Wikipedia talk:Project namespace/Archive 1

Untitled
I've added some lines indicating where rules pages should go (policy, or proposed/guideline/rejected). Feel free to reword if it isn't clear. Radiant_* 09:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Red links
This page appears to be out of date, as there are two red links on it - one to /Alphabetical index and another to Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank. These ought to be fixed or removed. Hairy Dude 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing use of 'wikipedia' in the name of the project namespace for this project
Calling the project namespace for the wikipedia project the wikipedia namespace is ambiguous because the main or article namespace of the project is also called the Wikipedia. Surely for clarity the project namespace of the wikipedia project should always be refered to by the full name of wikipedia project namespace? Cyclotron Or an alternate contraction can be found.


 * I agree. I was confused about this when I first started on Wikipedia. I think it would be much clearer to call the project namespace "Project" or "Wikipedia Project" or "Editspace" or something. Libcub (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting "Wikiproject" type links on other wiki?
I note that if you put Wikipedia:Anything and look at making a new article for it, it calls it a "new project" and it's special. Similarly if you goto mediawiki:anything and try to make a new ariticle, it prevents you from doing so with the message "This page provides interface text for the software, and is locked to prevent abuse.". I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I'm wondering how I can associate that on my own wiki by having Wikiname:blah read specially. Does anyone know how to do this? Thanks. TheHYPO 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by administrators, but non-admins can use MediaWiki talk: to make editprotected requests. If you're running your own wiki presumably you can make yourself an administrator of it, and read the manual to learn how to edit its interface text for the software. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Guideline/Policy
Since this page makes some actionable recomendations beyond just being a help page, it should be a guideline or policy. I've tagged it with proposed. This should also bring some extra light onto this page, since there are a few issues with it. (Linking to the pretty much dead 'Policy Thinktank', not mentioning essays and so on...) --Barberio 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not creating redundant pages is so obvious that we really do not need a guideline to tell us not to, which leaves us with the single actionable reccommendation of not using main projectspace for discussion. While it's debatable whether or not you should, I don't think we should have a guideline saying that, because there might be some case in which we do want it. -Amark moo! 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a grudge against this page, Barberio? This isn't policy, it's just information about a namespace and what belongs in it. Both tags should be removed. Ahudson 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How?
I am currently working n a humoruous essay, and I would like to know how to create a page in the project namespace. please help.  J- stan  Talk 20:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first thing to check before you create a new page in project space is Project namespace. Make sure that you're not reinventing the wheel. You should probably have some experience creating pages in other namespaces first, a good way to begin creating pages is to create a few good redirects, which is a lot easier than creating articles. The way I would create a project page is to just type WP:page name into the search box, to see if the page name already exists. For example, type WP:xyzzy and then hit Enter. The page doesn't exist, so at the top of the Search results page, you see the message:


 * Click on the red link, and voila, you are Creating Wikipedia:Xyzzy. But, once again, heed that warning to avoid redundancy. WikiProject Merge is swamped in it! Good luck, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Now don't go and create that page, I want it to remain red!

Appeal a Community Ban
I was told this as the right place to ask for an appeal on a community ban on the Matt Sanchez article. Anyone here know? User:Bluemarine (talk) Matt Sanchez 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you asked this question four years ago, but better late than never. Maybe my answer will help someone else. No, this isn't the page for that. But, it is the talk page for a page where you can go to look up the answer. See Project namespace. Several of those links might work, but I tried Editor's index to Wikipedia. Search that for "ban"... oh, I see: Banning: see  Enforcement. And under that I find Appealing a block. Oh my, I see you do have quite a block log. Well, the best way to stay unblocked is to just stop doing whatever you were doing! Good luck with that, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Followup question and logging into Custom Wiki
We recently changed our hosting to Amazon Cloud and to my dismay the AWB stopped working producing the same error to the one below that was discussed back in 2006.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive_12#Custom_Project

""An error occurred while loading project information from the server. Please make sure that your internet connection works and such combination of project/language exists"

Do i need some form of check page or something?

Or is there something else?

It is running media wiki

Cheers

Reedy Boy 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)""

I'm running version 15.0 and have my API enabled

Any thoughts?

--Mappc (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, just one thought. Why are you asking a question about AWB here, and not at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice for information talk pages
Information pages often get talk comments that are really intended for the parent policy or guideline (such as challenges to consensus guidance), wasting the time of editors who have to respond by saying as much. This strikes me as the ideal application for an edit notice. I propose the following notice, to appear via transclusion exclusively when editing the talk pages of information pages:

Thank you, — swpb T 20:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. PS update to page done.--Moxy (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding this information to a talk page notice instead of an edit notice. The latter are intrusive and should be used sparingly, in my opinion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into the bot request for this. What do you think about MSGJ's suggestion? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. The whole point of the edit notice is its intrusiveness. Unless other editors feel the same way as MSGJ, I'm sticking with the original edit notice request, which hasn't garnered any pushback from anyone else. — swpb T 19:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplemental pages
There seems to be some confusion over the supplemental template/category. Perhaps best we separate it on its own....as in its own section and explination. We seem to have a bit of a problem that some interpret an info page as more important that an essay...this is not the case..but seems to be implied. I have made this more clear in the template but think perhaps using the template doc we can expand of the few pages that have this tag. WP:RULES lit's the typeople of pages in this namespace with brief summary. ...perhaps best to start with those. ...and then clean this page up. --Moxy (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moxy rocks! Thanks for hard work. As the status of important essays is, well, important... I started a thread on this topic at Village_pump_(policy). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI proposed template rename re how-to (help) pages
FYI comments welcome Template_talk:Wikipedia_how-to NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Creation of a new category for consensus summaries
Should a new category be created for summaries of past consensus? If so, how should it be described and what should the template look like? Tamwin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Background
A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources seems to favor the creation of a new category under Information and discussions for summaries of past consensus. It was agreed there that this page is the appropriate forum for discussion. Credit for the proposal goes to Humanengr. Several pages appear to fit into the described category, including WP:RS/P, WP:EL/P, and possibly WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES. They may not fit neatly into an existing category (judging by the recent controversy about which one to put them in), and have their own common concerns, such as WP:CCC. Tamwin (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For further context, see Work permit’s summary here. Humanengr (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more context to distinguish this template from Information and Supplemental pages templates: 1) "[I]nformation pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way." (per this); 2) Supplemental pages: "The noun supplement does not mean 'an interpretation' nor just 'something added'. It means precisely 'something added, especially to make up for a ', in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline. …" [added in consideration of 's comment below; see further discussion there] Humanengr (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support introduction of a new template, as nom. Neutral on adding a new section to this guideline. It's mildly helpful, to provide information, but the goal of not adding to bloat pretty much cancels that. If you made me decide one way or the other, I'd probably add it, but I don't feel comfortable !voting that way. Also, I was summoned here by bot. No,. Tamwin (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support new template and inclusion in guideline. The "This is a summary of existing consensuses" template is extremely clear. "Information and discussions" is the right section to place the template, but none of the existing subsections are appropriate. I support including this template in a new subsection named "Summary pages" or something similar. —  Newslinger  talk   15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support b/c as wrote, the 'This is a summary of existing consensuses' template is extremely clear. Also thx to  below re adding "to the information section a small mention of the template" and "proper links to the template". Humanengr (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As Wikipedia collects more conversations we need ways to group similar conversations and collectively summarize them. Here are some instances when I tried to list previous conversations to give context to new discussions -
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities/Archive_10
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_97
 * Wikipedia_talk:Event_coordinator
 * When anyone makes lists of similar conversations even those lists can be lost. Creating templates and categories seems like the current best way to keep tract of these.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See this other thing I wrote - Prices. It has a discussion list.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have not seen a compelling argument why an information page or supplement isn't or cannot be in and of itself a summary of existing consensus, so the idea of creating a new category is premature. I know there are differing opinions about the meaning of an information page or supplement in relation to an essay, but if there is concern about the boundaries of the existing categories, I think it would be better to get consensus on those existing categories first before adding new ones. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Does my addition above help? Humanengr (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sure is. Thanks for taking the time to set that out here. So, generally speaking, we are talking about pages that summarize consensus on a particular matter. Either that consensus is reflected in the existing guideline, or it isn't, and if it isn't, a supplement page is appropriate. No? --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for prompting me to work it out further. How about this:
 * Policy or guideline — "Policies and guidelines are developed [~ ‘vetted’ in the bullets below] by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia.”
 * Supplemental page — "something added, especially to make up for a … lack or gap in a … policy or guideline"; not vetted by community.
 * Consensus summaries — something added for a reason other than to make up for a lack or gap in a policy or guideline; not vetted by community.
 * Iow: The distinction between a Supplemental Page and a Consensus summaries page is between something at a global policy/guideline level and at a context-dependent implementation level.
 * Thoughts?
 * Humanengr (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So that would be a rational classification in theory. But I think the important question is, why are supplemental pages defined as "especially to make up for a … lack or gap in a policy or guideline"? The implementation of your proposed classification assumes the answer is, to distinguish between pages that address a deficiency and those that do not. But I think the actual answer is that there is a consensus not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency. If you agree with that latter answer, then inquiry is where to classify (within the existing scheme) these pages in question or the information they contain (and I think it is doable within the existing scheme). If you disagree with that latter answer, then I think the right RfC is about expanding the meaning of a supplemental page, not adding a new template to the classification. So, to what extent to you agree with this? --Bsherr (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "there is a consensus not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency." Where is that documented?
 * Re "expanding the meaning of a supplemental page", I note Template:Supplement speaks of "discussions about how to improve and explain policies and guidelines …". The pages under consideration here seem well outside that scope. They also seem well out of scope of pages clearly circumscribed to "make up for a … lack or gap in a … policy or guideline". Humanengr (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a reference for saying the consensus is not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency; I haven't looked to see if there are past discussions. But let's say that's not the reason. What do you think the reason is? Differentiating between pages that do or do not address a deficiency? If so, why would that be useful?
 * The crux of the issue is whether these pages can correctly be classified as supplements. I believe they can. But that discussion may be premature, since there is an RfC going on for one of them right now. But the argument is this: all of these pages do address a gap in a guideline. --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To address that framing, I'll leave aside the extent of vetting and restate as:
 * A 'Policy/Guideline' provides a globally applicable principle.
 * A 'Supplemental page' addresses a deficiency in globally applicable principle
 * A 'Consensus of summaries' addresses details specific to each context of implementation, e.g., is  an RS? The last is not reasonably viewed as a gap/deficiency/or any such missing element in a globally applicable principle but rather a customization to a specific class or instance.
 * Re: "The crux of the issue is whether these pages can correctly be classified as supplements. I believe they can.” Imo, expanding supplements is a slippery slope.
 * Re: "But the argument is this: all of these pages do address a gap in a guideline.” No they don’t. See above: Details for specific classes or instances are not policy/guideline-level gaps. Humanengr (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some clarification on the line between what you describe as a globally applicable principle and a context of implementation? I understand you are asserting WP:RS/P is the latter. What is WP:PERENNIAL? WP:OUTCOMES?
 * If there is consensus, a specific example can be added to a guideline, right? Why is its absence not therefore a gap? --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good qqs, thx. Will respond later this week. Humanengr (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I see now that your raising the issue of 'example' helps me better frame this, thx.
 * So, starting with your para 2, I don't see examples as filling a gap so much as serving as exemplars of a class to help clarify a policy/guideline. Exemplars are not problematic as long as they are non-controversial.
 * On that basis, I don't have a problem including non-controversial examples in WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES.
 * But that is different than presenting a compendium of members of a class, as is the case for WP:RS/P. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @, [Responding more fully:] The same holds for WP:EL/P or any other such compendium.
 * As policies/guidelines change more slowly than real-world entities, my view is we shouldn’t impose obstacles to recognizing those changes. Stamping compendia as ‘supplement’, in practice, imposes such a barrier.
 * So re gap: I now see, thx to your questions, that my concern is limited to use of compendia to fill ‘gaps’. Elaboration of detail in policies/guidelines via supplements — including those with non-controversial examplars — is fine; compendia are more varied and dynamic and thereby unsuitable for policy/guideline or supplement. Humanengr (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but that distinction does not currently exist in the definition of a supplement. Instead, you're really just carving it out, which isn't necessarily problematic, I just think it's wasteful for such a small number of pages. (2?) But we'll know what the RfC result is for Perennial Sources shortly, and I think that could be helpful in deciding how to move forward. --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the labeling of Perennial Sources as a supplement change your approach here? --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that RfC was introduced with a misleading premise in its reference to WP:EL/P as a model for use of the supplement template. AFAICS, there was no RfC or other discussion re adding the supplement template to EL/P and presenting that as a model biased the entire discussion re RS/P.* In my view, both pages should be reconsidered.
 * If anything, these changes 1) evidence instruction creep and 2) point to a need for better provenance of principles, policies, guidelines to parallel our efforts here re application to external entities. Humanengr (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * * The supplement template was added here without explanation; the editor who made that change doesn't remember the basis for the change. No one has responded to my query at EL/P talk. There had been an earlier failed RfC to promote EL/P to a guideline which ended w a mention of 'supplement' but there was no discussion or consensus specific to that afaics. Humanengr (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First it would be best to explain an RFC is not required to use the template .... as an RfC is simply one of many methods used to determine community wishes, norms and principles, etc.. WP:CONACHIEVE.  Also I see it was added long ago.....before the current wording existed. Must also remember  the template is used 2 demonstrate its usage... not that it has broad consensus like a guideline. Still a template for an essay level page. --Moxy (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx, Moxy for noting that an RfC is not required and pointing to WP:CONACHIEVE. What I was concerned with can be framed in terms of that page's: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page". For this change, there was no reason indicated or discussion. Humanengr (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also … re ‘the template is used 2 demonstrate its usage”, afaics RS/P and EL/P are the only pages where a supplement is used to ‘demonstrate usage’. I see ‘supplements’ that ‘explain’ — in line with the "This is an explanatory supplement” wording — and that 'provide additional information about concepts’, but I don’t see any that ‘demonstrate’ … which to me means applying to ‘real-world’ (i.e., external-to-WP) entities. Does that help? Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No 36.37.233.250 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion and workshopping
I'm going to turn this into its own RFC to get more comments. Tamwin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For discussion, bringing over this form as provided by customized for WP:RS/P

Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment — Echoing Work Permit's remark here, I'll offer that for pages that are summaries of prior discussions, the other options listed there don't "seem to fit".


 * As for using Supplement, I don't see the purpose of any of the 4 candidate pages (WP:RS/P, WP:EL/P, WP:PERENNIAL, WP:OUTCOMES) as addressing a 'deficiency' in a policy or guideline. (See this extract from Template:Supplement.)


 * As for wording, maybe there's a way to fold in Sunrise's use of the term 'existing consensus' — something like "It summarizes past discussions and existing consensus about …".


 * All 4 of the pages listed require customization:
 * * WP:EL/P: … about various websites editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia.
 * * WP:PERENNIAL: … about things that have been frequently proposed on Wikipedia and, to-date, rejected.
 * * WP:OUTCOMES: … about how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD.


 * WP:RS/P is the only one that links to specific discussions but all 4 cover a variety of cases — WP:EL/P and WP:PERENNIAL cover a variety of instances; WP:OUTCOMES, a variety of types. WP:PUS may be another candidate as it covers a variety of instances and types. All are reasonably considered 'lists' (small 'l'). Humanengr (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Reworking for generalization:
 * For WP:RS/P


 * WP:EL/P:


 * WP:PERENNIAL:


 * WP:OUTCOMES:


 * The ‘with links to discussions’ phrasing could be added to the latter 3 templates should such be added to the articles.


 * WP:PUS doesn’t quite fit the above wrt ‘consensus’. (“It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. … Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”)


 * Humanengr (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My preferred generalization looks like this:


 * I'm not set on the WP:CCC wording, but that's generally how I'd do it. Tamwin (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain: Work Permit introduced the ‘list’ term remarking re WP:EL/P that "what this page really is: A summary list of previous discussions.” I added the “with links to discussions” to highlight the value of that feature (as others have noted). (I see it also comports with mention in WP:CCC re linking to prior discussion.) It would currently be used only for WP:EL/P. Thoughts? I’m happy enough with your version — just wanted to make sure those points were given due consideration as that might be a feature profitably applied elsewhere. Humanengr (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can see your point, but that sounds wrong to me. Maybe the problem is that "summary" takes the place of "grocery" in the phrase "grocery list", but that's the place "consensus" takes as well. How about "list of consensus summaries"? Also, there's really no reason for the MOS link. Tamwin (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 'List of existing consensuses'? so CCC is in the title. After seeing 's commentary in support proclaiming "'This is a summary of existing consensuses' template is extremely clear." I'll +1 that. Humanengr (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Found another candidate: Historic debates.

Also, Would it help to have a table of candidate pages to which this might apply indicating what the page is about, current template, and notes on applicability of the new template, etc. -- maybe starting like

Maybe after that we could return to the issue of where it might best fit in the page Information and discussions section. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Once and if this goes forward I will add to the information section a small metion of the template. And add proper links to the template.--Moxy (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Thanks! Humanengr (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've filled out the table above, but I'm not aware of any applicable pages other than the four that mentioned. —  Newslinger   talk   05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, . Re other pages — Historic debates? Humanengr (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not as confident about Historic debates, since it describes "large-scale disputes" and doesn't claim to explain the current consensuses on these topics. The last edit to this page was 2015 (aside from a category edit in 2017), and I'm afraid this page isn't being maintained. This page is also much less popular than ones in the table, with just 99 pageviews in the last 30 days (compared to 2,626 for WP:RSP, 471 for WP:ELP, 1,612 for WP:PERENNIAL, and 1,530 for WP:OUTCOMES). —  Newslinger  talk   07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@  Blue Rasberry , were you thinking there should be a related small template that could be placed mid-page, e.g., by a commenter on a talk page to announce such a list? Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. I expect that consensus summaries will typically start on talk pages but I am not sure if they should stay there. I wish there were a workflow where summaries could start as casual conversations, then more detailed conversations, then something like a case book of the sort on Wikimedia Commons. commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter is an example of short summaries which each began as longer talk page summaries. I like that these summaries are short and understandable. I less like that they do not like to previous conversations or the consensus discussion which elevated these to rules.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Break
Following on from discussion above with, it seems appropriate to use the template as proposed by here for compilations of consensuses regarding external entities (e.g., sources, websites).

Only two of the pages in the table above fall into this category: WP:RSP and WP:ELP; the other two candidates, WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES are not such compilations.

Also, the issue of how to promote, facilitate, … links to discussions can and probably should be addressed separately. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the template wording is problematic. "A summary of existing consensus" could very well be a definition of a guideline. If you are going to carve out this type of page, the template needs to better differentiate it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The last line of the template explicitly states "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I think the wording is accurate. —  Newslinger  talk   09:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So the definition you're going with for this type of page is that it's a summary of consensus that is not a guideline or policy? --Bsherr (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right … I hadn't looked at the template recently. The basic idea is that the more specific we get, the further divorced we are conceptually from the principles intended to guide WP. At (or at least 'near') the extreme end of specificity, we have identifying specific entities typically (though not necessarily) by proper name.
 * So with that, I'll propose a new version — call it v.4:


 * Humanengr (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding: As I see it, when one compiles such lists re external entities, that is not elaborating so much as applying principles, policies, guidelines. Humanengr (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Humanengr. I think "external entities" is going to be fairly opaque for most people who encounter the template. They're likely going to see the template in the context of its appearance on an individual page, without an understanding of how the pages on which it appears are similar. Putting aside the issue of whether it is worthwhile distinguishing between this concept and a supplement, I'm not sure there is much explanatory value in a template that covers these few pages—especially with an opaque message like this—as opposed to writing an individual nutshell for each such page. (Beyond the form of the template, I'm also still concerned about the rationale for this template given, firstly, the very few number of pages that would be covered by this template and, secondly, the designation of RSP as a supplement following an RfC.) --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * May I ask for your thoughts at this point? I still think it’s important to distinguish RS/P and EL/P consensuses of 'application' of policy/guideline to real world entities external to WP from a ‘supplement’ that 'makes up for a deficiency’ in a policy/guideline, even if it’s only those two pages and one was a recent RfC. Humanengr (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, ever since WP:RSP was designated an explanatory supplement, other editors appear to be taking the page more seriously instead of labeling it as "only an essay". WP:ELP has also been well-regarded for some time. If these are the only two pages that would be tagged with the new template, then I think supplement already has the intended effect. —  Newslinger  talk   10:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like then we can close this out. Thank you all very much for thoughts and efforts here. Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical
The current Historical pages section has the sentence They are kept as a record of past Wikipedia processes which are outdated that have a noteworthy value in being maintained. I find this confusingly worded and needlessly vague. I changed the wording of this sentence to They are kept as a record of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. but was reverted by. The intent was to clearly spell out why we maintain historical pages. The "noteworthy value" it seems is so that archived discussions don't lose their context and so that future discussions don't retread ground. I also find the double embedding which are outdated that have... confusing and at the least think some revision to that would be beneficial, like replacing "that" with "and": which are outdated and have.... What are peoples' thoughts on the proposed rewording? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * and all Greetings. I reverted your edit on the ground that changes on wording needs consensus agreement. I have no opinion of the current or the proposed wording is used. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to revert a change to a policy page, per WP:PGBOLD, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it. I would ask that you self revert and restore my addition unless you have a substantive reason to oppose it. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * bold is one thing, but my understanding anything in WP page, wording needs to be consensus agreed before changing it as we the editors would refer it as the guidelines. You would ping the create of the page to respond to your comment.Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * your understanding is incorrect. Policies and guidelines explicitly says directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consensus can be built through editing, not just talk page discussions, which is why WP:PGBOLD says you should not revert changes simply because they were not discussed first. Reverting changes simply because they were not previously discussed interrupts the process of actually building consensus which is why Policies and guidelines says not to do what you did. If you do not disagree with the substance of the edit, please self revert or I will restore my revision. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I had mentioned, I have no openion of either way the text appears in the page. If changes is endorsed by editor, then all for it.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Endorce change this is better then what I wrote and have no problem with the change ..or any change that makes things more  clear.-- Moxy 🍁 03:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:
Suggest that this URL redirect here to Project namespace, instead of this error of "Bad title". --BoldLuis (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I realize that this is almost 3 (wow) years old now, but the reason it's not a redirect is technical. This would be a good idea, but there can't be colons in actual page titles. Your link points to a blank page in the Wikipedia namespace. Ohms law (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

contributor=editor=Wikipedian
Moved to where it belongs: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request
Add the namespaces template to the page. When rendered it should look like this: (excluding the collapsible, just the namespaces template only)

172.112.210.32 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Too difficult to locate
The Wikipedia:Project Namespace page is too difficult to locate. I've been out of editing for a good long while (including editing Wikimedia stuff at all), so i figured I should look at the some of the policies and guidelines pages to brush up. It took me a good 10 minutes to remember how to get to the Wikipedia namespace and then this page. The policies and guidelines should be a much higher profile then they currently seem to have!

Regards, Ohms law (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)