Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Edit request 20 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change title section so it will go from looking like this:

To looking like this:

I think the word "key" needs to be removed as factually inaccurate since multiple various links in the uncollapsed list such as all the ones listed under Project content like userboxes and subpages are not "key" policies or guidelines. This even goes for the Editing section which links to minor technical details such as disambiguation, hatnotes, categories, and templates, which also are not "key" policies or guidelines. Even the Deletion section is not "key" nor is it listed anywhere among the Five pillars linked at the top. Only the Content and Conduct sections are about "key" guidance, and even then, the Conduct section has a link to courtesy vanishing, which is hardly a key guideline since it is discretionary only.

Huggums537 (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. A reason for opposing this change might be the fact that there are about a couple hundred more policies and guidelines in the List of all policies and guidelines linked in the "below" section of the navbar. Taking out the word "key" would leave the template open to a lot of bloat, because any or all of the total number of Ps and Gs could then be included. If you think there is already some bloat, then perhaps a suggestion to remove some of the links from the navbar could be more to the point? In any case, please garner a consensus for such changes to this navbar. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a consensus perspective, I oppose the change. This template has gone through countless iterations and taken quite some time to establish consensus for what is represented here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To this I would say it might be time to count some new iterations... Huggums537 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can place your vote in the next section, which will be an actual [proposed] page move request. I just now realized I used the wrong template to request a discussion about this move. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 21:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth, that might be a reason to oppose, but it isn't a good one since the title is technically incorrect, and the problem with bloat is easily corrected by putting some rules in the template documentation where such things are supposed to be dictated rather than being dictated through a technically incorrect title. Huggums537 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By putting some rules in the template documentation, you are still going to list only "selected" or "key" policies and guidelines, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. As I was saying, it would be dictated properly, not through a vaguely defined, or shall we say, non-defined title. We reference something fairly often called "core policies", which are somewhat well defined, but this "key" business is not based on any policy or guidance, and as such makes it not just ill defined, but also not compliant/compatible with policy in addition to being a terrible way to dictate what counts as "bloat". Huggums537 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ link

My addition of a link to Wikipedia:FAQ, in the footer of this template (next to a link to "Wikipedia:Principles", which is also neither a policy or guideline), was reverted with an edit summary including "there is a long history (see talk page) of what get's included in this template and what doesn't".

Where was it decided not to include the FAQ - whose purpose to explain policies and guidelines - in this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you read through Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Archive 1 you'll see a lot of discussion and consensus building for what gets included and what doesn't. Not specifically referencing the FAQ (to the best of my knowledge), but just in general to the routine addition of one or two links every once in a while. Merely stated that the links in this template were carefully selected over time and generally any addition should be discussed first. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 3 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

Ullas p (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search parameter like our MOS template?

As seen at Template:Manual of Style we have a nice user friendly and convenient search box. Should we do the same here? Here is an example that mimics the MOS template Moxy🍁 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the benefit of the search bar for the MOS, because our MOS is massive and often you are trying to find one very specific sentence. I'm not sure I see the same need here, as this template already covers almost all the relevant policies and guidelines for most editors. And if you are looking for a very specific thing, you are likely already well-versed in how to perform a deeper search. These search bars already existing at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which would be more of a natural starting place than an autocollapsed template (i.e. the search bars don't show up in most standards views). I oppose its addition as just not much use. If it does get implemented though, at the very least the formatting should improve as both search bars on top of each other don't look great and causes a lot of blank space. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to make accessibility easier for those of us with disabilities...... it's a long road. Went ahead and made {{Editor search boxes}} for all of us.Moxy🍁 23:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy I'm not sure I follow the accessibility part. If I am missing something in that vain, happy to reconsider. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]