Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Policy/Rules to consider/Archive 1

Shouldn't supporters and opponents, as well as existing debates and discussions about each rule (but not the definiton or explanation of the rule), be moved to the debates pages?(picking nits, I guess)

I agree. This page has grown far too long and cumbersome (it had something like four or five rules when I got here). It should be reorganized; in fact, I'd even go so far as to put the rule titles into a bullet list without the explanatory paragraphs, the link to the explanations and to the debate. This would be an ideal application for internal links of UseMod ever supports them (yes, I requested this already on the feature requests page). --LDC

I'd support such a reorganization. --LMS

what about: In all battles add History -- Military history -- List of battles - link to history of countries and in all wars add History -- Military history -- War - link to history of countries in the top of page? Rationale: i think it is better that a bunch of see alsos in the bottom (which coul be anyway as links to topics related in some kind). I think that that would help external user to became aware about other informations in wikipedia and help navigating.

Another ideas would be Battle of link to place like 'Battle of Actium in first paragraph, maybe links to other battles in the same war, links to century in which battle took place etc. I don't know if it would be good idea to start pages like List of battles in Xth century or List of battles in Country or List of wars

Text from April 2002
In my opinion this page belongs on meta with some kind of ratification or transport of the most interesting discussion to an appropriate editing guidelines file on Wikipedia. It seems silly to me to be voting on rules, the first of which is to ignore them if you choose, and then be jumping all over people who break them either unwittingly or intentionally. user:mirwin —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 15 April 2002 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how people aren't voting on them, I hardly see the point. People are placing their names on what they do and don't support.   I found this incredibly useful when I was a newbie, because it gave me a lot of insight into who the other wikipedians were.  Also, knowing what rules are even under consideration (or active and virulent debate) helps a newbie get insight into the workings of the wikipedia.  I advise all newbies to look at it, as well as checking out homepages and other contributions of their fellow wikipedians before randomly editing all the work put into existing articles.  Having this on the main site makes it  much more accessible to the people who can most benefit -- putting it on meta just reinforces the very false opinion that this is some kind of arcana of a ruling cabal. JHK —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 15 April 2002‎ (UTC)


 * The above text was copied from this edit from Wikipedia talk:RulesToConsider . Graham 87 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)