Wikipedia talk:Keep it short and simple

Too Vague
I oppose this policy as written. It is to vague to be meaningful without examples. Some policies are simple and clear and can and should be short. others are complex and must be longer to be accrate.DES (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * :). Pcb21| Pete 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I oppose this current policy because it is too long. Mathmo 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * :0 REALLY ill shorten ;D.But yeah DESiegel you're right.1337 H4XZ0R 11:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

proposed tag
This is not yet an accepted policy, indeed only a very few users have in any way indicated support for it. This it must retain the proposed tag, or else in soem simialr way indicate that it is a propsoed guideline, including linkign in the proper category. DES (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * First word: Guideline. It is not a proposed policy. Pcb21| Pete 15:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it to proposed guideline. Pcb21| Pete 15:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The proposed tag is for a "policy, guideline or process". It includes guidelines. But if you really don't want the tag, so be it. I have recreated the key wording from the tag and the correct category. This is the minimum that I think is acceptable. DES (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sure you mean well, but isn't it clear that this page should go out of its way to be short? In what is it unacceptable? Pcb21| Pete 15:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In an edit comment you wrote "Guidelines need not be followed, but a statement is NOT a guideline until it has attained consensus, which this has not". It is a very sad situation that instructions has crept so far that even obvious "rules to consider" (as they used to be called, guidelines now) supposedly have to go through consensus process. What sort of situation are you imagining on a wikipedia_talk page that could give an editor the wrong idea about this guideline if it has guideline not proposed guideline on it? Pcb21| Pete 15:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that an editor could incorrectly infer that a page reporesents a wide consensus that should usually be followed, even if it isn't binding in the sense that a policy is. Whereas this page seems to represent the views of only a very few users. Why do you suppose the proposed tag includes the word "guideline"? It seems to me that a proposed guideline ought to gain consensus befroe it is asserted as a guidelien, i.e. something that most editors ought to follow most of the time, and that represents a wide consensus. On Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines I find the following comment: Since most policies and guidelines develop semi-organically, there is actually not a great deal written down about the process, though Wikipedia:How to create policy does give some idea. Policies are very rarely created or amended. In principle they can be dictated by Jimbo or the Wikimedia Board, but that hasn't happened in well over a year. More generally, they are made official after recieving a supermajority in a poll (typically >80% support). Guidelines are more flexible and are basically enacted by consensus (roughly 60-70% support). Also guidelines are not neccesarily voted on, since in many cases it is obvious that a proposed guideline either does or does not have consensus support just from the associated discussion. Dragons flight 23:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems as though I didn't make my point clear, sorry about that.
 * I meant talking about this guideline in particular, not guidelines in general. You are suggesting the following conversation might take place
 * User A: I refactored the policy page because it was getting a bit off-the-point and long-winded. The most important point, not to make personal attacks, is now centre and to the fore.
 * User B: You can't do that! There is no policy saying you can do that.
 * User A: Yes I can. It's in the spirit of "keep policy pages concise" and "avoid instruction creep".
 * User B: You can't - they are only proposed guidelines.


 * This just doesn't add up. If User A has really made a policy/guideline page better, then the hypothetical User B is talking nonsense on stilts. Pcb21| Pete 16:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But your user A can simply say "I don't need a policy to edit the wiki, and if I do Be bold is policy.


 * But to cite this page or any page, as support in a debate, shouldn't be doen if its status is unclear, adn if it is only "proposed" then it ought to carry less weight than if it has evidence of consensus behind it. A page labeled "guideline" has or at least once had a clear consensus, if perhaps not as stong a consensus as a policy, the main difference is that there isn't a consensus that exceptions are violations and should be treated as such (subject to revert without discussion, or sanction). Note also that the text of guideline mentions that a guideline has consensus behind it.


 * Please rv to either the version with the tag, or my last version with the key content and format from the tag. DES (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So is there anything wrong with the guideline? Lots of people have seen the page and the only thing that has been complained about is the lack of tag on the page (i.e. a meta-complaint if you will, rather than about the guideline itself). So we have an implied consensus at least... is that sufficient? Pcb21| Pete 16:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In this section i am discussing ONLY the formatting of the page. i do not suppor the policy itself, not as written, see "Too Vague" above. And IMO there needs to be more evidence of support than "benign neglect" Lott of people have seen the page, and as far as I can see no one else has endorsed it or even commented positively. DES (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry I didn't connect the usernames in the two sections for some strange reason. I thought the person (also you) in the first section was making a joke! Clearly not. See below for some titles that perhaps capture the intended meaning better. Pcb21| Pete 00:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if "Keep policies focused and concise" might capture the intended meaning better?
What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 16:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Keep policies simple, stupid" (WP:KISS)? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Simple is probably better than "short". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this intended to solve?
While it sounds like a good idea in principle, I would like to hear what policies (or, I suppose, guidelines) are presently too long. In other words, what are you trying to solve? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:08, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No template wars please?
Okay, this is getting a bit silly. By which I mean the small-scale edit war on whether this page should have guideline, proposed, or neither (to keep it short). Please stop that. I still would like to hear what this proposal intends to solve, and a good reason for not merging this with "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

A proposal
Wikipedia policies have to be extensive, showing many examples, possibilities, cases, to ensure that they are well understood and followed. That's why I'm suggesting that this project turns into creating a summary for each policy in Wikipedia, especially key and official policies. CG 19:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * While that's a good idea, we already have such a thing... WP:SR. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 06:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose to move this essay to Keep it short and simple. It's another variant of the "KISS principle", without the unneeded insults. Cambalachero (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be a better title, for the reason that you mention, with redirects from KISS and other common variants like "Keep it Small and Simple". The change could do a little bit to elevate the level of discourse, which needs any elevation it can get. Ornithikos (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)