Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Policies and Guidelines and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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, 3: 3 months

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy keep, 30 October 2025, see discussion.
Keep, 22 April 2011, see discussion.

Re-activated

@Femke, @Toadspike, @Chaotic Enby: I've reactivated the WikiProject. Some quick to-dos:

~~Maybe choose a new image?~~
~~The WikiProject template appears to have been usurped by the above notice. I think the template needs to be moved so we can reclaim it.~~
~~The talk page archives appear to be FUBAR.~~
I eliminated most of the project page. Maybe we can clarify the mission statement.

I think we should start by tackling the notability guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Regarding the image, we can absolutely do better than a pixelated PNG. The blue and green colors of the policy and guideline checkmarks could be a good basis for our project's visual design, I'll see if I can do something with that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good!! Toadspike [Talk] 05:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks great. Any way you can update the userbox template? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the first archive was actually "Archive2006", while the "Archive 1" where recent threads have been archived should properly be named "Archive 3". I've made the require moves, everything should be in order now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never would've figured that out. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we rename to "WikiProject Policies and Guidelines" to match with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Good job spotting the typo! (or the remnant of a time when Wikipedia had just the one Policy?) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, @IAmChaos, @Toadspike, any objections to the change before I make the move? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I lost track of all of this writing Eva Coo. Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. I like the logo. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 20:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also no objections. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm I'd also be interested. I think making our Ps&Gs more concise, readable, and navigable is important to making it easier for new editors to get familiar with them. Toadspike [Talk] 07:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current rewrite attempts

I'm less interested in notability, even though it's probably the part of PAGs that most need a rewrite. I'm aware of two current rewrite attempts ongoing at the moment, both of which would increase the size of their respective PAG (I'm guilty of the worst offender)

Verifiability: User:S Marshall/Policy rewrite 2025
Understandability Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines for rewrite candidates. I'm gonna be honest, I didn't even know Wikipedia:Editing policy exists, let alone is policy. That page is currently of manageable size, but it contains a lot of general advice that I think we could move to subpages (guidelines/essays) without changing the meaning of the policy at all. Toadspike [Talk] 09:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is another easter egg. It seems like common sense to me. Do we really need this as a guideline, or can we split and stuff it into the MOS and copyright policy? Not sure if that would be an improvement though. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is disheartening how much of what some consider common sense has to be spelled out for the benefit of editors who hold alternate views on what is appropriate in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 16:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of individual pages. We should be looking at specific PAG areas and trying to condense/remove redundancies across pages. Preferably, if we can reduce an area to a clear single page, that would be valuable. Even if the community ultimately rejects the proposals we come up with, they'd still be valuable essays / short form versions of PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't rule out improving individual pages, I agree that condensing the many, many pages we have is a bigger priority. It seems we have around 60 policy pages. That's a lot, and I assume there's a lot of redundancy. The guideline I linked above is an example of such stuff entirely covered by other P&Gs. Toadspike [Talk] 20:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current Village pump proposal

To all members of this reestablished Wikiproject, I made a proposal yesterday at the Village pump to create navigation templates for policy, guideline, and associated supplemental project pages that would appear on relevant centralized discussion pages partly for the purpose of encouraging editors who regularly participate in those forums to update and reconcile advice pages per WP:POLCON. Not sure if anyone in this WikiProject would feel that my proposal would advance this WikiProject's goals, but another editor at that discussion mentioned this WikiProject so I figured I'd reach out. If any of you do, please leave a comment and I'll consider proposing it formally. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering there, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific, random proposals

Love this project. Some random thoughts for PAGs we really don't need or can be merged follow; I'd love your thoughts on them. Feel free to create more subsections with your own ideas! House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes could be a line in WP:VAND; WP:BEANS and the principle of WP:RBI ought to apply in not creating guidelines for all dumb ideas. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's impressions of astronomical objects

I just learned we have Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects. WTF? Seriously? You can't make this up. Bye. Consider whether this should be one line in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect there to be a similar one for fossil species (paintings of dinosaurs, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two noticeboards for that, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review (for non-dinosaurs), with additional guidelines confusingly placed under the "retired" Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List. Leaving details up to the relevant WikiProject seems much more practical than having a whole guideline for that, and we could maybe ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy if they want to take over that page (and have it tagged as {{WikiProject advice}}). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight became a guideline after this discussion, with two (2) participants, including OP. I'd return the {{essay}} tag. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most obvious one, so opened a proposal at WP:VPP here. Per WP:HISTORICAL, we shouldn't simply retag as essay as it's been so long. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant tag is probably Template:WikiProject advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be a more diplomatic 'demotion' that just making it an essay. Opened a second discussion for a similar page guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to have discussions over these. I've made a few such changes myself over the years, and I don't remember any objections (certainly none that were sustained past the "If you want to call this a guideline, then make a proper WP:PROPOSAL" stage). You can WP:PGBOLDly invoke the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages guideline and fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user permission pages

Some of these are infopages, some are guidelines, and some are policies. For example, WP:ROLLBACKUSE is certainly treated like a policy, but is tagged a guideline. Might not be a big problem, but something to think about. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "treated like a policy"? Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is not whether the page is strictly enforced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role says: I don't think editors treat it with common sense, and occasional exceptions, but rather standards all users should normally follow. (And I think that is a good thing: a tool created for vandalism should not be used on good-faith but misguided edits.) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the most recent 1000 rollback entries in Special:RecentChanges, it looks like 98% of actual (MediaWiki) rollback is done by @Primefac. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is very much an exception to the rule; I found a user who had made what I felt were inappropriate edits to about that many pages and rolled them back. I very rarely use rollback. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, a third of the rollback edits are done by User:ClueBot NG, and 10% are from LuniZunie. Getting a useful picture of who uses it (and who thus might be interested in any changes to that page) would probably require a trip to Wikipedia:Request a query. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I didn't even think I did that many today. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have. I'm really only looking at the most recent 1,000 rollback-tagged edits (maybe approximately half a day's worth?) and making some quick estimates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day could be a section in WP:NOT. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That page is an expansion of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which really, really feels like an explanatory essay or infopage, rather than a full-fledged guideline. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day/Archive 1#Tag indicates that this is not a new idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting read, although it dates from more than 18 years ago, before we had WP:INFOPAGES that could be tagged with {{infopage}} or {{supplement}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback

Not technically a PAG, but it overlaps with the WP:rollback guideline. Merging it would mean we also get rid of the dated title, given how long rollback has been unbundled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inline citation

Wikipedia:Inline citation is a mostly a slightly outdated help page that is listed as an information page for some reason. It could be folded into Help:Footnotes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think RS, inline citation, and V could be merged. I think, separately from this project, it might be beneficial to rethink the primary/secondary source distinction as it creates lots of confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of inline citation is about how to use <ref>...</ref> tags, it would be a poor fit for V. It's why I suggest a how to page instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inline citation is about all the things that count as inline citations, of which only one is <ref>...</ref> ("little blue clicky numbers"). It should not be merged to a page that is exclusively about how to use ref tags. That said, I think there are details on that page that would be better placed/merged elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

This notability guideline has been weakened across the years to be virtually toothless. The only biting power it now possesses is that athelete articles should not be quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Good chance it could be merged into WP:NBIO. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly, WP:NBIO's summary of it states that A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor (emphasis mine), while WP:NSPORT's "nutshell" only says An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, and clarifies that GNG should still be met. The former, in fact, appears to put more weight on NSPORT than it gives itself.

We could have an RfC to decide whether to decide on the "presumed" wording or the "likely" wording, and whether in the latter case the page should stay as a separate SNG for indicative purposes or become a supplementary information page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. NBIO is out of date and just needs updating, with a "match NSPORT wording" edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm still wondering whether NSPORT can be turned into a supplementary information page, with its summarized version in NBIO having guideline value. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a realistic outcome. The part of the community that cares about NSPORTS has taken a battering in recent years, and that can produce reactiveness when your discussion needs calm thought. I wouldn't try that for at least the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be all over deprecating NSPORT in favor of the GNG, but WhatamIdoing isn't wrong. There always has been massive pushback against messing with any one sports project's bailiwick, and local consensus at NSPORT is strongly against any further change. Ravenswing 08:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More ideas

We could start with simplifying and consolidating PAGs related to sourcing: V, RS, CS etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can have another go at Wikipedia:Attribution? It was proposed in 2007 but failed by a narrow margin. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would have a better chance of success if WP:PSTS were split into its own separate policy. (PSTS matters for many things, from notability to neutrality, but it doesn't matter for the question of "Did the source say what the article claims it says?") WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this WikiProject is to condense and simplify existing policies, not to propose new ones or split them. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting NOR, and then combining NOR + V, results in the same number of policies, but fewer words total. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Past attempts at systemic reform

There have been past attempts at systemic reform to policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style was one such project. Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis was another. I think it'd be a good idea to find such attempts and make a list on the project page. For example:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style – 2008–2011 group of editors sorting out which advice pages were/weren't actually part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and imposing a uniform naming scheme

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A review based on wikilawyerability?

One of the biggest (and most damning) complaints about Wikipedia's "paggies" are that they often contradict each other, or at the very least that different pags suggest very different responses to the same situation.

It is true that these contradictions often get resolved by clarifying the policy after somebody highlights the inconsistency, but this tends to happen in situations where people are actually arguing about specific content decisions (e.g. there is a lot of drama and it ends up being an Asshole John rule rather than a neutral attempt to harmonize them.

I think that, perhaps, the best solution is to just have some expert smartasses go through a bunch of pags (especially the less-trafficked ones) and try to come up with ways in which they can conflict with others. For example, when was the last time somebody cited Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day? I say this ought to be demoted to an information page, since it just describes other policies, but anyway -- it has a whole paragraph explaining WP:NOTDICT. But since it's a guideline, the wording of this explanation is itself citable.

So what does it say?

Does it completely agree with the actual policy at WP:NOTDICT? Are there lacunae or contradictions? Do changes to WP:NOTDICT have to be mirrored on WP:MADEUP? I have not given it a close read, so I don't know, but this seems like the kind of thing that could be gone through to eliminate a lot of issues. jp×g 🗯️ 19:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an important thing to do, but I suspect that most editors would struggle to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is willing to do it that seems like something that could be very useful and helpful(and I have actually never seen anyone cite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day so I see your point there.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have, back in the day. I suspect that kind of thing is often classified as a hoax, these days. Donald Albury 17:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen comments calling things hoaxes now so yeah that is probably why that policy isn't cited now different terms for it. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 20 years, but I think I remember seeing "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day in your dorm room" as a response to some of the ridiculous things people tried to add. All those policies and guidances were created in response to real problem edits. Donald Albury 19:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of recent uses:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those first time I have seen it used. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I suspect that this is a page that is mentioned more often in some areas than others. For example, I mostly edit articles about health/medicine subjects, where it's almost never relevant. I won't see them naturally, but I can find them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A thought in the idea lab that might be of interest

I saw a really good idea that ties into this WikiProject by User:Ixtal in the village pump idea lab.

see here

Basically, a newsletter that goes out to extended confirmed users that includes major rules that were amended that month (or however often the newsletter comes out). Would make it much easier to track which rules are changing. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 02:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to write one for last month?

I can see this creating drama (What?! They changed my favorite phrase?!), so I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I've also wondered whether it's actually practical. It looks like 200 edits per month just for Category:Wikipedia policies, and there are many more guidelines than policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due and undue weight

I think what's missing is a guideline elaborating on the importance of giving proportionate coverage of certain aspects of the topic of the article. This is a very common focal point of disagreement, and people usually invoke WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, yet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight is largely about weighting POVs in disputes, and barely touches on weighting aspects of the topic (incl. how much detail to give). A newbie following the shortcut often won't see its relevance, whereas WP:BALASP in the section below is much more relevant though short. Could we fork off discussion of aspects that aren't in dispute and level of detail given into a new guideline, leaving NPOV to cover disputes in sources? Thoughts? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I see this was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Scope of WP:DUE Kowal2701 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point that WAID made, and I largely agree. Addendum: That may not be the same argument WAID made, and may be counter her argument Andre🚐 23:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

WP:SOCK has extensive lists of what is and is not allowed. I don't think there are (m)any admins who would block publicly disclosed alts for "violating WP:SOCK". (Someone, say, creating hundreds of alts might be politely asked to not do that, but I don't think we need an official rule beyond WP:UCS to have that polite conversation.) I think this policy could fundamentally be

Publicly disclosed alternative accounts are chill
Undisclosed alternative accounts are usually not chill; exceptions being [privacy, WP:TECHALT, etc.; note ArbCom disclosure is a plus]; you should not participate in multiple discussions
A selective, explicitly non-exhaustive list of unacceptable undisclosed alts, which are frequently violated in good faith plus avoiding a ban/block. WP:BEANS wisely counsels us against listing every possible bad way to misuse an alt, and we should heed its advice.

I'm not entirely sure if I support this. But throwing it out there while we are in the "no bad ideas" stage. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be right up your alley

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#Sangers_however_many_theses Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is now at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Should IAR be overturned? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines that are subpages of WikiProjects

Two two recent discussions at VPP dealt with WikiProject subpages that are tagged as guidelines. The first resulted in a consensus to demote to an advice page; the second looks like an RFC will be required to resolve it.

These are the additional ones I have found:

I think there is consensus in those discussions that guidelines shouldn't be located as a subpage of a WikiProject, and that is stated explicitly at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which ironically itself appears in the list above). The two possible paths forward for these guidelines would be to change the tag to a WikiProject advice page or to move out of the WikiProject. I would be interested in thoughts on which is better to pursue. It may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.--Trystan (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might make an exception for the last (WT:COUNCIL is a bit more of a noticeboard than an actual WikiProject), though the page could just as easily be located at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Guideline. I agree about all the others. Probably most of them aren't actually guidelines in the sense of having a successful WP:PROPOSAL. I'll go correct all the tags (except for the first and last). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree WikiProject Council is something of a special case.--Trystan (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms was reverted. I have started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms#RFC on moving or removing this guideline to address the question.

My change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions was also reverted. I think that a similar discussion should be had there. This edit summary should lead you to the original (apparently non-RFC/non-WP:PROPOSAL) discussion, but as I've already got two RFCs in process at the moment, perhaps someone else would like to start it, or you could remind me in a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoudn't there be a RFCBEFORE discussion on the talk pages before starting one? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCBEFORE discussions aren't required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok fair enough. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterton's fence

Glancing through some of the discussion on this page, I recommend Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence as required reading for anyone planning to participate in this project. WP:Spoiler, to pick one example I've had on my watchlist for years, addresses more than just WP:No disclaimers (i.e. spoiler warnings), and is handy to specifically address that aspect of the topic in a way that a section in WP:No disclaimers likely wouldn't without outweighing the rest of that page. Anomie ⚔ 03:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reconsider project scope

Given that I've been invited to participate here, please allow me to make a proposal. The mission of this project is presently defined as to simplify and consolidate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The original scope of the project's activities was to actively improve our policy and guideline pages, with the specific caveat that this is not a project for discussing policy changes and improvements, but for actively improving policy...You should be bold, but since your goal in cleaning up is not to push one interpretation or another, it's often more productive to back off from long, time-consuming discussions and let others take care of things - there are many policy pages that need cleanup. I think that the present scope is problematic, because it is premised on the idea that, as a rule, our policies and guidelines need to be simplified or consolidated. Instead, why not revert to the original scope, with the focus on improving the pages themselves, irrespective of whether that improvement consists of something other than simplification or consolidation? This would make the project more similar to mainspace-scoped Wikiprojects. I also think that the caveat remains just as relevant now as it was when it was first added, and therefore propose that it be restored. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]