User:Sennalen/sandbox/essay3
Most decisions on Wikipedia should be guided by written policies and guidelines. It is good to make reference to policy in your arguments, but just linking the name of a policy like WP:NPOV or WP:TEND is probably not helpful. To cite rules in a productive way, you should do three things:
- Be precise about what content or behavior you are discussing.
- Be precise about what the rule is.
- Explain how the rule applies to the content or behavior.
Sometimes you know you're talking to experienced editors who can read between the lines, but if you are asked to provide more detail, you should aways do so without complaint. Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions is an attribute of tendentious editing.
The three prongs
[edit]Be precise about the subject
[edit]Narrow the scope as much as possible. Instead of talking about a whole article, try to focus on a section, a paragraph, or a sentence. If you're talking about something that changed, provide a diff of the change. If you're talking about user behavior, definitely include diffs. When discussing sources, quote exact text.
Be precise about the rule
[edit]Some policy pages are quite long. Don't expect other editors to read your mind about which part you think applies to the situation at hand. Quote or paraphrase the part that matters. Just make sure not to cherrypick one thing and miss surrounding context.
Many of the longer policy pages have internal links. For example, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:IMPARTIAL are sections inside WP:NPOV. Internal links narrow down what you're talking about, but it's still best to treat these the same as you would a link to a stand-alone page: Quote or paraphrase the part that is relevant to the situation at hand.
Explain how the rule applies
[edit]WP:ALPHABETSOUP links are not magical incantations that make you win an argument. There are words behind those links, and the words mean things. Don't assume that your interpretation of them is obvious to everyone. Explain why you think the page you linked supports your argument.
Examples
[edit]
This article fails WP:RS so it should be deleted.
Although Count von Count has a long history of publications to qualify him as an WP:SPS expert on counting bats, per WP:GNG, secondary sources are needed to establish notability for List of bats by population
