Wikipedia talk:Correct

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Shortcut

I considered making a shortcut, but can't improve on [[WP:Correct]] and [[WP:correct|]], which are both available and render as WP:Correct and correct respectively. So for now they will do I think. Andrewa (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbles

I agree with this entirely. Would suggest a couple of minor tweaks:

What you think matters. But what other people think matters too, including those who wrote the policies and guidelines. This may come off as standoffish or political. It might be better as something like "... including the community of editors who evolved our policies and guidelines." The current wording kind of implies (especially to noobs) that P&G have specific, controlling authors. While material elsewhere addresses this to an extent, people have a tendency to skim and to jump around in pages like this. Even "including all those" might do it.
The lede af – typo. Also, while some editors continue to use "lede" here out of habit, this was removed from WP:LEAD several years ago (except in a footnote) because it implies something specific from journalism. It can be misleading about what a WP lead is and what it's for (in short, news ledes often serve a teaser/enticement function, while a lead, properly written, is an abstract). There was plenty of debate about it, but the apparent result has actually been a improvement in overall lead quality, with a marked reduction in the number of leads written in an approximation of news style. (Could just be a non-causal correlation, but this seems unlikely.)

A point maybe worth adding toward the end is that IAR is invoked when doing so results objectively in an improvement, not just when an editor insists that their preference will be an improvement. I would guesstimate that about 95% of invocations of IAR fail to understand this.

I like the nutshell a lot, and especially also "consensus ... is assessed by viewing the arguments through the lens of policy... That is, taking into account not just the opinions expressed in the discussion, but also those expressed by those who formed a consensus to adopt the policies and guidelines."

Anyway, I think I may reference this page frequently, now that I know it's here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both bullets, they are both significant improvements for the reasons given, I'll make the changes or you can. Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, [1] and also added the paragraph I foreshadowed in our discussion on my talk page, explicitly mentioning the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Wrong" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Wrong has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 10 § Wikipedia:Wrong until a consensus is reached. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]