policy meaningless? DHowell (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have already seen gross abuse of the section by some who think the list is absolute. Since there ARE exceptions, that misuse is compounded by us not making sure that the disclaimer is present.  It gives a white card to no one, since they must still justify the removal, but to do otherwise will keep the abuse going on.   The section's original intent was that WP is a place for information proper to an encyclopedia, and material which furthered that goal should be retained.  WP had guidelines and rulings which define what the limits of articles should be, and the section should not be used to contravene those policies, rulings and agreements.  Collect (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite as strident here, but the idea is to explain that content should be deleted only if its problems can't be solved by editing. This isn't a matter of listing the preserve "exceptions", it's a matter of emphasizing that the solution to problematic prose is almost never immediate deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think those wanted to keep this phrase in believe that if something is not listed as an exception here, that it can never be removed or deleted, and that this policy means information that doesn't fall into these "exceptions" must be preserved at all costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The policy says "try", "endeavor", etc. It means make an effort to preserve the information before removing it. Try to verify, refactor, merge, or whatever, before just blindly removing stuff. If content is hopeless after making an decent effort, then nothing in this policy prevents its removal, exceptions or no exceptions. Too many editors just remove things for various reasons, and don't feel they need to justify removal, or justify it with flimsy excuses or non-consensus interpretations of guidelines and policies. We already see gross abuse of many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for example intepreting WP:NOT to mean "delete immediately", or WP:NOT to mean "remove any information I feel is indiscriminate", etc. This policy is one of the few defenses we have against such abuse, but the words "(but not limited to)" invites such abuse ("I don't have to make an effort to preserve because I claim this is one of those unlisted exceptions to WP:PRESERVE!") On the other hand, I fail to see what "gross abuse" this section has promoted. People arguing to WP:PRESERVE in AfD? People argue all kinds of things in AfDs, and people accept or reject those arguments with their own judgement. This policy is no more abused in AfD then any other. DHowell (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The section has, indeed, been used as an absolute claim that anything not listed can not be removed. That abuse of the section, as I am sure you agree is abuse, is what promoted the inclusion of "not limited to" to stop it.   Would you like a list of articles where the use has been over the top by asserting that it requires retention of all information?   It has been used very heavily since November 2008 -- 80% of all cites on talk pages using it (41 out of 54, but some of the arlier uses were proper) are after that.    This is a matter of its blatant abuse in article space, not in AfD space. Collect (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've looked at some of the links to WP:PRESERVE in article talk space, and I'm just not seeing the "abuse" you are claiming. I even found one example of you yourself citing this policy in order to preserve something that was eventually removed. But I have yet to see anyone claiming that anything not listed as an exception here can never be removed. And even if there were a whole 41 uses that were "abuse" (again, I see no evidence for this), this would be relatively minor compared to the far more pervasive abuse I do see of other policies. So could you please point to one or a few examples of this abuse you are talking about so we can come to a consensus on whether it is actually abuse, and how we should deal with it, other than by making unlimited exceptions to policy? DHowell (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I have not cited WP:PRESERVE as a reason for keeping anything improperly in any article, I wonder what cite you used to find me doing so. has Commodore Sloat citing it as a reaosn for keeping material which is currently being discuaaed per BLP/N. My comment was: WP:PRESERVE does not apply to disputed content in a BLP - its misues has caused consternation in several places. Collect (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC) " which is fully consistent with my position ab initio.  has "Wikipedia:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline. This policy means that the removal of well cited materials is not allowed. travb (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)"  "Wikipedia:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline. The only Biographies of living persons excepetion is unsourced controversial claims about living persons. This policy means that the removal of cited materials is not allowed. travb (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)" "As User:DGG says: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." I am showing the audience here how to counter effectively the next mass deletion. travb (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC) " and so on. In short -- the use of PRESERVE has been wrongful, and that much is quite clear.  Collect (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the problem? Which other policy or principle is being violated? It's a little hard to follow what the substantive complaint is about this policy.   Will Beback    talk    20:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I never said your use of WP:PRESERVE was "improper", but it is at Talk:Pro-life feminism where you argued to have Maya Angelou listed as a pro-life feminist, using the Christian Science Monitor as a source. The consensus appeared to be that the CSM was not reliable enough for this bit of information, which incidentally is about a living person, so falls under the exception here of "poorly-sourced contentious material about living persons".
 * 2) The use in Talk:William Timmons/Archive 1 appears to me to be quite similar to your use of it. There appears to be a dispute over whether the sources support the contentious information; again this is already covered under the BLP exception listed here. I see no meaningful distinction which makes Sloat's use of PRESERVE abusive, and your use not.
 * 3) In Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, travb argued that "removal of well cited materials is not allowed", which isn't entirely correct (e.g. even well-cited material can be removed per WP:CONSENSUS, which is also policy), but he corrected himself later in a clarification anyway. And in his clarification he is completely correct, nobody should be edit warring over cited material which is supported by the sources; it should be presumed to stay unless there is a consensus obtained for its removal. DHowell (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) In Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive_8, the policy exceptions at the time apparently neglected to include "poorly" sourced BLP material; this has been fixed. Again, this was not an abuse of policy, but a simple result of mis-matched (at the time) policies, which has since been addressed.
 * None of this seems to be a reason to add "(but not limited to)" to the exceptions here; and 3 of the four cases involve already-excepted BLP material. In the remaining case travb clarified his statement to be more in line with policy. You have not convinced me to any extent that "the use of PRESERVE has been wrongful". These are typical disputes which happen with any policy, we don't need carve out unlimited exceptions just because a few people disagree on whether the existing ones apply. DHowell (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK -- The Feminist issue was not WP:PRESERVE at all -- but whether the Christian Science Monitor was a "religious tract" or a reliable source. Try not to remove posts from any context -- I did NOT cite PRESERVE as relevant at all.  In William Timmons I specifically said it did NOT apply, while Commodore Sloat iterated over and over.  In short and to be blunt, I at no point and in no forum here used WP:PRESERVE as was claimed.   Might you redact that charge, please? Collect (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote: ' Shall I quote WP:PRESERVE here then? Can you show that the CSM is "biassed"? "It is a religious tract" seems to warrant discussion in WP:RS to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)' Sure, you didn't repeat it over and over like Sloat, but the underlying issue is the same; in each case the person citing PRESERVE believed the sources justified the BLP claim. I don't think it was used improperly in either case; there was a clear dispute over whether the material fell under the BLP exception (also note that the PRESERVE policy didn't say "poorly sourced" as the time Sloat cited it). I redact nothing, because I didn't accuse you of abuse. I simply said there is no essential difference between the way you used it and the way Sloat used it. DHowell (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And again -- I NEVER used PRESERVE as a reason for any edits -- as anyone actually reading the posts in the article cited can see my issue was that CSM was being derided as a "religious tract" and that it was not RS according the the other editor. The issue of BLP was raised by NO ONE there, and so I am unsure why you are trying to assert that it was involved. And so you are again making a statement which is not borne out by any reading of the section at all. Now can you get back to the issues? Collect (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue in this case is whether PRESERVE is being "abused" to an extent that requires this policy to be modified to counter the abuse. I don't believe you've shown evidence that it is. What I see are good-faith, though heated, debates about whether or not sources support, or are reliable enough to support, disputed information. If the information is not well-supported by reliable sources, it should be removed per BLP. If the information is well-supported by reliable sources, it should be retained, not only per PRESERVE, but per NPOV, which requires we document controversy to the extent and proportion that it is supported by reliable sources. It is no more an "abuse" of PRESERVE to argue for the inclusion of, or make edits adding or restoring, information one feels is well-supported by reliable sources then it is an "abuse" of BLP to argue for the exclusion of, or make edits removing, information one feels is not. (Straying a little off-topic to address something you said: Though BLP was not mentioned in the pro-life feminism discussion, it was still an underlying issue; but even if the person was not alive, it would still be a verifiability issue and could come under the exceptions here. Also, because even the most reliable sources get it wrong sometimes, we can judge their reliability on certain items or certain types of information without necessarily impugning their reliability in general.) DHowell (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting waaaaaay off track, and I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that nobody disagrees on how this should work, just secondary points. Collect (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

DHowell, if you were going to make a version of this that wasn't an ugly bulleted list or a X, Y, and Z list, what would it say? How would you describe potential exceptions in the general case? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the bulleted list, it's a concise way to present the information, which is especially aimed at new editors. But if I had to describe the exceptions in general way, I'd say we don't need to make an effort to preserve material when it is clearly harmful (BLP or vandalism), could get us into legal trouble (copyvio, BLP, prohibited external links), promotes an unsourced controversial point-of-view (original research), is completely unnecessary (duplication, redundancy, irrelevancy, patent nonsense, inappropriate external links), or potentially false (unverifiable info). But I do think stating the specifics explicitly is better, as it leads to less mistaken interpretations, plus we point to our actual policies and guidelines for clarification. DHowell (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you describe your point in the more general case? I'm trying to get away from "WP:X, WP:Y, and WP:Z" to figure out where everyone is, even if the page does stay a list of some sort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I could get much more general. If you take out what I put in parentheses above, I'm not referring directly to Wikipedia policies at all (and even my use of BLP was just a convenient abbreviation for "unsourced and poorly sourced information about living persons", or in non-WP terms, "potentially libelous content"). The only way I could say this more generally is "we should try to preserve information, except in a few cases where there's a really good reason not to," but that's so general as to be useless as policy. Can you explain your point in asking me the question? Is there something unclear about where I stand? DHowell (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only to better understand. I find unless, unless, unless distracting from meaning, that's all. Would "We should try to preserve information, save when it is useless to this project or actively harmful" be an accurate description of where you stand? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the acknowledgement that there is a wide disparity of opinions about what is "useless to this project" or "actively harmful", and so it is better that this should be determined by consensus and not by individual opinions. Documenting what this typically means in more specific terms than "useless" or "harmful" is useful. DHowell (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Useless" is "not part of the goal of this project or completely worthless." How-to, directories, gibberish. "Actively harmful" is "damaging to the project or the subject." Libel, copyvio.
 * I think we're on the same page for intent-of-policy, and just differ in how to present it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course even "how-to" and "directories" might contain verifiable information that can be refactored into an encyclopedic presentation. One person might look at a "how-to" article and say "OMG! A how-to! Violates WP:NOT! Delete!", while another might say "Sure, this is a how-to guide, and we are not that, but does this have any verifiable information that can be presented in a way that complies with policy?" This policy essentially says the latter approach is the better one. DHowell (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I should put my views down. I don't see this as a strict rubber-meets-the-road-style Do This Not That guide, along the lines of WP:NFCC or WP:BLP or whatnot, but more of a broad statement of purpose and style policy, like WP:BOLD and WP:CIVIL. I think trying to be airtight is damaging, and setting up elaborate requirements on editing that might be described as deleting such-and-such content would be harmful to the project. WP:IAR is important, not in that invoking-it-so-I-can-have-my-way-and-fuck-the-rules sort of misuse, but as a principle that rules should be loose whenever possible.

In that vein, what WP:PRESERVE means to me is that content shouldn't be cut because it's bad, but because it's not practically redeemable, with the emphasis not being on DO NOT DELETE UNLESS (because we have other places to discuss that) and more on "If you find something bad, try and fix it. You can do that by..." I don't want to see "Per WP:PRESERVE, we should do [such and such]." I want to see "Wow, this page is awful." "WP:PRESERVE has some ways you might do something about that." This shouldn't be an adjunct of WP:DP or so bureaucratic hurdle to jump before removing something inappropriate, but instead the policy section supplementing sofixit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)" such an instruction can easily fall foul of Content forking. --PBS (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if it is done to promote the editor's own point-of-view consisting of original research or unverifiable claims, rather than to document, neutrally, a point-of-view present in multiple reliable sources. See, e.g., Content forking. DHowell (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing Content forking in general with a point of view (POV) fork. There is an article called Congo Free State, late last year someone wrote an article called Congo Free State Genocide, and put in a hatnote at the top of the Congo Free State. There were two problems with this most historians, including Adam Hochschild who wrote the popular book on the atrocities in the Congo  do not recognise what happened in the Free State as a genocide, second what we then ended up with was the Congo Free State article which only  mentioned the atrocities in passing and another article which went into details. By merging the two together we have a much more balanced article. There are other articles where content forking is a problem. --PBS (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with WP:PRESERVE, though? Do you think the content was split out because someone was trying to preserve content that they felt didn't belong in the original article? This sounds more like someone trying to follow Summary style rather than PRESERVE. But to the extent that the article may have been created to promote the POV that the deaths in Congo were "genocide", it was a POV-fork. Otherwise, it was simply a bold split that eventually proved not to have consensus. The material was eventually merged back, all following the letter and spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I'm more concerned that the deletion of Congo Free State Democide (which was apparently renamed from the "Genocide" split-off article) may have resulted in loss of attribution, for GFDL purposes, for changes that may have occurred between the time the content was split off and the time it was merged back. Since the article was PROD-ded, it should probably be restored and redirected to Congo Free State in order to fulfull the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment the section in this policy says "move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)" such an instruction can easily fall foul of Content forking whether or not it is POV fork. --PBS (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Such an instruction can also easily resolve content forking issues, by merging the information back into the parent article. At the moment any policy could be interpreted to "easily fall foul" of any other policy or guideline. Especially "ignore all rules", which has the specific purpose of "falling foul" of every other policy and guideline, when doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia. On the other hand, trying to document every possible way that a policy could be misinterpreted would "easily fall foul" of Avoid instruction creep. Is this a significant problem? Is PRESERVE being cited in order to create content forks? Did an editor create Congo Free State Genocide in order to preserve information? Do you have any suggestions on rewording this policy in order to address your concerns? DHowell (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thorough rewrite
Over the past week, I've been drafting essentially a complete rewrite of the page. Although I fully support the core ideas it espouses, the page as a whole was in need of some serious restructuring and streamlining. I'll roll out the changes piece by piece, to make it easier for people to evaluate what I'm doing. I'll leave the "preserve" section alone for now, as it is attracting the bulk of dispute.

First change: "Boldness", "Preserve", and "Major changes" don't meaningfully fall under the heading of "Editing styles". Further, what's in the "Editing styles" section is fairly redundant with the "Perfection" section. So I'm going to scrap it and move all its subsections to L2 headings.

Second change: the page needs a lede. I've written an overview similar to what was in "Editing styles", though far less redundant with "Perfection".

More to come after I get some feedback on these changes.--Father Goose (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please show us your draft in a sandbox to save unnecessary reversion and chaos. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this will progress least chaotically if I pitch one change at a time and solicit feedback. So, first of all: do you disagree with adding a lede or removing the "editing styles" section?  Do let me know.--Father Goose (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please post your suggested change here. 212.200.243.17 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. What I'm suggesting is that a lede be added to the page -- I think the one I wrote is adequate, but if you want to change it or write a different one, go ahead.
 * I'm also suggesting that the "Editing policy" section is basically just a repeat of the third paragraph of "Perfection is not required", and that the "Boldness", "Preserve information", and "Major changes" sections don't group very logically under it. So I suggest removing "Editing policy" and promoting its three subsections to L2 headings.
 * I also removed the first sentence sentence and a half of the "Boldness" section ("There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be. Generally, most of us think we should..."). WP:BOLD is well accepted by now, so we shouldn't be using ambivalent language toward it.
 * Here's what the above three suggestions would look like if implemented. If you disagree with any of the changes I'm suggesting, let me know why.--Father Goose (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reverting the lead added by User:Father Goose for the following reasons:


 * 1) It seems a non-sequitur, having little to do with editing policy
 * 2) A lead should summarise the article not develop separate points
 * 3) We already have a summary of the article in the nutshell
 * 4) Any additions require justification per WP:CREEP

Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the lede, since I agree with Father Goose and disagree with Colonel Warden, and therefore believe that consensus has changed an the lead should remain until other voices join in. Hiding T 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's move on to the next issue: the "Editing styles" section seems like an arbitrary grouping to me, and the text redundant with what's in the "Perfection" section. Further, the "be bold" section opens with ambivalent language toward WP:BOLD, despite that rule's broad acceptance. (suggested changes) Comments?--Father Goose (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it on this page that needs to be policy and not guidance? --PBS (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it about WP:IAR that needs to be policy and not guidance? Once I understand that, I will be able to answer your question. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE sections are the heart of this policy, and to the extent that they describe sound principles, they are policy material. (This is why IAR is policy as well: it outlines an extremely sound principle.)  Most of the other sections, however, are already well covered on other policy pages, so I'll continue the rewrite and try to get this page focused on its core topic -- which I perceive to be "collaborative editing".--Father Goose (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is not recognised as a content policy and when it puts forward positions that contradict the content policies then it causes confusion and disharmony and can be used as a bludgeon (or depending on your POV a shield) against the three content policies. If it is a guideline then any areas where this page is in conflict with the the content policies will automatically be resolved as "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature."(WP:policies and guidelines) --PBS (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it can be rewritten in a way that keeps the overall thrust of the policy intact while keeping it from seeming to encroach on our content policies. Anyhow, time for the next installment of the rewrite.--Father Goose (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How? --PBS (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem that if you are opposed to the very principle that Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect -- including containing unverified information at times -- then this policy can never be written in accordance with your views. Nonetheless, I'll continue with the rewrite in installments and soon enough try to address the tension between "preserve" and other policies.  I assert there's a tension between them -- a healthy one -- not a contradiction, although this should be better emphasized in the policy itself.--Father Goose (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against preserving information, but not if violates the content policies. It seems to me that it is much easier to construct such advise if one places it in a guideline as then it automatically becomes subservient to the content policies. If this page is to remain policy then it should not have sections that either do contradict the three content policies or with minor changes can conflict with the content policies. One possibility is to put at the start of the section a specific clause similar to that in WP:SOURCES stating that "
 * --PBS (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --PBS (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can address the seeming inconsistency through changes to the text.--Father Goose (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed change to Boldness
The sentence "Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all&mdash;simply change an article immediately if you see a problem" carries weasel words one could just as easily construct an argument "some Wikipedians think you should always discuss changes on a talk page before making changes" no doubt both points of view can be found, but that does not make either view the majority. I suspect most editors know that there is a difference between controversial and non controversial articles and controversial edits amd change their behaviour accordingly and expect others to do the same.

I propose to change the section Boldness to the following:

comments? --PBS (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think the "Boldness" section needs to be in this policy at all. Boldness should be mentioned, with a link to WP:BOLD provided, but this page should neither reiterate, reimagine, nor rebut WP:BOLD.


 * That said, I wouldn't want to remove it until we have a paragraph in place that mentions boldness in the context of other Wikipedia editing conventions. I'll get to that soon enough, unless someone else does first.--Father Goose (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition without conensus or converation
this was just added to the main space page, and I moved it here, for discussion:

Repeated attempts by a couple of editors, and one in particular to demote this policy has failed. This tag does not have consensus. Ikip (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Addition without conensus or converation" did you not read the section one above this one (see Thorough rewrite)? I did have a conversation about it so that you do not look silly perhaps you should consider changing this section header. Further it seems to me there is a consensus on this page that this section should not contradict other policies.


 * You reverted two of my edits without explaining why you reverted the second one, so I will reinstate that one.


 * From the discussion on this page it is clear that most editors do not think that the section "Preserve information" should give advise that contradicts the core content policies. If this wording or similar wording is put in place, it would allow the advise in this section to be given without any danger that it would conflict with the content policies, and this would remove the need most if not all of the listed of exceptions.


 * Do you take the position that this policy should be able to be interpreted so that it contradict the content policies? --PBS (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fear he may so believe, which is why the clarification is essential. Over the years, this policy was rarely cited at all -- in the past three months, it has been cited repeatedly as an argument that other policies are "trumped" (per one editor's specific claim). Collect (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We have many conflicts within and between our policies and guidelines. The general guidance from meta-rules like WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW is that policies should not be interpreted rigidly and so such conflicts are resolved by common sense, discretion and consensus, not by bickering of this sort. Preservation of information is obviously important to an encyclopedia and reference is made to this policy in our Five pillars. I oppose attempts to quantify the pillars or rank them in order of precedence since cases of conflict should be judged on their merits, not by rule-based argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a clear rule between policies and guidelines, that "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." (policies and guidelines).


 * The five pillars says "Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content." The link is under "perfection is not required" not to "Preserve information" at all costs.


 * User:Colonel Warden do you think that text should be kept in an article if it is in violation of to the three content policies? --PBS (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't seek to get caught in the middle of what appears to me to be a whole lot of conceptual confusion about policy vs. guideline, and behavioral vs. content policy/guideline, and I've no idea how to reconcile the subtle difficulties about what this page should best represent. But this is typical of some of the apparent confusion. The brief paragraph quoted above from the current section "Perfection is not required" strikes me as pretty much classic guideline material. A statement like "do not worry about X" isn't reasonable policy under nearly any accepted definition of what policy is, whether in the world at large or in WP-- rather, it's telling people what their emotions ought be. As to the sentence "In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content." : Without some kind of mention of the process of WP:OVERSIGHT, the sentence appears likely to be confusing to many readers, specifically w.r.t. the words "in most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept". I wish that were the only criticism I had of this page, one which I think will eventually need to (1) be renamed to reflect what kind of "editing policy" it refers to, or (2) include a summary of the content policies and other behavioral polices not presently mentioned, or (3) be reclassified as the "guideline" or "essay" that it has actually functioned as for quite a long time now. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh. I just noticed that the quote by PBS is directly from Five pillars not the current version of "Perfection is not required". I also notice that the five-pillars page isn't even linked from this page at present. Seems to me, offhand, that Five pillars ought to be one of the first things noted in a project page titled "Editing policy". Perhaps the page might ultimately best serve the newer members of the community by becoming something like an expansion of the five-pillars page? Just a thought. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars was actually derived from existing policies, not the other way around. This is policy because it is fundamental to the way this project works. It is policy for much the same reason that "Ignore all rules" is policy. It is natural for many people to demand perfection and to enforce every rule and dot every i and cross every t; but that is not what Wikipedia is about. It is about each editor building upon each others efforts to incrementally make something better than what was here before. This policy is needed to ensure that we don't degenerate into endless bureaucracy where people are constantly arguing about every little word and every little piece of wiki-markup. There are as many ideas about what would make Wikipedia "perfect" as there are editors. But the important thing is the information, and so we strive to preserve it even if it happens to be an ugly, imperfect mess. Fix it if you have the time, but don't delete it just because it looks ugly and you don't want to take the time to fix it. This policy isn't intended as a summary of other policies, it is intended to give the fundamentals of how we edit the encyclopedia. DHowell (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stolen this as a start on rewriting WP:PRESERVE for clarity and elegance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, DHowell. This page does indeed have a fairly rich tradition which precedes Five Pillars by several years. I should mention, though, that when this page was first developed in late 2001 and early 2002, it consisted of very basic explanations of the wiki process itself along with WP:PRESERVE, and talk page conventions, at a time when wikis were essentially unknown and when the development of wiki conventions in WP was quite on the leading edge. Here's a quick wik-historical summary. Back in October 2001 the page looked like this. It had only a single see-also link, first to Wikipedia policy, later redirected to Policy. The former, Wikipedia policy, has a varied history of cross-namespace issues, and presently redirects to WP:List of policies The latter, WP:Policy, presently redirects to WP:Policies and guidelines. Much has changed between then and now. ..... But back then the [Wikipedia:Policy] page looked [like this in April 2002]. NPOV had been formed, but there was as yet no mention yet of WP:V (which was started in August 2003 when it looked like this) or even a mention of the concept of verifiability, nor of original research which appeared as WP:NOR in late-2003 and early 2004 in this form).In May of 2002 [Wikipedia:Policy] became a redirect to [Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines] here. Policies and guidelines presently is classified as a policy page, one which defines and discusses the appropriate scope principle of policies and guidelines as well as essays. Perhaps needless to say, this is important because of the many participants who attempt to influence content, procedure and behavior by calling upon various polices, guidelines and essays, each of which is (ideally at least) classified as policy, guideline or essay depending on the strength with which the community decides the page should be capable of influencing content, procedure and/or user behavior on the wiki. ..... Between 2001 and the present, a lot has changed and editing policy in WP has evolved substantially, including to some extent this page. Of course, refraining from perfectionism, the encouragement to be bold (initially at least, per the essay WP:BRD), and preserving information are all still quite relevant. The introduction to talk page conventions originally produced on this page has long since been shunted off to other pages. .....It seems to me this page is something that's appropriate to build on further, and that the issues several users raised on this talk page have some degree of merit, and that the questions raised about the status of this page are worth serious consideration at the present stage of the wiki's growth. Should this page not take into account the very significant evolution of WP policy and practice in the last seven or eight years, and perhaps proceed to elaborate further on the basics of what is expected of new editors? For example, brief mention of the Five Pillars, the three core content polices, the basic behavioral expectations, and other basics, would seem entirely appropriate at this stage of the wiki's development. It seems to me it's already gone a little bit in that direction anyway. Or, is the contention that this page should remain only about refraining from perfectionism, being bold and preserving information and being cautious about major edits? It seems to me that this page could do significantly more than it presently does, without significant loss of information value on the issues with which it presently deals. .. Kenosis (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this: Talk:United States and state terrorism "Wikipedia:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline. This policy means that the removal of well cited materials is not allowed. ... I am saying in this context, with the edit wars here over deleting well referenced material, it is not allowed per WP:PRESERVE." ! --PBS (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And? WP:N applies to articles, not content. There is no reason to ever remove sourced content from the project since our goal is to present the sum of all human knowledge and not preserving content is going in the wrong direction, obviously. The only question is where to put the content (i.e. the zoning issue mentioned in the section below). -- Kendrick7talk 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Applying WP:N to content would be one of the quicker ways to bring down the encyclopedia. --Kiz o r
 * Edit wars are not allowed period, PRESERVE or no PRESERVE. If edit wars are occurring over well-sourced content, then there is clearly no consensus to remove the content, and according to PRESERVE, it should be retained. I see nothing wrong with this application of this policy. DHowell (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting the way you put it. It is just as possible that the information has just been added and for a number of reasons another editor considers it inappropriate for example it may introduce a bias into the article. This policy is not one of the content policies, and either it should be a guideline, or it should be clearly stated that this policy is subservient to the content policies and only if the content meets the requirements of the three content policies sold preservation be considered. --PBS (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As this policy suggests, the way to address bias is to add material from the opposing view, not to delete content. This is consistent with WP:YESPOV. -- Kendrick7talk 10:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Leading to massive articles with hundreds of references as each "balance" from one side elicits another "balance" from the other. Your cite of YESPOV is nice -- it states clearly that the cites should be carefully selected, not that every possible cite be used.   Far too many articles are proverbial "camels" at this point.  Collect (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles with 100s of references means we're doing our task correctly as a tertiary source. I am unfamiliar with the camel related proverb you allude to though. -- Kendrick7talk 11:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * a camel is a horse designed by committee. Let me give you an example: I recently added some information about a British Lieutenant-General who fought in the Second Anglo-Maratha War from an obituary written in 1835. The description that the obituary used about the marshal abilities of the sepoys who fought in that campaign was racist, (as were many opinions published in respectable publications in the 19th century). If I had included those comments even though they were sourced, would someone else be justified in removing them or should we leave such opinions of past generations in the passive narrative voice of an article if they are sourced with a reliable source published 180 years ago? I did not include that Victorian POV in a 21st century article, and I would hope those who write articles in many other fields (such as science and medicine) make editorial judgements over the content and not load articles with obsolete information. --PBS (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every editor, when adding information, is of course free to make editorial decisions about what information from a source to include and what to exclude. And every policy, even this one, can be ignored if common sense suggests otherwise. So if it makes sense, would improve the encyclopedia, and would likely be supported by consensus, bold removal of sourced information might be justified in certain circumstances. However, if you have a disagreement with another editor about whether to include obsolete but properly sourced information, it should stay in until you can come to a consensus—through discussion, not edit warring—that it should be removed. DHowell (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting is not what this policy dictates, it says "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing", policies should not state something in such a way that only WP:IAR can fix it. It takes two to edit war, using this policy to justify including inappropriate text is not the way to fix edit warring problems. This policy needs to be fixed (preferably by making it a guideline, but otherwise by including a paragraph) so that it can not contradict the three content policies. From the quote I gave above it is obvious that some people dissagree with your benign interpretation of this policy and are using it as a club to justify "trumping the notability guideline" and "deleting well referenced material, it is not allowed per WP:PRESERVE." --PBS (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Among the works designed and composed by committees are the King James version of the Bible, the US Constitution, the Oxford English Dictionary, the Dictionary of National Biography, --and, in fact, all modern encyclopedias. The difference between us and them is that they had some method for final resolution of disputed content. DGG (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppressing material because it is thought to be offensive is contrary to our policy WP:CENSOR which seems well-aligned with our editing policy in this case. In any case, 19th century sources may still have good relevance as we still find that groups such as the Gurkhas are still preferred for service in Afghanistan, whose peoples seem eternally irrepressible.  It is not difficult to find a modern source to confirm this and by assembling numerous sources we build a good picture of the matter over time.  Removing material is unhelpful in achieving such a broad perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Material violating policies - violates policies. To use a contract bridge analogy - Policies are Spades, and PRESERVE is being used as a Club -- which it was never meant to be. And the chief misuse opf it is recent (circa October 2008). Collect (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * there are very few cases where 19th century or early 20th century sources are preferred, except to show the the earlier level of knowledge, and the earlier prejudices. There are now only very few cases where material in 19th century schoalship (or earlier) has not been discussed more recently, and must be used as the best available. let me put it this way: Wjhy do you think peublishers accept a copyright law where pre 1926 material is public domain: it's because they know perfectly well that it's relatively worthless and nobody would use it =who has access to better sources. If we want to use the 1911 EB, they dont mind, but all knoweldgeable people will laugh at our naïvité.  To use your example, It is possible that the state of discourse in Afghanistan is so undeveloped or perhaps deliberately backewards that they may still prefer such traditional sources as an expression of their censorship,  but not in the english speaking world.DGG (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Policies are clubs, and PRESERVE, being a policy, is also being used as a club. Distortion of policy during arguments is rampant on Wikipedia.  This policy is no different.--Father Goose (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was sure there must be a good pun there and you have found it - bravo. Your substantive point is good too.  All policies are routinely abused and so we should not overreact when this happens. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All policies can be, and are, misinterpreted, distorted, or abused by various editors. Should misinterpretations, distortions, or abuses of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP take precedence over misinterpretations, distortions, and abuses of WP:PRESERVE? DHowell (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS is now simply edit-warring to add his ideas about precedence to the article. Such unilateral action is not the way to make policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Colonel Warden you have not explain why you objects to my insertion. Surly this policy should not be used to contradicts the content policies? --PBS (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete: wrong zoning
This policy is necessary to address a problem where material is "zoned out" (as in Zoning). Someone will change the name of a section, and then someone will delete (sourced) material that doesn't fit the new heading. Obviously, the right way of handling the situation is to move the material to a new or existing heading, a different article, or even just restore the old inclusive heading. It isn't helpful to delete the (sourced) material just due to the altered heading. WP:EDIT is the only policy that requires the retention of information. We need to maintain the core value: don't delete information unless there's a good reason. And "wrong zoning" isn't one of them.  Will Beback   talk    11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Major additions
Recenently there have been some major deletions and additions to this talk page. This is a policy page, and as such, all major changes should be addressed on talk first. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem remains misuse -- e.g. "Wikipedia:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline." Which is not true.  " The material should stay in the article per WP:PRESERVE until a compelling reason to remove it appears"  Disregarding a minor thing called BLP. Etc. Wording here which conflicts with established policies is not helpful to the WP project at all.   How would you word it to account for potential conflicts? Collect (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't understand the reason why you would wish to avoid telling editors to remove material that "clearly contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view". Could you please explain why you think telling editors to keep articles consistent with our core policies is unacceptable? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the suggested addition:
 * Material that has no discernible merit, particularly if it clearly contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view should be deleted outright. This is especially important to do in biographies of living people.
 * There are edit wars all the time over what does and what does not meet content policies.
 * This new sentence seems to contradict the next existing section:
 * However, editors may not always agree about the merit of a given piece of information. To resolve such a dispute, the best thing to do is to try to forge a consensus on the article's talk page for what should be done.
 * So, materials which have no discernable merit to an editor, should be deleted outright, but editors don't always agree about what shoudl be deleted, so editors whould try to gain consensus.
 * See the contridiction? Ikip (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a contradiction if one assumes the Bold edit cycle is in use. An editor deletes something because in the opinion of that editor it has not discernible merit, another editor reinstates it. The proposed change then goes to the talk page for further discussion. But there are times when it has to be deleted and remain deleted until there is a consensus to put it back facts about living people (see WP:BLP). --PBS (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not content with these additions and so have reverted. Attempts to establish some order of precedence between our policies are not sound, as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The current wording does not suggest a hierarchy (although one exists) between policies, it suggest that when this policy (the part to do with retaining information) should only be done if that information does not contradict other policies. Adding comments of this type to integrate policies is quite common. For example the Naming Conventions policy depends on WP:V to define what is a reliable source. --PBS (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To use a simple example, somebody adds the text "Barack Obama has been described as a muslim terrorist who glorifies in the deaths of American children. Obscure foaming blog written by obvious maniac " to the article on Barack Obama. I'd say that this "sourced content" clearly fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV and is also a BLP violation, so I would delete it on sight. In cases such as these, where the breach of policy is "clear" (I'm open to using stronger words), I think it is a requirement for any editor to remove such material. Do you instead believe Ikip that an editor should begin a discussion on Talk:Barack Obama on whether or not this text should be removed? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that there are times when we should remove statements on sight... especially when a statement violates any of the three and a half core policies (BLP being the half). That said, I also agree that such a statement needs to be carefully worded so it is not abused.  I also completely agree that the solution to any debate over removal for everyone to strictly follow WP:BRD. If you think something violates one of the core policies, be bold... go ahead and remove it... but if that removal is reverted, don't edit war over it... go and discuss it on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - part of the issue is whether problematic content (eg the Obama example above from TimVickers; but really whatever an editor considers to be problematic which is why the policy is tricky) should be (a) deleted with appropriate edit summary; (b) deleted, but discussion started on talk; (c) tagged as problematic and discussion started on talk. That's a sliding scale of responses depending on how problematic the content appears; and in BLP cases we agree to exercise extra caution, so are more likely to go for (a) or (b). I'm not going to propose a wording for this, but I think if the policy laid this out, with a sort of principle of proportionality of response, the policy might be a lot more helpful. Whatever the wording, it should be clear that removal of content pending discussion is qualitatively different from merely removing it. Rd232 talk 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this as a working draft? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:V says: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references."


 * Perhaps similar wording could be used here, as Tim suggests above. The problem is not with NOR, V, or BLP, but with NPOV. People argue about that constantly, seeing blatant POV just because they disagree with it (but are sometimes right that it is blatant POV). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, SlinVirgin. "may be deleted" is much better. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the best solution is to demote this policy to a guideline, then most of these complications disappear. --PBS (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have made that quite clear Philip. However, given the strong opposition that was stated in the above discussions, I don't think there is consensus for such a demotion. So... that leaves fixing the problems. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this:


 * um it's a bit longer and clunkier, but I've made my points, maybe it can be improved. NB I've change "particularly if" to "or" in the first sentence because there do seem to be separate rationales, and this way it's clearer. Rd232 talk 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * TimVickers is more succinct and does not have the problem that "Editors are encouraged not to re-add controversial material under ongoing discussion" has. If that statement is coupled to a BOLD edit that removes text, then the editor who objects and follows your wording could not reinsert the text while it was being discussed (because by definition the text is controversial to one or both parties). --PBS (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's a problem. If it's controversial to one or both parties, why shouldn't it be discussed before being put back? (Though obviously this needn't be new discussion each time it's added/removed; not sure how to make that clear without a whole lot more clunkiness; maybe with reference to how long the info has been in the article but that has problems too). Also, with respect, TimVickers version isn't more succinct, it's saying less. You may not think the extra points worth making, but then please say why, as you did with "not readding" above. Rd232 talk 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Also: I deliberately wrote "encouraged" to provide some flexibility depending on context, so your "editor ... could not reinsert the text" isn't accurate. Rd232 talk 01:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: clarity might be enhanced by splitting off the BLP issue. Have a general statement and then a strengthening for BLPs. Rd232 talk 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Applying WP:BRD works in both directions... the result simply depends on who initiates the bold edit. If the bold edit removes a statement that has been in the article for a while, then the revert would return it and the editors would discuss why it should be removed again.  On the other hand, if the bold edit adds objectionable information, then the revert removes it and discussion would revolve around why it should be reinstated.  In other words, in both situations the article would default back to what it was prior to the bold edit while the discussions take place. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This policy already explicitly lists "factual claims that cannot be verified, particularly unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material about living persons" as an exception. Why do you believe this insufficient to counter anyone who would claim that WP:PRESERVE requires preservation of unverifiable content or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons? DHowell (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 talk 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks OK to me. Since we now seem to all agree on what this should say in general, I've been bold and put Rd232's version in the policy. Please revert and propose an alternative wording if there is a serious problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, do what the policy says. :) NB I note you dropped my "presumption" qualifier from the last sentence. This is simpler, but it maybe makes the BLP exemption sound too strong. Maybe a qualifying footnote would do the trick, something like "Questionable BLP information should not, however, be removed prior to discussion if there is an existing consensus established through previous discussion - unless there is substantial new information." Or never mind that and see how it plays. Rd232 talk 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always tried to make policies very clear even to people who don't have English as their first language. Short sentences and as few long words as possible. I've weakened it a little by saying "may be removed immediately", which turns this from an flat instruction to telling people what they can do, while using their own judgment. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the first-language thing is a good point; I'll bear it in mind in future. I don't really agree with your "may be removed" change though: (a) it doesn't fit with the WP:BURDEN part of WP:V, which is pretty strong; and (b) it makes the whole sentence basically redundant as the BLP case is then no more strongly worded than the normal one. Rd232 talk 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. I'll revert that change. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph we are discussing does not need to be in the section "Perfection is not required" it needs to be in "Preserve information". --PBS (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed it altogether as it seems to destroy the point of the section by subverting it. Weasel words like no discernable merit are too easily abused: it is routine to see snap judgements of this sort at AFD, being made by editors who have little understanding of the topic, dislike it or have some ideological axe to grind.  For example, see Articles for deletion/Girls in computer science where Uncle G struggles to explain to the mob that there is something worth saving. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that no discernable merit is something that shouldn't really belong, but disagree that the problem is best solved by removing those words and all the other words in the paragraph too. So I reinstated all the other words, since you haven't defined any objections to them.  I'd also suggest the best place to challenge them is at their respective policy pages.  I'd be interested to see if there really was a consensus that WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV aren't part of our editing policy. Until that's been demonstrated, it is better that we leave them in our editing policy, given that the underlying consensus is that they fundamentally do affect the way, the how and the why of editing. Hiding T 09:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if it were not possible to remove material that "blatantly contradicts our content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view", the encyclopedia would grind to a juddering halt in a few weeks. Arguments about AfD miss the point - this policy is not about article deletion, it is about article editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar issues arise during article editing. For a recent example, please see Cat training.  This arose at AFD and seemed an easy save as there are numerous books upon the subject.  I provided a citation and quickly rewrote the article to provide some structure for the stub so that it might be developed further.  But instead of building upon this, another editor just removed material with edit summaries such as subjective and unsourced.  In other words, that editor was deleting material on the grounds of WP:NPOV and WP:V without making any effort to see whether the NPOV might be better balanced or more exact citations found for the material.  The entire article was then redirected to another poor article, again without making any effort to preserve any of the material.  The other articles in this area such as dog training and animal training are poor but they won't be made better by deleting material - what's needed is the addition of more material, building upon what we already have.  I have done this at cat training, expanding the article further from another good source.  This scenario is not unusual and so our policy should strongly support editors who seek to resolve issues in a constructive way rather than in a destructive manner.  I am still not content with the balance of our advice in this regard and so shall make appropriate edits. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For another fresh example, please see Information Inequality and Social Barriers which has just been redirected to another poor article. This article was a good faith effort to contribute material and provided six references to support its content.  But this contribution has been cast aside on flimsy grounds of OR without making the slightest effort to preserve any of its substantial content.  The main reason that actions of this sort are taken is that they are easy - it is hard work to research and add sources, write good prose and present it all in a well-formatted way.  But removing material is simple, requiring a fraction of the effort.  WP:PRESERVE aims to correct this systemic bias and we should not undermine it as the problem is widespread and damages the project by making it difficult to make progress.  99% of our articles are not GA/FA and presumably fail to meet the standards of OR/NPOV/V.  The answer to this is not to delete them all but to preserve and improve them. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the policy states, "If there is a dispute, discuss the problem on the article talk page and try to reach consensus.", but I expect you are doing so. I also expect you not to edit war against the clear consensus of the people who have discussed this addition on this talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were a clear consensus then there would be nothing to be said as we would be done. But we are not there yet.  I am mulling over improvements in line with my observations above but they must compete for attention with immediate occasions of preserving material such as Alcohol and sex - yet another article upon a notable topic which is threatened with deletion rather than preservation.  There is no end of such mistaken attempts to remove promising material and this is what we must address better. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Under discussion
I have reverted the page back to an underdiscussion tag, since that is in keeping with advice at Template:Disputedtag. The status of this page as a policy is no longer being discussed, the discussion was closed. Discussion is now focussed on the text of the page, and so we use underdiscussion. For proposals to change policies or guidelines (as opposed to challenges to their status), use underdiscussion instead. I really, really don;t see what the issue is here, nor why there has to be yet another inane tag war. Hiding T 15:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was not closed as there was not consensus either way. If you do not know what the issue is why did you not just revert the banner at the top instead of reverting all of the edit? --PBS (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll pass the same question back to you; why didn't you just revert the edits piecemeal rather than in one go. And if you go look at A Man in Black's statement in closing the debate, he states it was not demoted.  I'm not going to argue the toss about anything else other than that there is currently no discussion amongst a wide number of Wikipedians regarding the status of this page.  There's plenty of talk about the text, but not the status.  I'm not invested in any way in how the text reads at this particular second, so if you want to modify that, feel free. Hiding T 11:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think these tags should be deleted as pointless... especially the underdiscussion tag. I have been involved with policy page discussions for at least five years now, and in all that time, I can not think of a single policy or guideline that has not been continuously under discussion in some form or another. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are times when policy undergoes a major reevaluation, and times when things just evolve piecemeal. There's something to be said for drawing people's attention to a major reevaluation underway, though when when the tags become the subject of an edit war, it's a joke.  (This is true in both directions: people may add them just to take a swipe at something they disagree with, which is disruptive, or they may be unwilling to acknowledge that some aspect of policy is substantially in dispute -- creating a dispute over whether there's a dispute.)


 * Tagging and warring are of course no substitute for thinking and talking.--Father Goose (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose so... but I would argue that in such situations tagging the policy probably does not achieve the goal of drawing all that much attention to the reevaluation... few people will notice that the tag has been placed on the page (and if it is a major reevaluation, those that have the page on their watch list are probably already involved in the discussion)... what we need is something that alerts those who don't usually follow policy debates that a major reevaluation is occuring.
 * I look back to the broohaha that took place a few years ago over the attempt to merge WP:V and WP:NOR into WP:ATT as an example of this... Those of us who regularly edit policy (the policy wonks, as it were) spent many months debating and discussing the proposed policy and we had achieved a solid consensus among ourselves as to what it said and that it should be implimented... but the greater community was completely unaware of this discussion. They were blind-sided by its implimentation and reacted very negatively.  The lesson I learned from that is that when a major policy change is being discussed, you need to shout it to the roof tops and in every venue you can think of... you need to hit people between the eyes and say: "HEY YOU, A MAJOR CHANGE IS BEING CONSIDERED"... so that you find out what the consensus of the entire community actually is.
 * In other words, most of the time, tags are pointless... and when it really matters, they are probably not enough. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always thought in the back of my mind that there ought to be a way to make software-style version numbers workable for policy revision. That would clarify changes and enable a Recent Changes log for each policy which could be watch-listed. (Actually the latter idea doesn't need version numbers, but it would help organise it.) Rd232 talk 03:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove the underdicsussion tag too and have none of those silly tags up there, you have my blessing. Hiding T 11:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah... it would just start another silly edit war. I don't really care what tag is on the policy, or even if there is a tag on the page... I was mearly expressing my opinion that taging policy pages is pointless.  I was not really suggesting that we do anything about it (at least not right now). Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Trial first, evidence later
I have noted many of the BLP problems occur where material is added to say what the reader should be able to discern from the facts if they were neutrally presented. I suppose this is in the tradition of "Verdict first, evidence afterward" but I would hope this could be reasonably addressed in the Editing guidelines. Perhaps "Trust the reader to be able to draw his own conclusions. If we present the 'correct' conclusion first, we are not serving anyone. Instead of presenting conclusions and opinions of others, as much as possible use reliably sourced facts. "   This would also cut down on the huge number of opinion cites we have in many articles (notably BLPs but definitely including others)  where editors can agree on facts, but have huge disputes over the relative value of others' opinions. Collect (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Our job isn't to help the reader "descern the facts"... our job is to present the reader with a summary of what others (ie reliable sources) say about the subject. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All too often articles are editorial battlegrounds telling people what they should be able to figure out for themselves. "John Doe said racist stuff" followed by 3 cites of what he said is no stronger as an article than just saying "John Doe said these things ...".  Reliable sources are far better at being reliable for quantifiable fact than they are for use of opinion-as-fact which is where a huge number of problems ensue.  And our job is not help the reader discern anything -- but it is not our task to present him with pre-digested results.  Collect (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in both senarios you would need a reliable source that says the specific comments by Doe are racist. Otherwise you have a WP:SYNT violation.
 * It is our job to present pre-digested facts... but who did the digesting matters. The facts have to be digested by a reliable source and not a wikipedia editor. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Posit a RS which has "Mary Roe says John Doe is a racist, and possibly a murderer as well." All too often the cite will be asserted to be RS and used to assert John Doe is a racist and murderer. I would suggest that we would be well off to avoid such use of non-quantifiable "fact" and simply present the facts we do have. I would further suggest that this would cut down the amount of BLP (and other articles, to be sure) problems by an order of magnitude, which, I further aver would be "a good thing." BTW, I trust readers to be able to recognize a "racist" remark without having to be told it is "racist." Collect (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with making generalized examples... very often the specifics of who says what matter. A lot is going to depend on exactly who "Mary Roe" is... if Mary is indeed a high quality RS (say a noted expert on John Doe or on racism), then we should definitely discuss what she says... If she is just marginally RS, then mentioning her opinion might not pass WP:Undue. Another problem often comes from editors attempting to "prove" that what "Mary Row" said is right... by going on to discuss things that she does not discuss (a form of WP:SYNT).  And then. or course we have to be careful not to violate WP:BLP... if John Doe is a living person, there are much stronger limitations to what we can say about him.
 * I would agree that you are discussing senarios where there are serious problems with the article... I detect potential NPOV, NOR and BLP issues with what you are presenting. My point is that I don't think a "let the reader reach his own conclusion" approach resolves those issues.  Writing an article that simply lists facts, organized in a way that leads your reader to reach an (unspoken) conclusion, is just as bad as stating the conclusion outright.  It is better to attribute conclusions to the people who made the conclusion.  Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have now run across more than a dozen examples, and the weights given various people's opinions is an issue in each, I doubt that this is an unusual situation. Too often all opinions are given equal weight and credence, despite the person having (say) a vested interest in making the object of their opinion seem better or worse than they are. How would you word it so that we can cover such examples? Collect (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No point in rewriting the NPOV policy here, we can just link to it and say "Follow the policy, if you can rewrite the text to follow this, keep the text, but if this isn't possible, delete the text." Tim Vickers (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I completely agree that that there are far too many articles that violate NPOV and our other policies. Editors who write articles to push a particular POV or agenda have long been a problem here in Wikipedia (it is one of the unfortunate side effects of our "anyone can edit" policy... if anyone can, then anyone will... including those who have a POV or agenda to push.) But the problem lies with the editors and the articles, not with our policies (which already say don't do it).  The solution is to fix the articles, not to change policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal is not to change for the sake of change - but to change to reduce the amount of misuse of current policy.  In so doing, I would aver that a large number of editwars and the like would no longer take place.   By specifically declining to fix something we knopw is broken, we do not help the longterm project.  I have just found two more articles where "selective quoting" is used to make a point, where my suggestin would have a salubrious effect. Collect (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A better title for this section might be Joe Friday's "Just the facts, ma'am". I doubt that exhortations of this sort will have much practical effect though.  I recently have had occasion to remove an improper POV which is not a fact but User:Collect continually edit wars against all-comers to restore it.  If he won't take his own advice, why will others?  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Try WP:NPA . Collect (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
I want to compliment everyone who's been editing the policy lately -- I think its advice, and the way it is presented, is increasingly sound.--Father Goose (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Father Goose's appraisal, nice job everyone. Ikip (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice work people. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes. But I looked at the policy today and suddenly thought it really feels like a guideline or even an essay the way it's written. Either we should change the status, or consider rewriting it from scratch (drafting on a subpage), to be much more tightly focussed and better structured. Rd232 talk 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unique here, it is more of a guide to how our other policies fit together than anything important in itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure that really answers my question. Even if it's "a guide" and should be demoted to guideline, it's not terribly well-structured. Rd232 talk 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The other option is to revert it back, which I oppose, but I think it is nicely worded now. Ikip (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true that it's imperfectly structured. It's been through a recent frenzy of editing, which has helped to address a lot of problems deficiencies in its tone and structure, but it can certainly be improved further.


 * I find other policies to be quite often disjointed and confusing as well. Someone's always trying to insert a pet peeve in them (or remove one) and sometimes they can be a right mess.  But as long as they outline what I'll call "root principles" of Wikipedia editing, they're policy, as far as I'm concerned.  Sternness and rigidity is not what makes a policy a policy.--Father Goose (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not suggesting making it sterner or more rigid or changing any particular wording. I mean tightening the whole thing in terms of structure. Allow me to elaborate the current structure as I see it: From this it's clear that the main sections should be Deleting vs Fixing and Editing vs Talking, with current sections merged into these (avoiding duplication). And I think this would be (a) more helpful for readers and (b) more coherent and therefore better for maintaining the policy. Rd232 talk 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) "Perfection is not required" - Deleting vs fixing: Articles are always work-in-progress. Material should not be deleted if it is imperfect - issues should be fixed, tagged, and/or discussed.
 * (b) "Boldness" - Editing vs Talking: Be bold.
 * (c) "Preserve information" - Deleting vs fixing: fix, don't delete - with some exceptions.
 * (d) "Major changes" - Editing vs Talking - for major changes prefer discussion.
 * (e) "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum" - editing vs talking.


 * There are further considerations, including how the historic terms used here interact with other policies and guidelines, and that interaction is more complex than your presentation. Collect (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, perhaps you can elaborate on that. I'm sure existing shortcuts and section headings can be referenced clearly enough in a restructured version. Rd232 talk 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles and discussions in the past have referred to the terms used in this article. Were we to make a genuine and complete restructuring (which may well be a "good thing") we ought also to check where the references are made, and probably edit those places as well to better reflect the new wording here. As long as we retain the current structure, that ought not be a problem.   Collect (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm. Are you saying past discussions should limit our ability to ever substantially rework/clarify policy? Surely not. And as I said, existing shortcuts, sections headings, key terms can be retained within a reworked structure, which should be enough to maintain clarity for those familiar with the previous version and consistency with other policies (even without editing those). When I said "writing from scratch" I didn't mean "writing from scratch as if this page had never existed"! I'm talking only about structure, not content; the reworking should seek to say exactly the same thing, just much more clearly. (Maybe I should just do a quick subpage draft - "show, don't tell"...) Rd232 talk 20:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be curious to see a prototype of such a restructure. Can you do a quick mock-up?--Father Goose (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick mockup - no. Draft, yes: User:Rd232/EPmock. Rd232 talk 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, I should explain that though I've mostly been quite conservative with merging overlapping topics in the current policy, I have added an entire new section for an important point which was mentioned in several places but didn't have its own section: "Be helpful: explain". Rd232 talk 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

preserve information and major changes
The section preserve information contains this sentence:
 * If, in your considered judgment, a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change.

Is this sentence needed given that the section preserve information is immediately followed by another section called major changes which covers the same ground in more detail. --PBS (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if we could just remove the major changes section? The preserve information section has its own shortcut, and is widely linked to, so I figure maybe it is best to simply merge the two sections into one. It's covering the same ground, and it is best that the fullest picture is given in the more widely read section.  Hiding T 11:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like this? User:Rd232/EPmock Rd232 talk 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A cursory glance, but yes, very nice job. Hiding T 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like an improvement to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am loathe to imply any editing process as adversarial -- might we lose the "vs" headers? "Problematic" means "dubious" - perhaps we could balance "When to Preserve" with "When to delete"? Then we could have "Edit boldly" "Explain your edits" "Listen to others" and "Discuss the article, not your opinions." Else, good start for sure. Collect (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I see the policy as directed and one editor deciding how to behave; so I sort of see your "vs" point and sort of don't. What would suggest instead? The other headings I've tried to change only as much as necessary to provide a clear structure; I think changing them more substantially would be better dealt with later, when the new structure has been in place a while. Which brings me to my big question: if we broadly like this as a new start which will make it easier to develop the policy in clear, helpful directions in future, can we just be bold and implement it now (and then go from there), or is it so radical a change as to need wider input? As I said, I have tried hard not to change the substance of the policy, but it does look substantially different and I wouldn't want people to get upset. Rd232 talk 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For "fix v delete" -- perhaps something akin to "Editing includes both adding material and removing material which does not belong" or the like?  Then (in parallel) "Editing includes both boldness and a willingness to discuss"?  Not as terse as I would like, I suppose ... but not showing it as an adversaral process (which some appear at times to think).
 * Er I do see your point, but that's not a section heading, it's a sentence! If you want to avoid the (possibly inferred) adversarialness we could just replace "vs" with "and". Rd232 talk 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Tailoring" would be an apt comparison? Then "Boldly edit, fully discuss"?   I have seen too many view this as a confrontational set of policies . Collect (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Tailoring"?? I don't know, collect, if people want to view the policy as confrontational they will, regardless what the text says and definitely regardless of what the section headings say. If we change "vs" to "and" that's enough for me. Rd232 talk 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections in principle, I'll be bold and implement the changes of User:Rd232/EPmock tomorrow. Further discussion/editing can then proceed from there. Rd232 talk 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Rd232 talk 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)