Wikipedia talk:Editing policy/draft

Abandoning both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE
I am going to suggest something outside the box... it may not be acceptable, but I think it is worth suggesting anyway.

What if we got rid of both WP:PRESERVE and WP:HANDLE... and combined them into like "WP:FIXING". (I would prefer the short and punchy "WP:FIX", but that is taken). I see this as a combined section focusing on fixing problems. Rather than having two opposing sections, one stressing preservation and the other stressing removal, we would have one section... which would include discussion of when it is appropriate to preserve and when it is appropriate to remove... and when it would be appropriate to do some combination of the two.

I think a lot of the current language could be used in creating such a section... but it would mean letting go of our emotional attachments to the current shortcuts. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We had that before HANDLE was broken into its own section. .  We can't get rid of the preserve section or shortcut, it's widely cited.  Handle on the other hand, no one really cares about.  It could be merged back like it was prior to last April. Gigs (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure we can... just redirect the WP:PRESERVE shortcut to the new WP:FIXING shortcut. That way old discussions that point to WP:PRESERVE can stay as they are... and editors can continue to use WP:PRESERVE until they get used to the fact that it is a redirect and start to use WP:FIXING instead.  The few policy statements that use this link can be swapped easily (there are not many of them).  Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason we can't point PRESERVE, FIXING, and HANDLE all at the merged section. Gigs (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point... examining my own emotional view of the shortcuts, I suppose what has bothered me about the current situation is that prior to the creation of the seperate WP:HANDLE section, the only shortcut was one that stressed preservation... if there were multiple shortcuts that concern would be resolved. Plus, I do see situations where it would be helpful to tell someone "This is a situation where you should try to WP:PRESERVE information".  Just as there are situations where it would be helpful to tell someone "This is a situation where you should WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by removing the information" or "This is a situation where WP:FIXING the problem calls for tagging instead of removal" (etc.... there are probably more shortcuts that we could devise).
 * OK... as I said, my suggestion was thinking "outside the box"... but thinking inside a bigger box seems to work just as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

the latest version
I really like the latest version... with the title as "Try to fix problems". I have tweeked it a bit... 1) creating and adding a new shortcut: "WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM"; 2) adding a short paragraph at the end to discuss BLPs (which I think we all agree are a special case and so need a seperate mention); and 3) Changing the sentence "Preserve useful content".  I think this is probematic... who defines whether the content is "useful"?  I see this as creating confusion rather than helping to clarify it.  Here is a dif with my tweeks.  Let me know what you think. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's possible is not always desirable
About "Preserve as much of the content as you can": I am frequently able to preserve 100% of content. However, doing so is frequently a Bad Idea.

You need to write this sentence from the perspective of a dispute involving yourself against an inexperienced POV pusher who wants to add detailed information about a tiny-minority view. It will be quoted out of context. Help the newbie figure out what we really mean, which I suggest is far more like "Try to preserve as much content as reasonable" than "You are hereby ordered to preserve as much content as humanly possible." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated your comment into the line. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)