Wikipedia talk:Reasonability rule

Shortening and merging this essay
I am entertaining the notion of shortening this essay a bit (it has good points which could be made more expediently) and merging it with Be reasonable. Any objections?--Father Goose (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As the originator of the essay and the one positing the Reasonability Rule, I would be in favor only of merging the other (mini-)essay into this one. The statement (and identification) of the Reasonability Rule must be preserved; in addition, the origins should also be preserved. I would have a very strong objection if either of these is to be removed. Anybody wishing to add to this, particularly the last two sections of the essay, is more than welcome to do so, of course. Oh, I would most strongly object to moving this to any title not mentioning the phrase "Reasonability Rule" as it is the purpose of the essay in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat amusing to note that the original title (and focus) of this essay was "Don't be a fucking idiot". It was quite radically repurposed by you, though that was definitely an improvement; the original essay was deletion-bait.


 * Still, if I had my druthers, the way I'd combine the two is to talk about reasonableness in general (and be specific about how to "be reasonable" on Wikipedia), and back it up with how the "Reasonability Rule" works in the real world. That would still change the essay from being solely about the Reasonability Rule to a broader "how and why to be reasonable" treatise.--Father Goose (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus vs. policy" and reasonableness
I've seen more than one case where a single editor may insist on rejecting and defying an existing consensus on the grounds that the consensus violates a Wikipedia policy and is therefore void. Sometimes an editor in such situations will hold tightly to his/her own interpretation of policy even if other editors reach a consensus that they are not violating policy and that the loner's interpretation is wrong. I think this potential conflict area deserves some sort of treatment in this essay. Richwales (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and "Origins of the reasonability rule"
This essay contains a weasel-worded section entitled "Origins of the reasonability rule" that purports to explain the origin and alleged widespread use of this suggested rule. It is unsourced. Are essays supposed to be sourced, or are they allowed to just assert anything the author wants to say? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)