Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive 3

Moving forward
Rather than edit warring on the talk page over our various preferred versions of WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE... I suggest that we try to draft a consensus version here on the talk page. Any takers? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate "talk page editing". We're on a wiki, we should use the wiki process. Editing_policy/draft.  I have removed a lot of the redundancy while retaining the basic structure. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * diff for first rev. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Working it out on a draft page works just as well for me (I will take a look at it and comment there)... my suggestion was aimed at encouraging us to work together and discuss things, with the goal of reaching a proper consensus... as opposed to continuing our mutual attempts impose our POV by constantly reverting each other's edits. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... Gigs, WhatamIdoing and I have worked on this at the draft page... and I think we have reached a compromise that is acceptable. I have uploaded that compromise version. Hopefully it meets with the approval of others. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You only merged a small subset of the the changes. Gigs (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have merged the rest and marked the draft as an archive. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct... all I merged was the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM section from the draft... as we did not discuss any of your other changes. I will talk a look at them now. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having done so... I have no major issues. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They seem all right to me too.--Father Goose (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick's revert
Three months later... Kendrick has reverted the above changes back to the problematic section title and language. Perhaps he/she could explain his/her objection? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Scope
I think that the speedy keep on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing policy was a mistake, there should have been a proper discussion as to suggest deletion is not disruptive and to suggest that it was is IMHO misleading given the content of the talk page archives. Personally I am still in favour of demoting this to a guideline (Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/Archive_1 as I still think that it clashes with the content policies and guidelines, and given the wording it has adopted will always has the potential to used as a workaround by frustrate the general consensus of how those polices and guidelines are generally implemented.

If it is going to remain a policy, (and it looks as if it will for the time being, but let me know if someone proposes to delete it or demote it in the future and I'll express an opinon), there should be an explicit mention of what to do with text which violate What Wikipedia is not.

Coupled to that is the problem of this policy contradicts content guidelines. For example what about the restrictions on quotes of primary sources being too large (or a quote farm)? The usual thing to do in that case is to move them out onto Wikisource or Wikiquotes, this policy could be seen as opposing that move. The same for articles on words they go out into the dictionary.

I also think that as it is a policy there should also be a mention of what to do with text that is outside the scope of an article and is not notable on it own, or would need more work than any of the editors of the current page is willing to do to make it into an article. Clearly if it is outside the scope of the current article it should not be on the talk page of the current article as it is not relevant, so where should it be preserved?

There is also questions of the content of lists that are deleted because the are OR or non-NPOV, while the list itself my fall foul of those criteria, not all the individual entries may in themselves be either OR or non-NPOV, but they may not be notable enough to warrant their own articles. I am thinking for example of List of massacres. In such a situation it might be argued that although the article should be removed, it can not be, because some of the content must be preserved (under "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained") because some day someone will put the entries into one or more other articles (just not the one under the AfD discussion) -- the information can not be moved to the talk page because if the article is deleted then the talk page shoudl be deleted so where should such information be preserved? -- PBS (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is rather too vague to give definite answers in any particular situation, but I think we do need a policy that says what ought to be (but isn't always) so obvious as to go without saying - that Wikipedia is an information source, and that (as a general principle, subject to certain exceptions) more information is better than less. For example, we have nationalistically-driven editors from [country X] regularly going round removing information on historical [language Y] names for places in [country X], then demanding other editors give a "reason for including this information" before it will be allowed in (naturally, any reason then given is ignored or countered with personal abuse). "Including information" is what we ought to be about; the place has become so overrun with wikilawyers and deletionists and POV-pushers of various species that I think (sadly) we really do need to say it, indeed much more loudly and clearly than this page already does. --Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts: Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant policy/guideline/essay. E.g. add the tag "Further information: Quotations." to the paragraph that you are concerned is an endorsement of quotefarms.
 * Regarding articles on words, we do actually have quite a few articles on notable words. E.g. Chemistry (etymology), Football (word), American (word), Prithee, Negro, Thou, etc, etc. Many editors understand WP:NOTDIC's intention as primarily to prevent the creation of simple word-definition stubs (which were a bigger problem in the early years). A few editors disagree. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary/Draft RfC on words for more background and examples and discussion.
 * Regarding separation from Wikisource: Again, it can be a fine line. E.g. We include a complete copy of many poems here, as well as a link to a copy on Wikisource, as the local copies can be annotated and explained more easily if they're duplicated here.
 * Regarding conflict with ISNOT: which particular aspects do you mean?
 * Regarding "...has the potential to used as a workaround by frustrate the general consensus of how those polices and guidelines are generally implemented.": That seems like too much of an abstract concern, to warrant demoting/deleting this policy. I'm curious as to specific examples, if you have any in mind?
 * Regarding where to put things, wikiproject space is often a good choice.


 * Personally, I would suggest that this policy, as with all policy, needs to be understood as existing as just one aspect of, "the way things are done around here"™
 * Philosophically, it definitely has the perspective of some typologies of editor, more than others, at its heart. Just as many policies are more in line with the perspective of immediatists and exclusionists, this one is more in line with the views of eventualists and inclusionists.
 * The policies (and community) work, because they (we) all balance each other out. :)


 * I'm not saying the policy couldn't be improved, but I don't believe demotion is warranted. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So no disagreement about the need to mention scope?


 * "This page is rather too vague to give definite answers in any particular situation" if it is too vague then it should not be a policy page. It should either be a guideline or an essay. It is not a general principle that "more information is better than less. " it also depends on other thinks like whether it is valid information, that it is not original research and that it presents a neutral point of view. There are many other qualifications on more not less: such as is it encyclopaedic, is it a copyright violation etc.?


 * "Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant policy/guideline/essay", Yes but we generally give more weight to the content of policies than guidelines or essays. The was long since decided, and came to a head between WP:V and WP:RS. The information in this page would be more useful and lead to less conflict if it were a guideline.


 * I notice one editor who has been active in keeping preserving PRESERVE as a policy is user:Colonel Warden and CW often uses it in AfD debates here is a recent one: Articles for deletion/The Crucible of Iron Age Shetland where CW writes: "Our editing and deletion policies make it very clear that we have a duty to preserve and build upon such initiatives. ...Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)" and a little further down the same page "My response remains that we should retain the article for the policy reasons stated. If these seem over-familiar then this is to be expected as many AFDs are repetitive in nature, alas.  I try to vary my responses so that they do not seem monotonous or unthinking but the same essential points must naturally recur. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)" Notice that it is an appeal to the authority of "policy", which, User:Quiddity rather undermines your argument about "Any potential contradictions might be best resolved by simply pointing to the other relevant" policy "/guideline/essay." -- PBS (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...would be more useful and lead to less conflict if it were a guideline" - More useful to whom though? (See, my comments about editor typologies).


 * "...undermines your argument..." - or, it reflects my nuanced views of how to understand the spirit of our rules. ;) - This is similar to the discussion at WT:LAYOUT#External links and Wiktionary (and the same earlier discussions in archives 4 and 5), wherein I agree with you that practice (and spirit) diverges from the rigid EL/Layout guidelines. Practice follows WP:SISTER, but that's no longer tagged or categorized as anything except a how-to.


 * Scope - do you have an example in mind, of text that was out of scope for where it was placed, but deserves to be preserved? - Generic answer: If current location for text is not ideal, the 4 standard options are: article-talkpage, userfication, article-incubator, and wikiproject page.


 * If this is primarily about users like CW (and other moderate/extreme inclusionists/eventualists, such as DGG maybe) quoting WP:PRESERVE in AfD, then one option would be to respond with WP:EFFORT.
 * Does that help? Your thoughts welcome; I enjoy trading perspectives with lucid editors. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EFFORT is only an essay and is not one which cuts much ice at AFD. The essential point of WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT is that content which has any merit and/or potential should be retained in mainspace where it may be found and worked upon by readers and editors.  A commonly expressed sentiment at AFD is that it is better to delete imperfect material completely and start again from scratch.  That approach is quite contrary to the idea of a Wiki and so we should continue to firmly rebut it here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't remember a particular example offhand, but I have several times condensed a non-notable stub for a company or product into a single sentence or short paragraph in a more general article. As a hypothetical example, if "Brand X Glucometer Model Y" has an unusual feature, it might be worth mentioning it as an example at Glucometer.  These articles also occasionally contain perfectly good background information about the product's use, which might be useful elsewhere, even if there's no reason to keep anything else.
 * Similarly, articles about organizations of dubious notability are sometimes merged into the biography of a notable founder (or the other way around). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Policies aren't laws, no matter how much they've been twisted and lawyered by people that want them to be like laws. This policy does describe a core and very essential part of "the way we do things". It's the only policy that describes how articles actually get developed and written in a wiki environment.

Nothing in this policy requires keeping an article that is based on almost non-existent secondary source coverage like that crucible article. It is a shame that crucible AfD turned out that way, I would have definitely !voted delete even though I fully support keeping this a policy. People citing a policy badly and incorrectly is not a good reason to attack that policy. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress: sloppiness is encouraged?
WP:IMPERFECT should encourage editors to create draft articles in their userspace and move the article to mainspace only when it's ready to "hatch" (i.e. when there is a verifiable assertion of notability and at least a bare stub minimum of actually referenced material in the article). The current wording quite literally encourages the horribly bad and already rampant practice of creating "placeholder" articles.

"Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" should not mean "sloppiness is encouraged". Keep it in your userspace until the thing doesn't need an article issue tag from the get-go. --87.78.120.37 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you just complaining, or proposing that we add something like this to the policy? If the latter, I expect others will disagree. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I just complaining? I don't know, you be the judge. My personal guess would be that a comment starting with xyz should encourage editors to is an attempt to start a discussion about changes to the policy page. Your mileage may vary.
 * If the latter, I expect others will disagree. -- Oh, I am absolutely sure that others will disagree, especially the sworn enemies of content quality aka "inclusionists" who abuse IMPERFECT as an excuse for bad editing practice. Much more important in the context of your comment here however is the question --which you leave woefully unanswered-- of whether or not you agree or disagree with the basic notion of my suggestion to expand the IMPERFECT section, and what rationale you are basing your opposition on, if any. My suggestion makes perfect sense, and if you think it doesn't, please point out exactly where I went wrong. --87.78.120.37 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... the old "Inclusionist vs. Exclusionist" debate... that is a debate that goes back to the founding of Wikipedia, and isn't about to be resolved now. Personally, I tend to lean more to the "Exclusionist" side... and, in my own practice, I do as you suggest (working on articles in user space until they are ready to "hatch")... however, I realize (and it sounds like you realize) that others have a different practice... that this isn't the consensus view on how Wikipedia should work.  The "Inclusionist" rational (which I admit does have some validity) is that Wikipedia is collaborative in nature... so if an editor starts an article by creating an imperfect flawed stub, other editors will come along and fix the flaws... and eventually we will end up with a good article.  At least that is the goal.
 * Reality is somewhere between Inclusionism and Exclusionism... The Inclusionists and Exclusionists have achieved a consensus that acknowledges both views... we allow imperfect stubs, as long as there is a reasonable chance that they can be improved... but... we have the AfD process to delete flawed articles if it looks like they can not be fixed or improved. It's a balance between the extremes that has served us fairly well for several years. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy
In this reverted edit, I added wording about accuracy. It seems to me that this policy (at least the sentences in question) give an extremely skewed view of the project's actual goals and practices. We're not just about more-is-better information - we're trying to present accurate information. That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a search engine. Wikipedia isn't here to provide "information" - it's here to provide useful, accurate, encyclopedic information. I'm not sure exactly what the objections are to specifying this in the policy, but I'd be open to discussing them. MastCell Talk 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's that the definition of "accurate" that we have to use here isn't the common one; "verifiability, not truth" and all that jazz. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the sentence is already phrased as an extreme generality. It makes the (extremely arguable) generalization that more information is better, so it seems reasonable to make the (much less arguable) generalization that accuracy is important to what we do. Our version of accuracy has some quirks, but it's sufficiently close to the widely understood meaning of the word to make it suitable for a very general statement. MastCell Talk 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest "verifiability" rather than "accuracy".— S Marshall T/C 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But accuracy is not solely about verifiability. Material also needs to be neutrally presented, without undue weight to minoritarian viewpoints. One could easily construct an article using "verifiable" material which would make the case that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS. Everything in it would be verifiable, but it would not be accurate (since it would resort to cherry-picking sources and thus violate WP:UNDUE). Accuracy means that material is both verifiable and presented neutrally. MastCell Talk 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we want editors to present the information in our articles accurately ... However, that information does not need to be universally accepted as being accurate (even experts can disagree as to whether something is accurate or not). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. But in very general terms, I think we can agree that we want to present accurate information. The sentence is speaking in very general terms. I don't think anyone would read it as a demand that everything presented in Wikipedia be universally acclaimed as accurate. If one reads the entire sentence, or paragraph, or policy with that fine a lens, the whole thing needs to be tightened up. MastCell Talk 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that POV warriors and Wiki-Lawyers will use your addition of the word "accurate" to argue that viewpoints they disagree with should not be included (on the grounds that they don't think the viewpoint is "accurate information".) What we need to get across is that information must be presented accurately.... not that the information itself must be accurate.  Even inaccurate information must be presented accurately. (I hope that makes sense.) Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But wikilayers and POV-pushers already use this policy to justify adding inaccurate material, and in particular to criticize people who remove it. Anyhow, I see your point. Do you have alternate wording which you think better communicates the need to present information accurately? MastCell Talk 03:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please could you give us an example of a "wikilawyer and POV-pusher" adding inaccurate material and citing this policy as a reason? It strikes me that what we have here may not be a problem with the policy, it might be a problem with an editor.— S Marshall  T/C 06:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.3.52.158, 1 May 2011
I think Tosh.0 is way better than you like your not funny

71.3.52.158 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Hazard-SJ  ±   01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.99.90.101, 8 June 2011
14.99.90.101 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've initiated the procedure for requesting an edit, but haven't stated what edit you'd like made. I've closed this request, but you're welcome to reactivate it and request an edit.  Note that substantive edits to policy pages are made only after discussion and a consensus has been reached.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On verifiability
Presently the text reads "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research." Surely that "should" ought to read "must", in order to agree with wp:V. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess so; also the "and" should read "in other words", since (in the bizarre version of the English language Wikipedia has invented) the two conditions are equivalent.--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that "must" in WP:V is wrong. We don't require all material added to be attributable to sources.  We welcome unsourced contributions. Gigs (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what has happened. It used to include the next sentence, "but in practice not everything need actually be attributed."  Now that sentence has been broken off which makes the first sentence sound like a stronger requirement than it should. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree... verifiability is a "must" (a source must exist for anything we add)... however, citation (ie actually including a citation to such a source) is a "should" (unless the material is challenged or likely to be challenged... in which case it becomes a "must").  People often get these two concepts (verifiability vs. citation) confused. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * People often get these two concepts confused because the two concepts are confused. wp:V starts off by saying that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Yet how are readers to check an uncited source? While editors have the option to challenge, that does not extend to all readers. Should non-editor readers really to be expected to blindly trust the pseudonymous or even IP editors' entries? LeadSongDog come howl!  21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW Blueboar, I agree with you, with the small exception of "common knowledge" (narrowly construed). I struck out my first comment because I realized I used the wrong words. (And mistook the new wording of WP:V) Gigs (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even "common knowledge" must be verifiable. However, most "common knowledge" is so easily verifiable that there is no need to actually verify it in the article by providing a citation.
 * I say most because there can be good faith disagreements as to whether some fact actually is "common knowledge" or not. In such cases, it is better to take a "it does not hurt to cite it... so, if challenged, just cite it and move on" attitude). Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-editor readers presumably check uncited material exactly the same way as editors do, and exactly the same way everyone checks dubious-sounding information that happens to be followed by an inline citation, e.g., by asking their favorite web search engine about it.
 * If it were up to me, I would not have WP:V start with a line about "readers checking". I'd simply say "whether readers can check that the material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on WT: MoS re reverting poorly summarized edits
On the Wikipedia Manual of Style talk page, there is a discussion about whether the fact that an edit is not or poorly summarized is sufficient reason to revert it. This policy page has been cited.

WT:MoS Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

edit protected requests.
I have a suggestion to make. Many articles are semi-protected, and it is not easy to find that edit request template/instructions. Can that template info be automatically added to talk pages of protected articles? 76.197.230.18 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A radical idea -- Why not two levels of editing in Wikipedia?
As a fairly frequent user of Wikipedia, and as someone with a considerable interest in English grammar, I have noticed that there is a problem with the quality of the English in many of the articles. As an example, the article on "keyboards" includes this sentence. There isn't a solution to this problem on home computers so far. This sentence simply does not "sound" right to English speakers, possibly because it is written in colloquial English. It would be better to say: At present, there is no solution to this problem on home computers. or A solution to this problem on home computers has not yet been found. So, I therefore propose an utterly radical idea: There should be two classes of editors. One class would be those people who want to make factual changes to copy, comments, etc. The other class would be limited to those folks like myself -- call us pedants, if you want -- who are concerned about how the entries "sound" to the ear. In addition, the requirements for editing for this second class of editors could be considerably relaxed, since we would not be touching the rest of the article. I realize that my suggestion might cause problems, but I thought that I would throw it out for discussion. David Pinto Montreal, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.164.248 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What would the point be, exactly? Almost all pages can be edited by anyone, including the article you've brought up here, and there aren't any "requirements" for editing them. There are a few semi-protected pages which unregistered editors can't modify because of the level of vandalism, but this suggestion isn't practical because if we give some IPs the ability to edit to correct grammatical problems then there would be absolutely nothing stopping them from vandalising the page instead. Hut 8.5 11:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup... Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including those who just want to improve how an article reads. If you find that the grammar or word choice in an article is problematic - just "correct" it.  No need for permission or special levels of editing.  Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The class of editor described is commonly known as a gnome. Warden (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Displacing an existing article with a sandbox
76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tighten up policy on poor quality articles
The number of articles is approaching the four million mark so we need to look at preventing the creation of new articles. We almost have enough articles. Narhh. Just kidding! I would like to suggest a (serious) change in the policy wording. I would like the following paragraph in the policy rephrased:


 * "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts articles can evolve improve over time. into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts . Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

My suggested wording is an attempt to raise the minimum standard for articles. Even a short time spent on New Page Patrol will show that there is a need to raise the standard of new articles. The blasé attitude towards article improvements also suggests that we should reword the policy. It is being used as an excuse by editors to allow very poor quality articles to exist. Jimbo himself has stated that there is a need to improve quality of the existing articles. An AfD which in part prompted me to make this suggestion can be seen at Articles for deletion/Non violent direct action in Australia.

There are sufficient warnings given to editors telling them to make a halfway decent, referenced article. Also, articles can be developed offline, or in user or project namespace.

Does this need an RFC? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What you're proposing to do here isn't justified and even if it was this proposal would not achieve it. It is fairly uncontroversial that we need to move towards improving the quality of our existing articles rather than adding more. However this does not imply that we should be more willing to delete low-quality articles. Even if we do want to start deleting low-quality articles the proposed change - which isn't the only or even the main piece of policy preventing this - would not achieve this aim. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to resurrect your proposal to speedily delete unreferenced articles after it was shot down in flames. Hut 8.5 08:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I had completely forgotten about that proposal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The policy as it is currently written is an explicit endorsement of very low quality articles. Why is that enshrined in policy? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The policy does not "endorse low-quality articles". It does not say that very low quality articles are fine as they are or that they should not be improved - the whole point of the paragraph you're proposing to change is that they can be (and are) improved. Just because it specifies that such pages should not be deleted merely for being low quality does not mean they are endorsed. Hut 8.5 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. Whatever. I'm going to move on. Plenty to do and all that. Policy is ignored by newbies anyway, and that is where a lot of poor quality material comes from. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but newbies are where long-time editors come from, too. If we make a habit of biting them for everything they do wrong, we'll have a lot fewer coeditors. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix problems
The entire goal of WP:5P is to fix the problem of ignorance. The point of WP:PRESERVE is that we should preserve content while doing so. Re-titling this section of this policy as "Fix the problem" buries the lede. Of course, we're here to fix a problem. But we're here to preserve content while doing so. -- Kendrick7talk 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No... we are not here to necessarily preserve content. We have had this discussion at least twice before. In both of these previous discussions, the consensus was that the point of this section isn't just to tell editors to preserve content. The point of the section is to explain when it is appropriate to preserve the content and when it is not appropriate to do so.  There are many problematic situations (laid out in multiple policies and guidelines) where the best way to fix a problem is to NOT preserve the content.  In other words... while the WP:PRESERVE aspect of the section is important... that aspect is balanced by the WP:HANDLE/WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM aspect (which tells editors not to preserve content in some situations). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with Blueboar. Once upon a time, PRESERVE and HANDLE were separate and contrasting sections.  That is no longer the case.  The section heading needs to reflect both goals, not just the first.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems that may justify removal - UNDUE
Kendrick recently changed this section from saying: to I don't mind adding something about WP:CFORK... but the edit removed the key point of the original sentence. WP:UNDUE goes further than that just saying "don't split off tiny minority view points into a new article"... It makes it clear that there are situations when we we should not even mention a tiny minority view. In other words (to relate UNDUE back to this policy section) if mentioning a tiny minority view would give it undue weight, we should not preserve the information. Kendrick's edit took this out. I reverted. Now... discuss if necessary. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources.
 * WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, or splitting tiny minority viewpoints to a new article.


 * Generally, I think you're right, but there are occasions in which what seems like a tiny minority viewpoint overall might deserve mention "there" but not "here". In this sense, removal is about removing it from this article is justified, but removing all mention in all articles might not be.  Similarly, there may be times when we need to use "medium-quality sources" rather than high-quality sources, e.g., to accurately describe what a subject says about himself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the policy already makes that clear... No? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem editing?
If a first editor makes an edit that improves Wikipedia, and a second editor simply has something against the first editor, should the second editor undo the edit? 128.196.126.151 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: This editor is blocked per community consensus at WP:ANI for disruptive editing, and has been using multiple IPs to evade the block. They are upset at the application of WP:RBI to an editor who has wasted enough community time already.  See also WP:DEL as well as Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus that improvements to wikipedia should be undone if it's simply claimed the improvements were made by a "blocked editor"?206.207.225.61 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If the edit is done while blocked, I don't know where consensus currently rests, but I believe edits are often reverted when done by a blocked editor while blocked and I for one would not revert such an action; if the editor is banned rather than blocked, we generally remove all edits done by the banned editor (post-banning.) Regarding whether an edit improves Wikipedia, that is a matter of opinion, and generally does not enter into it except in cases of vandalism, where it is clearly not an improvement. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a policy?

 * See also in the archives Demote to a guideline and I object

Policies describe standards that all users should follow. This reads more like an essay on the Wikipedia process, much like Wikipedia is a work in progress. Users who habitually flaunt policy can be sanctioned. But can we sanction users who do not boldly add information to Wikipedia, or who do not try to fix problems, some of the main things we are told here to do? As far as any of it reaches the level of standards that all users should follow, it is already covered in other policies. The page was elevated to the policy level in October 2004 in a bevy of promotions, without any discussion that I've been able to find. --Lambiam 10:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, we can sanction editors who refuse to fix problems (or at least those who prevent others from doing so.) And, yes, a lot of what this policy says is covered in other policies as well, but repetition and restatement are not necessarily bad things when it comes to policy.  Doing so allows us to better understand how the standard in question should be interpreted in various specific situations. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this page should be a policy. Almost all the content of the page that isn't just common sense is a summary of something said in more detail elsewhere. About the only original thing is the principle that people should try to fix problems if possible and remove them where this isn't possible, but even this principle is subject to loads of caveats. I rarely see this page cited or quoted anywhere, and when it is cited it is frequently misused. Wikipedia does have an awful lot of policies and guidelines, and any attempt to simplify them or reduce the number of them it would make life much easier for new editors. Hut 8.5 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is used
 * 1) as a way of strongly endorsing (policy-level) the more philosophically stated guidance given in the Guideline WP:BOLD, and the Essays WP:WORKINPROGRESS, WP:DEADLINE, WP:BATHWATER, etc.
 * 2) The list of "Instead of deleting text, consider: ..." options that are given in the WP:PRESERVE section, are not covered elsewhere (in policy, afaik). These options are critically important in balancing out the opinions of individual editors, and providing instruction on how to handle disputed content.
 * This page is THE reminder, that slow and steady wins the day; That it is better (preferable) to improve imperfect-content, rather than to eradicate it. It helps to prevent "1 step forward, 2 steps back" decisions, in a way that no other policy does. It's a comprehensible-elaboration of the blissfully-short WP:IAR. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Editing articles is a fundamental task on Wikipedia. The essence of a policy is that it well-represents the way that we do things.  This policy is more grounded in reality than policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:BURO which are routinely flouted with impunity.  The section WP:IMPERFECT is especially important in explaining that we do not expect article submissions to be well presented and polished; that rough drafts and perfunctory stubs are quite acceptable. Warden (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought back in January 2009 that this policy should be demoted to a guideline so that it was understood that anything on this page should not to be read in such a way that it conflicted with the three content polices and BLP. I have not seen any arguments presented on this talk page that has changed my opinion. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a more thorough discussion about what specifically in here the community deems as having policy level approval that isnt covered elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required"
I would like to have the section titled "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" completely removed from the editing policy. Saying "perfection is not required" is not needed. Perfection in whose eyes? Also, it has been used to prevent the deletion of poor quality articles. We should not be using policy to send a message to editors that anything goes. "She'll be right" is the expression used here in New Zealand. Given the current state of WP with over four million articles and a huge backlog that is not being cleared and steady loss of experienced editors we should be taking a harder line on any poor quality material that is being added. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This principle is fundamental to the idea of a Wiki and is enshrined in the Five Pillars where it is summarised as "do not worry about making mistakes". The Foundation have made it fairly clear that they oppose raising the bar to new editors and their faltering first steps on the grounds that this would tend to restrict the flow of volunteers.  Only 1% of our articles are of GA/FA quality and there are deletionists and griefers out there who would be very happy to delete all the rest.  Weakening our protection of incomplete work risks destroying the project.  As an example, note that this proposal seems to have been provoked by Articles for deletion/Adamantamine.  The page in question was created with multiple respectable sources and mostly needed wikifying and attention from WP:WikiProject Chemistry.  The proposer's idea seems to be that technical material of this sort should be deleted peremptorily before such action can be taken. Warden (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I was completely flabbergasted to discover that is says "do not worry about making mistakes" in our fundamental principles! I have done an RfC for that as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I disagree with your belief that deletion of hours-old good-faith attempts to create an article improves the encyclopedia. In the long-term, it hurts the encyclopedia by discouraging new editors and removing accurate, verifiable information on notable subjects.  Your goal is apparently "Let's not have good, verifiable information unless the person who provides the information knows how to make it look pretty from the very first draft."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It may discourage some new editors but maybe they are not "worthy". And maybe it will encourage good new editors and stop experienced editors from leaving in frustration with WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I understand where Alan is coming from, and it makes some sense to me, but I think that the statement about not requiring perfection is really just stating the obvious, and it's a healthy perspective to keep in mind. Striving for perfection is a good goal, but expecting to achieve it is folly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per above. Plus, our Policies/Guidelines/Manuals/Howtos are ridiculously extensive (see Editor's index to Wikipedia) and expecting anyone to get even close to perfection, especially at first, is unreasonable. (I recommend the nom (re)read through Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and bear in mind that all those perspectives are useful, when balanced.) —Quiddity (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Alan is probably correct that his proposal would help retain some of our experienced editors, but overall it seems to be a net negative. Almost no one has the skill to produce high quality articles right from the start - and if they did they'd probably be suspected as socks. Like most difficult things it needs practice. Encouragement not to worry about mistakes helps us retain exactly the type of conscientious newbies who are most likely to go onto to be valuable editors. Also, Im in agreement with the Colonel, though I fear his warning is understated. Even GA status doesnt always protect an article from deletionists when they consider it to be embarrassing to elite professors; as per the recent destruction of Twitter articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose despite the fact that a lot of users tend to think that "perfection is not required" means "any old shite will do"— there are few articles which would not benefit from improvement. pablo 10:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose from a slightly different perspective. As a newer editor, I would not have taken a lot of strides I did if I didn't know that mistakes on Wikipedia could be easily corrected.  I thought long and hard about whether to create my first (and thus far only) article based on a concern on whether it met WP:N.  The only reason I went ahead and created it is because I knew both that perfection was not required, and that edits could be easily fixed.  It has since been accepted and improved to the point where it is firmly established. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * comment - in some ways, we do the world a disservice when we say that: "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... what would be more accurate is to say: "Wikipedia is an ongoing project, attempting to draft an encyclopedia ... and anyone can participate". Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pile on oppose Alan, these are all manifestations and consequences of WP:BOLD. We don't want people to excessively worry about making mistakes. I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that no one should be required to learn our policies and guidelines before editing.  Obviously things go much smoother if they make an effort, especially if they are warned about breaking one, but we don't want people to be too intimidated before they even start.  Gigs (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question for elsewhere
Where would I go to question the appearance of my editing tools? I want the old appearance back. When the current look of Wikipedia was established, well over a year ago, we had the option of opting out and keeping the old style. Well, I still have my search bar on the left (instead of the top), as I want it, but some months ago my editing tools switched. I assumed I could switch them back in My Preferences; tonight I tried to do so and couldn't find any way to do it. I positively loathe the current set up, and tonight wanted to use the strike through function, which is no longer there. Yes, I still can strike out text, but I still miss the buttons that allowed this easy editing. The current set just doesn't fit my needs (which admittedly, evolved with the old set). HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh, I've still got the old edit bar, with the strikethrough. Try Special:Preferences > Editing > Usability features, and uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar".  If that's not there, or isn't the thing that makes the difference (knowing yours disappeared, I'm wary of testing mine!), then it's worth remembering that the HTML-like code is available below the edit window, if you set the pop-up menu to "Wiki markup".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It worked. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Easter egg title?
The title "Editing policy" is misleading. The page is principally about "Editing articles", despite specific sections on the editing of policies. Surely a better title can be found. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the most obvious title (WP:Editing) had already been taken when this was first written.   What about: WP:Policy on editing? Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would seem to solve the problem, if others find it acceptable. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To ponder on a new name when the question of whether this should be a policy or guideline seems to be putting the cart before the horse. -- PBS (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really ... if we do end up demoting this to Guideline status, we will have to change the title anyway... so a discussion on what to call it seems in order no matter how we answer the Policy vs Guideline question. (I am of mixed opinion on whether to demote... but if we do demote, I would suggest calling the page "WP:Guidelines on editing" rather than "WP:Editing guidelines", since the latter title would have the same potential for confusion - i.e. is it "instruction on guideline pages" or "guidelines on how to edit"?) Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk and edit section
The Signpost recently had an article about civility and I suggest the following changes to the "Talking and editing" section to help improve civility. The overall tone of the current Talking and editing section is fairly aggressive clearly stating that editors should be bold but only consider talking to previous editors if they think an edit may be controversial. I suggest the tone of this section should be changed to reflect more respect for changing recent contributions. I will put my suggested edits in bold and struck-through to make them clear on this talk page. An example of behavior which prompted this suggestion is from my recent experience of having hours of research, even referenced work, promptly deleted; a very discouraging experience. In my experience the Bold, revert, discuss cycle on recently added contributions is uncivil. I think editors who have recently made contributions should usually be contacted before major edits or deletions are carried out. The exception to this is in the Biographies of living persons.

I suggest the first paragraph read as follows: Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes, however it is much more civil to discuss significant changes to contributions which were recently added. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page), or if the previous edit was made within one month. A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate.

Also in the sub-section "Be cautious with major changes: discuss" I suggest the following changes: Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing discuss them first if the edits were made recently. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be is best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it can take a while to learn what sources and information are appropriate for Wikipedia in general and a specific article, so there may be good reasons for a removal. There often also are capricious, "ownership" related reverts that are against policy. It can take a while to figure out which it is, especially if it is in a contentious area. That's what talk pages are for. And study and utilize WP:Dispute to deal with those editors who are just plain recalcitrant. CarolMooreDC 14:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carol. I only mentioned having edits deleted as to communicate that I am suggesting changes from experience. I am surprised no one had commented directly the main topic of this section: my proposal to change the tone of this section to be less BOLD and more civil. I will wait longer and maybe bring this up in a chat room before making any changes. Jim Derby (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not add the one month time limit... any edit can be BRDed, even one made several months ago. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiny minority viewpoints
I know we've been through this before, and I haven't recently pressed the issue on WP:UNDUE (which keeps reverting to a Jimbo's dubious "Word of God" on the matter), but, yes, "tiny minority views" can deserve their own articles. Zoroastrianism for example, has maybe ~10K non-prominent adherents out of the current world population of 6,000,000,000, but not having an article about such a sourcable and verifiable topic would certainly not be in the spirit of WP:5P. If I had my druthers, what view a certain percentage of living people currently held -- prominent or otherwise -- would have no bearing on our policy, no matter what Jimbo rambled about once, and as such, I hope my recent parenthetical addition will stand. -- Kendrick7talk 02:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the correct interpretation. It would be fine to have an article on a group of 100 adherents, if WP:N were met. However, the article would be written from the mainstream point of view, according to WP:RS. The article would not be written from the point of view of the 100 adherents. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct either, per WP:YESPOV. The article would be written to include as many RS/V (reliably sourced and verifiable) POV's as editors chose to put in. There's no such thing as a "mainstream" point of view in our arithmetic, last I checked. -- Kendrick7talk 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember inclusion isn't a binary thing. Inclusion of viewpoints has three tiers... 1) Viewpoints that deserve their own dedicated article;  2) Viewpoints that deserve to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia (in some related article) but not in article on their own; and 3) Viewpoints that are so fringe that they don't deserve to be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * As for your example: A religion with 10K adherents is a minority... but I would not call it a tiny minority. Certainly Zoroastrianism can not be classified as "Fringe". On the other hand, if there were a religion with only 5 adherents (world wide) that religion would not rate an article.  Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How many people still think Roman Emperors are living gods? Perhaps only a few more than 5, and yet we have an article on that. Who still votes for the Whig Party? Basically no one, but that link was blue last I checked. I simply find it silly, per WP:BURO, that we have a policy which no one actually follows in practice. Views held by currently living people shouldn't be a consideration at all, even if you think 10K/7B (1.4x10^-6!!) isn't "tiny" (?!). -- Kendrick7talk 02:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that our articles on Imperial cult (ancient Rome) and Whig Party both discuss their topics in a historical context. It is not UNDUE to discuss them in that context.  The Imperial cult was practiced by thousands in Ancient Rome, and the Whigs had thousands of voters in the 1800s.  More importantly, there are multiple very reliable sources that discuss both topics in depth.  So, in a historical context there is no Fringe issue.  In a modern context, however, things would be a quite different.  Having an article devoted to explaining the beliefs of five modern adherents to the cult (Imperial cult (modern adherents)) or ten people trying to form a revived version of the party (Whig Party (modern re-establishment)) probably would be UNDUE. At most, they might rate a passing mention in some other article (but probably not). It is highly likely that the only sources that would discuss these topics (ie the modern version of the cult or the party) are unreliable websites and promotional materials directly connected to adherents/party members.  Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress section needs an update
I want to see the section "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" somehow changed. It has been used justify poor articles such as Adamantamine. With the attrition of experienced editors, a backlog that is not bing cleared, and 4,064,486 articles that need protection, it is high time we tighten up on poor articles. One way of doing that is to make the deletion process a little more ruthless.

I will have to leave the change to the policy to others - it is not my forte. I think will have to be an RFC? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above article AfD is at Articles for deletion/Adamantamine. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think editors would be willing to listen to your thoughts, but only with specific suggestions, especially if you were to open an RfC. Respectfully, there's not much we can do to policy with what you've said so far. NTox · talk 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add, after the sentence "At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." the sentence "The criteria used is, is the subject notable and deserving of starting an article?" Apteva (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. It would reinforce that deletion is not dependent on the article's status, but on the topic's notability. Diego (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to clarify that notability isn't the only indicator that we should have an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At the suggested inclusion point and with the format "The criteria used...", I have linked a pointer to the wp:Articles for creation project page that explains all the criteria – to include notability. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/BeerXML
Some of the opinions there may be of interest, re this policy and whether it should / has been replaced with a policy of "only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time" instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in that discussion, but I've glanced through it (without looking at the article in question) and except maybe for one opinion by Uncle Milty (and even there I'm not sure he was trying to make a general point about notability vs. merely about something that userspace is good for), I'm not seeing any substantial support for the idea that a page which clearly meets notability guidelines ought to be kept out of mainspace only because it's otherwise flawed. The "prime time" comment that you're quoting is a stress-reducing suggestion following a clear acknowledgement that pages can be in mainspace so long as they have clearly met notability requirements: Randykitty said in this edit, "As a general remark, if you want to avoid people tagging your new articles for notability/deletion/whatnot, then you should either make sure that already your first version establishes notability very clearly or (more relaxed) first work on it in your sandbox and only move it into main space when it is ready for prime time." (Emphasis rearranged.) Maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy contradiction between WP:Preserve and WP:BAN's WP:BMB
So it's been brought to my attention that Banning policy and Editing_policy currently contradict each other. My opinion is that the older policy should trump the newer one, which just seems petty, but I'm happy to hear other views. -- Kendrick7talk 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Unnecessary rule creep. There are many policies which say that editors should or may do things. See, e.g., in the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." If we're going to go around qualifying everything that says something like that with a, "but not if you're banned or blocked," we'll never see the end of it. Banned is banned, you can't do anything here legitimately. That's just common sense and this isn't needed. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the discussion that resulted in this proposal is at User talk:Arthur Rubin. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose premise. I see no contradiction.  IMO, WP:PRESERVE seems to say that if there is something that could or should be there, but is not complete, it should be fixed rather than deleted.  WP:BAN says that it shouldn't be there.  In the case of this particular banned editor, he was "blocked" (as a floating IP, blocks are meaningless) for having most of his edits being wrong, misleading, or a violation of one of the guidelines to the point that there is nothing there to fix.  In the rare case that there is something there to fix, a non-banned editor can take credit for the edit, and restore it.  Of the last 5 edits that the poster restored, 3 were additions of misleading Wikilinks or clear violations of WP:OVERLINK, and 2 were possibly helpful.
 * As a legal analogy, an edit by a banned editor would be considered voidable, while WP:PRESERVE would be analogous to the principle that, in case of ambiguity, anything that is unambiguous should be considered agreed to. There's no conflict there, and I don't see one here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you not see a contradiction between preserving good, encyclopedic content and removing good, encyclopedic content? Other editors shouldn't have to follow the banhammer patrol around with a mop and bucket when the easy solution is not to create a mess by violating WP:PRESERVE in the first place. -- Kendrick7talk 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose premise. Arthur Rubin sums it up nicely. I am also in agreement with the responses to the thread that was posted here User talk:Vsmith. As  states "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." As  states "the policy is certainly VERY clear - block evasion IS a valid reason to undo any edit." BTW blocked editors and IPs always have the WP:STANDARDOFFER if they want to return and make useful edits. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose premise A bit late to the party (invited by the bot) so I don't think I have anything new to add, Arthur Rubin and MarnetteD are correct. As of course is TransporterMan. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fix the appearance of a problem Perhaps the problem is that WP:EP is missing a mention of WP:BAN.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in concurrence with the editors above, the new language added at WP:BAN. Constructive edits added to Wikipedia shouldn't be removed just because some set of editors have a vendetta against some other set of editors. For the vast majority of editors, that's just a bunch of monkey business. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, per WP:5P. Deciding encyclopedic content shouldn't belong because it was added by a "bad person" doesn't support that goal in the least. -- Kendrick7talk 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose premise - the fact that the edit was done by a banned user makes it default to being considered bad. It probably shouldn't be there, so there's no need to preserve it. However, edits by other users are not automatically considered bad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, WP:BMB explicitly says it's OK to remove good, encyclopedic content. WP:PRESERVE says that such behavior is impermissible. I don't see how people sticking their heads in the sand helps move this discussion along. -- Kendrick7talk 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everything in life or at Wikipedia is easy—there is no set of rules anywhere that covers all possible situations in an entirely predictable and desirable manner. While PRESERVE has many merits, it is also the case that WP:DENY is the only way to handle long-term abusers. Any editor who loudly proclaims the right of banned editors to make good contributions—contributions which must be kept—is encouraging those banned editors to suck up more community time because there is always a good reason someone was banned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In point of fact PRESERVE makes no comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users. Nor does it say that removal of any edit is "impermissible" - indeed that word is not in PRESERVE at all. It does gives suggestions as to how an edit might be improved rather than removed and there is still the option that "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." BTW a) bans are decided by the community b) an editor has to go above and beyond "bad" behavior to receive a ban. The only way to edit after banning is by socking which is another violation. Why, after someone has treated the community like dirt, should they be welcome to edit? What does it matter if the edit is good, bad or indifferent? Actions have consequences. This proposal seems to me to be an attempt to remove those consequences. If an editor wants to edit productively they can go through the process of the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "Preserve appropriate content" are you unclear about? It's exactly my point that the editing policy does not make any "comment whatsoever about the edits of banned users." We're here to build an encyclopedia. Spitefully removing encyclopedic content just because there is a consensus that the editor who added it is a "bad person" is simply contrary to our project's fundamental goal. Please see WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Kendrick7talk 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:Banned means banned are you unclear about? As with your hyperbolic use of the term "impermissible" you continue to misrepresent policy. For example BATTLEGROUND has nothing to do with this situation. Nowhere in BMB or BAN is the term "spiteful" used. Your insistence that any editor who removes edits by a banned user is being "spiteful" shows a lack of WP:AGF. Yet again "if you feel any edits made by the (or any) blocked ip were good - then you are welcome to re-instate those edits and make them your edits." I am not sure why you continue to ignore this fact but it certainly fulfills your stated goal. One last thing, as stated by TransporterMan WP:BURDEN also removes content and editors who do that aren't being "spiteful" either. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes... we should try to preserve appropriate content. The problem is that an edit made by a banned user is by definition inappropriate. ie, PRESERVE does not apply to edits made by banned users.   Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Since when does content become unencyclopedic just because the editor who added it isn't otherwise popular? Human knowledge is not a popularity contest -- Kendrick7talk 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK... The distinction here is between "content" and "edit"... It may help you to think of it this way: Since the vast majority of banned editors are banned for adding inappropriate content, it is important to review their edits to determine whether the content they added was or was not appropriate. Undoing a banned user's edits highlights the content for review.  When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a temporary removal of content... pending review.  If other editors think the content is appropriate, they can return it. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I liked your reply enough that I've added two of the sentences to the policy:

WP:Banning policy allows the removal of content for ad hominem reasons. When we undo a banned user's edits, what we are really doing is a temporary removal of content...pending review. If other editors think the content is appropriate, they can return it.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Per the tradition of WP:AGF, ad hominem issues should never be a part of our process. As such I've reverted your change. -- Kendrick7talk 05:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the policy page, you cited WP:CREEP in your revert. In the edit summary above, you cited a Wikipedia article.  Here you talk about the WP:AGF of a banned editor.  Also, the policy-page edit resolved your concern.  But maybe you can answer this, why should ad hominem considerations never be a part of our process?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit hardly resolved my concern! This is the editing policy! And I won't have Wikipedia poisoned at the root. If we change this policy, then we must change dozens that flow from it. Is a WP:Reliable source not reliable when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says WP:BMB. Is information not verifiable when added by someone we don't like? Yes, says WP:BMB. Is a point of view, otherwise verifiable via reliable sources, suddenly invalid because it's added by someone we don't care for? Yes, says WP:BMB. Even the WP:LINK policy -- the violation of which largely kicked off this discussion on my end -- would have to be changed. Sure, build the web, but, not if it's done by someone we don't like. It's completely absurd. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and I'll take all the help I can get. Projecting your own personal ego complexes (to the point that many of you deny how out of whack WP:BMB is with the rest of the project's goals) onto a bunch of random IP addresses whom you've decided are sinister foes (We must deny their ego gratification?? Really???) is, in contrast, profoundly unhelpful. Perhaps meta puts it better than I can: Don't be a dick. Focusing in on the editor rather that the edit is the ultimate dick move. -- Kendrick7talk 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Poison, an appeal to absurdity, egocentrism, and genitalia arguments do not demonstrate that ad hominem considerations should never be a part of our process. What I see instead is that you are not requesting community resolution of a perceived conflict.  We had a recent RfC, in which the closing of this RfC concludes that consensus denial for WP:BAN is inherently unreasonable.  Do you agree that, "WP:Banning policy documents an English Wikipedia policy"?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose premise and oppose any change. It would be nice if a simple set of rules covered every situation, but that's not going to happen. Long-term abusers are a fact of life, and particular cases may need significant application of "banned means banned"—I have seen a couple of such applications be quite successful. Of course we want to preserve good edits, but life is more complex than suggested by this proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One last thing to note WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD etc etc also remove encyclopedic content. I have had articles (or sections of articles) that I put hours of work into vanish and I am not a banned editor. Though I regretted there disappearance I also know that it is part and parcel of editing at Wikipedia. I see no reason to change any of the policies or guidelines or essays which caused the removal of those edits anymore than I can see the need to coddle banned users. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support explicit wording in the Banning policy making the deletion discretionary That is in fact the situation--although some admins delete as a matter of course, others first check the article. Whether or not the article can be presumed to be bad depends on the reason for banning, because many of them have no reference to the quality or nature of the contribution: Some do of course, such as persistently submitting copyvios. If the problems are behavioral, this not not necessarily imply that the article will be unsatisfactory.
 * the only real reason for maintaining a strict policy is that there is otherwise no way to enforce the ban, except by removing the temptation to contribute. Experience seems to show this does not work well. There is in fact almost no way of accurately detecting and enforcing a ban, and there never will be as long and we continue to permit anonymous contribution. In practice, removing the article seems rather to encourage ingenious attempts at circumventing the ban, making the situation all the more difficult. It is of course necessary that some editor in good standing take responsibility for verifying the material, but the deletion should be slow enough to give the editors who want to do that an opportunity to do so. I   am aware  that my position here is likely to remain a minority, but the more I work here and see the decent articles we are needlessly discarding, the more I am convinced that we do need to change it. Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Banning policy already says, "...no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban." How much more explicit do you want it?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think User:DGG has basically the right idea, but he is confused about the scope. WP:PRESERVE is about preserving the encyclopedic content within an article, not about deleting an article (for which there is an entirely separate process). But yes: "Our purpose is to write an encyclopedia, and accurate content is what is needed. The identity of the contributor does not fundamentally matter." On that we agree! -- Kendrick7talk 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, there are two problems: one is edits to articles made by banned editors, where we need to be careful not to reject necessary improvements or corrections (perhaps one solution is to encourage them to suggest them anonymously on the article talk p., analogous with the COI policy). The other is what to do with articles they submitted. Obviously no individual admin has to delete them, the way all admins do have the obligation to delete copyvio etc. --the problem is that those admins who think it necessary to delete them all make it much harder for anyone to endorse them (which is at present usually best done by making a substantial edit)  DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tightened the wording of WP:CAUTIOUS
I guess I will take the policy's own advice, per WP:BOLD, and mention this change here. I don't think, however, that I've changed any substantial underlying priciples of this policy as a whole. -- Kendrick7talk 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"
There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Preserving reasonable content
Isn't that what WP:PRESERVE is about? Why are we instructing editors to move reasonable content to the talk page? -- Kendrick7talk 04:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You made this edit without consensus. That's a significant change, and not a good one in my opinion. I undid the edit because the wey it was written all content removed from the article that was not vandalism should be moved to the talk page. Perhaps the current version could be reworded a bit, but it seems to me to be saying that reasonable content that is removed (because it cannot immediately be dealt with) should be moved to the talk page. Vandalism and anything else that is not reasonable content is just deleted. That's a far cry from what you added. Meters (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meters here... Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... there is a line between suggesting something be done (as good practice) and requiring that it be done. Copying removed material to the talk page is often a good idea, but it should be optional... not required.  (I will also note that anyone can cut and paste... so it does not matter who actually does it. If someone else removes material, and you think it needs discussion on the talk page... you can go to the article history, copy and paste to the talk page, and begin the discussion). Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying PRESERVE
WP:PRESERVE currently states: As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

I note that WP:Verifiability says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... and that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Yet PRESERVE clearly implies the opposite... that verifiablity does guarantee inclusion, and that there is an onus on those who wish to remove the content to achieve consensus for the removal.

This sets up a potential for conflict. I am sure that there is a reasonable middle ground... a balance between the two policy provisions... we just need to find a way to express it. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. At root, I think a big part of the problem is essentially one of laziness. It's easier to tear down than to build up.  When a contributing editor provides new content and a new source that another editor dislikes for any reason, a revert claiming some provision of WP:V is easy to throw out there, reverting within a minute of reading a contribution.


 * Fixing a contribution using the steps recommended for WP:Preserve takes much more effort. So often, lazy or POV-inclined editors skip past Preserve and move immediately toward revert, justifying their revert on the grounds that the ONUS is on the contributing editor to convince the reverting editor why he or she should not be an obstacle to the edit. That's not a collaborative attitude, but it's an easy one.


 * Except in extreme cases, such as citations to the satirical the Onion, as an obvious example, I think the guidelines should emphasize that the the best first step approach is always to seek first to practice the steps recommended in WP:Preserve for correcting and salvaging a contribution. When Preserve methods are practiced, that will also show more respect for other editor's good faith efforts.  A secondary goal should be to at least salvage the reference to the new source, even if the sentence(s) describing the source material need to be completely reworked.


 * This bring us to the WP:V issue. What if a source should not be kept?


 * Here, in my experience, we run into editor's differences of opinion regarding the whether the new source is WP:NOTRELIABLE or the facts and views in the source give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view.


 * Often reliability issues can be fixed by adding an inline attribution to the source identifying that such is the opinion of so and so. If that won't work, I think the second best option is to tag the source (rather than delete it) in order to invite additional editors' comments and/or the first editor's defense of verifiability.  This avoids the appearance (and often the reality, especially on pages relating to anything remotely controversial where there are one or more people who engage in [[WP:Owner] tendencies, that a very hasty deletion, within just hours of the original posting, is POV motivated. As anyone who edits long on WP knows, such hasty reverts feel like a lack of respect for good faith contributions.  While the onus on the contributor makes sense, I think it is good practice to tag before deleting and to give 24 to 48 hours for other editors to get involved and for the original editor to respond to concerns being raised.


 * In short, I suggest any modification in these guidelines encourage WP:Preserve as the first, and preferred option, followed by tagging of questioned sources then . . . after a bit of time, deletion per WP:V . . . if the onus is not met within that time frame. I think this approach is also in better keeping with WP:GOODFAITH –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:V is considered a core policy... it definitely has extremely strong community consensus (much stronger than the consensus for PRESERVE). I don't think the community would approve making PRESERVE the first option in all cases.  So perhaps what we need is clearer guidance on when to preserve... and when not to. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any conflict. PRESERVE says to keep "appropriate" content.  It doesn't say to keep everything that can be sourced.  Is there any evidence that this is causing confusion in practice?  WP:V is critically important but I'm not sure it overrides our editing policy.  Both pages are old and strong and it's for us to make sure they don't contradict each other.— S Marshall  T/C 18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This whole "Try to fix problems" aka WP:PRESERVE section is pretty clearly advisory/best practices, not mandatory, by its own terms. Even if you read it a different way, however, "Problems that may justify removal" aka WP:CANTFIX is a subsection of PRESERVE and makes it clear that other policies, including WP:V, may trump the first part of PRESERVE. (Though by italicizing the word might in its opening sentence, CANTFIX tries to dodge the question altogether.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this has to do with some edits by User:GodBlessYou2 that were reverted. Perhaps that editor would like to provide the examples. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't start this thread. Also, I think it can be discussed in the abstract without trying to link it to specific examples.  That said, my experience is that a lot of editors don't pay much heed to PRESERVE.  Clearly, other editors have the same complaint.  Facing fast reverts is discouraging, and that may be one of the intents of such reverts . . . to discourage editors from "encroaching" on owned articles.


 * I favor the view that if there were a flow chart of options for responding to another editor's contributions, reverting should be the last option considered (precisely when there is no other option, such as vandalism) rather than the first tool employed. Way too often, editors spending considerable effort to research and draft a contribution even a slightly controversial issue are confronted with a rapid series of reverts and zero effort to improve or even correct their contributions.


 * I'm not recommending a reversal of WP:V, but I do think that policies regarding GoodFaith and Preserve give good framework for eventually including in WP:V some strengthening of the recommendation to apply Preserve techniques in preference to reverting. It may be useful to continue developing essays like WP:Revert_only_when_necessary with the goal of developing some consensus around recommendations which can eventually be incorporated various guidelines, including PRESERVE and GOODFAITH and VERIFY.


 * If you really want an example, my most recent experience with a revert that totally ignores PRESERVE recommendations is discussed here. The irony of that revert is extremely funny, given that the article was precisely about reducing reverts! –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the described conflict in the quoted text, since it clearly states only that policy-conforming text that would belong in a "finished" article (i.e. subject to verifiability requirements and subject to editorial judgement) should be retained. I do see it as implying that WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of the finished article; in other words a correct and not overly long description of one point of view should not be removed just because no-one has (yet) added a presentation of an opposing view; i.e. due weight should be achieved by adding the missing content, not by removing existing content. Since this page is policy, this may mean, for instance, that the closer of an RfC should discount arguments for the removal of content merely on the grounds that an opposing point of view is not (yet) presented in the existing article. Apparently, WP:UNDUE does not explicitly mention this restriction on its interpretation, so this should perhaps be remedied. If this is not the intended consequence of the two complementary policy descriptions, then this page should be amended. --Boson (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Boson that UNDUE should be judged by where the article can or should go when "finished." In my view, if an editor adds material regarding a minority view, other editors, rather than delete it as giving too much weight to the minority view, should expand the material related to the majority view.  That's how to restore balance in a collaborative way.  If it really the majority view, there will be plenty of additional sources to add.  That said, if the contribution with the minority view is overly long and wordy, it should be cut to an appropriate length, but deleting a reliable sources supporting the minority view should not be done unless there are already numerous citations to other sources describing the same material.  Readers, I think, appreciate the bibliography of cited sources most of all.  In short, the balance of weight is best kept, in my opinion, by adding more sources, not deleting sources. The exception is if over three or four sources making the same claims of opinion or fact.  That's just too duplicative. In these cases, editors, especially those favoring those sources, should be asked to trim the list down to those which they believe provide readers with the best source for additional information. –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss changes to the definition and/or interpretation of WP:UNDUE is at WT:NPOV. The point here in this policy is simply to note that the UNDUE policy exists, and is one of the policies that can limit what we preserve.
 * I suppose what I was really asking with this thread is this: Do we need to re-write the PRESERVE section of this policy to better reflect what is said in other policies (especially the core policies)... to make it clearer when not to preserve material. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:PRESERVE describes a best practice, and it assumes ideal conditions. If an editor is working in good faith to contribute encyclopedic material, then our first response should be to help craft the material rather than revert it. For instance, if an editor adds appropriate content but mangles the supporting citation syntax, then we should help fix the citation rather than deleting the material. Likewise, if material is otherwise unobjectionable but lacks a source, then the best practice would be to make at least some effort to find a source before deleting it. On the other hand, if an editor adds poorly sourced or unsourced material, or unencyclopedic material, or tendentious material, then there is nothing in WP:PRESERVE which prohibits removing it. If an editor routinely makes such edits, despite coaching on our content policies, and cites WP:PRESERVE to shift their editorial responsibilities onto others, that is inappropriate. I also want to challenge the idea that the "right" way to respond to undue weight on a minoritarian viewpoint is to bulk up the mainstream viewpoint. That's just not always true. Some minoritarian viewpoints are so obscure or so poorly supported by reliable sources that they simply don't warrant mention in our articles. When confronted with such a viewpoint, the proper policy-based response is to remove mention of it, not to inflate the mainstream viewpoint in compensation. It has been my experience that when editors lean heavily on WP:PRESERVE and downplay our content policies, they are often engaged in tendentious or agenda-driven editing and are trying to circumvent the resistance they're encountering. MastCell Talk 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:PRESERVE describes keeping encyclopedic information in the encyclopedia. WP:ONUS is about keeping information in a particular article. Or at least last I checked; I can remember when it was just an essay it linked to WP:PRESERVE so there hasn't been a long running conflict here. As WP:5P says the project is to be the sum of all human knowledge; hopefully we can agree on that and see this quibble is merely about how to organize that information. -- Kendrick7talk 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015
Noor Safia (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Noor Safia


 * ❌ Blank request. Please add what you would like done in "Change XXX to YYY" format. Thank you. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated WP:PRESERVE to match the times
Given recent complaints that, while WP:PRESERVE is one of our oldest and, to a few of us old timers, most cherished policies, it has nevertheless become quite (irony noted) sclerotic, I have endeavoured to give it a complete rewrite/facelift to reflect modern times. Someone had to do it, and this policy has had no more faithful servant (I am at least tied with someone working another shift) than me. I don't hope to see anyone as an act of bad faith revert me just because they never really liked the policy in the first place (you know who you are, he says to imaginary people in his head).

I appreciate constructive criticism. But, please, if you're deconstructive, consider copying whatever parts you are gutting to the talk page so we know what we are discussing, per WP:PRESERVE. :) -- Kendrick7talk 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if we're going to rewrite WP:PRESERVE, we should explicitly apply it to sources as well as information. In other words, if a source is reliable and appropriate, then editors need to be careful not to accidentally cut it out of the encyclopaedia even if they rewrite or remove the particular sentence the source is being used to support.  It's always seemed to me that this is what the "copy it to the talk page" bit is actually talking about: hanging onto appropriate citations, rather than necessarily clinging limpet-like to a legacy phrase from a long-vanished editor. I also wonder whether "facts" is the right word.  Echoes of "truth" there...— S Marshall  T/C 12:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point re: sources. I don't think good sources should be removed when editors simply disagree with how they've been glossed; I'd rather see them turned into external links if all else fails. As far as "facts" meh that's been in the language here for a while, I've only kicked it up a notch. I don't think we're ablating WP:TRUTH to simply concede that encyclopedias generally contain factual information. I'm open to suggestions on both counts. -- Kendrick7talk 05:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Kendrick... I would have to put your revision side by side with the old text to see if anything was cut or added that I might object to... but at first glance it looks good.
 * @ S Marshall... I would definitely oppose the idea that we must preserve specific sources. Just to give an example of a situation where we wouldn't... suppose some bit of information is currently supported by a source that (although reliable) is on the lower end of the quality scale. Now suppose an editor knows of a better (more reliable) higher quality source.  Not only is the editor allowed to replace one source with the other, but he should actually be encouraged to do so (as the new citation improves the article).  There is no reason to preserve the weaker source. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I said "if a source is reliable and appropriate". If a higher-quality source is available then normally I'd suggest it was used as well as (not instead of) the original source.  If we're in the happy situation of having several higher-quality sources to choose from then I'd say the lower-quality one was no longer appropriate and could be removed.  I can't help wondering if you feel this is something that a lot of editors would get hung up on?— S Marshall  T/C 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally like the rewrite as well, thanks Kendrick. I've made a slight tweak to the part about leaving a comment on the talk page after a substantial rewrite so we don't see reverts simply because the rewriting editor fails to explain themselves on the talk page, citing this policy as justification for same. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call! -- Kendrick7talk 05:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One issue, it's pretty easy to read the "Libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism" part to indicate we shouldn't cover notable hoaxes. I think it's a minor point, but if someone can find a clean way to fix the issue, that would be great (I couldn't find one...) Hobit (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A minor point? Pfft! It is an excellent point! As this policy is more concerned with article content rather than article existence (to which the term "hoax" more readily applies) the term "hoax" in this context is indistinguishable from the preceding mention of "nonsense". (It could be argued that "falsehoods" might be a better word for something which falls in between "nonsense" and "vandalism" but WP:TRUTH has that covered already.) Good call! -- Kendrick7talk 07:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Please see here

Two main changes per below. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

1st change: "information" >> "content"

 * 1) replace the word "information" with "content". The reason for that is that it is not uncommon that edits to Wikipedia are not "information" at all, but rather noise.  That includes vandalism like "hi", unsourced content it is blatantly inappropriate, unsourced content that ~could~ be actual information but who knows, and on the sourced side, sourced accurately from a terrible source like the Daily Mail or inaccurately reflecting a good source.  In short, "content" is way, way more apt than "information".

* 2) This policy mis-states the mission of WIkipedia which per WP:NOT is as follows: "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" from here.  It currently says "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is."  This is extremely misleading.  I had changed it to read: "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public, as described in WP:NOT; generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is." (note -- striking this to deal with in a separate subsection; foolish of me to present both at once Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal, and it's a little too late in the day for me to think too deeply about it. But who decides what knowledge is "accepted" or not? Per WP:YESPOV I'd argue our goal is to provide our readers with encyclopedic information (not to be confused with the "indiscriminate information" condemned by WP:NOT) and let them figure things out for themselves. The word "content" in the Internet age has many of the same negative connotations about which you are complaining: q.v. content provider, which describes entities which exactly deliver indiscriminate info. Blogs, Buzzfeed, and, yes, the Daily Mail (don't get me started!) churn out "content" on a daily basis simply to butter their bread. An off the cuff thought though: maybe "knowledge" is a superior term to both "information" and "content", but I'd worry it would make this policy a little too ivory tower, i.e. you can lead a horse to information, but maybe you can't make it knowledge, per se? I'm a little busy IRL these days, but I'll give this more thought come daylight. -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "accepted knowledge" is what we do here. It is what encyclopedias provide. We get it from reliable sources in the relevant fields.  The community decides what is accepted knowledge based on policy/guideline-based consensus.   And I am absolutely using "content" in the full spectrum of its meaning, and including words, charts/graphs/tables, images, and videos, including the negative aspects of the word "content" that you mention.  Wikipedia is very good in spots - many spots - and you can find lots of well sourced content summarizing accepted knowledge in it; you also find content that pretends to be "information" but is just garbage (dead wrong ideas, advertising, opinions, hoaxes, vandalism, etc). Calling all existing content "information" is misleading.  Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Jimbo, human knowledge is what we do here. After some digging around, the original version of this policy, as written by one of the founders, (diff) did use the phrase "useful content". But that was over 14 years ago! These days, I would argue, "information" informs people, while, as the word has rapidly evolved since then, "content" entertains people. Not that we shouldn't strive to do both, of course. But informing people is job one.
 * I really do prefer "appropriate" (current language) or "useful" (original language) over "accepted" as it's too much of a personification (by whom??). "Acceptable" might even be okay, but at some point we're just quibbling over the nature of Latin root words. -- Kendrick7talk 19:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Without taking a stance on the dispute, I will just object to the WP:RECENTISM that "content" no longer means content just because some corporations have been using the word to refer to copyrighted media mainly used for entertainment. Content is more generic than information, and information is a type of content, in general, and these words have had meanings for a very long time that are unlikely to just change completely in a few years. LjL (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kendrick7 you are ignoring my point that a lot of the words in Wikipedia are not "information" but rather are "noise".  Wikipedia is full of noise, as well as actual information that summarizes accepted knowledge (or as you prefer "knowledge"; that is a separate discussion)  That is why I prefer "content" to "information" - the broader term also includes noise. The editing policy must deal with the reality that there is lots of noise.  Please respond on point.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, noise is a problem, but consider the current wording of Signal-to-noise ratio:
 * Signal-to-noise ratio is sometimes used informally to refer to the ratio of useful information to false or irrelevant data in a conversation or exchange.
 * Information is by that regard commonly understood as the opposite of noise. I believe "content" currently is the broader term. -- Kendrick7talk 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes so please read the proposed change. There are a bunch of instances of  "information" that mean "stuff in a Wikipedia article".  Those instances should say "content" not "information." and so I fixed them.  Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, I relent, give up, and surrender. At least about the content vs information matter; I'm not sure about all of it but I'll self-revert for now. -- Kendrick7talk 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

2nd change: mission is "summarizing accepted knowledge" instead of "providing information"
2) This policy mis-states the mission of WIkipedia which per WP:NOT is as follows: "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" from here.  It currently says "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is."  This is extremely misleading.  I had changed it to read: "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public, as described in WP:NOT; generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is."  That change is visible here

Some discussion of this occurred above. Moved it here to more clearly separate, as they are distinct. My apologies again for presenting them together Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording that has cropped up on WP:NOT is wrong; thanks for pointing this out. -- Kendrick7talk 01:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Dodge Tomahawk"
A new article has replaced the edit history at (created December 2015) whose old history is now at  (created August 2005). Does making a new draft mean the old article's history is no longer relevant, and should be moved away, with a new history taking its place, or should MERGE and ATTRIBUTION be used to place the new content atop the old history? For the discussion, see talk:Dodge Tomahawk -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying into the talkpage

 * "consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia."

IMO here we must take care that when we copy article_0->talk->article_1, the attribution is not lost. We have the template copied and IMO we may to give a reminder to use it. I've seen quite a few times when a big chunk of text moved to talk page, and I am not sure that edit summary "Moved to talk page" is enough. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit summary "Moved to talk page" would presumably be used at the article that you're removing the material from (article_0), so it's not helpful at all.
 * I believe, however, that it's fairly common in such cases to attribute the text directly on the talk page, e.g., "I removed this from Article:", which AFAICT satisfies the license requirements completely (in terms of the talk page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a point,, although I'm not in the habit of thinking of, per your example, article_0 and talk_0 as being truly separate for the purposes of attribution. It's possible we could work in a link to the Copying within Wikipedia guideline in here somewhere; but at the same time I don't want editors who are trying to do the right thing for the sake of the project ending up too far down into the weeds for the sake of the commons license. Thoughts? -- Kendrick7talk 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyder, Alaska
A situation is here regarding WP:PRESERVE vs. WP:BURDEN.

All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder. The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings. Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety". A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law.

Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found some further analysis of WP:Editing policy on my talk page diff: "WP:PRESERVE doesn't say to leave unsourced material in articles. It plainly states: '...if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research.' See WP:PROVEIT: 'All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.'"
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)