This template was considered for deletion on 27 January 2023. The result of the discussion was "history merge".

((editsemiprotected))

This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia (({1))}s|(({1))}]]. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Seeing as "common sense" is an essay, it is contradictory that this link is included on this consensus achieved template which is applied on consensus achieved pages: thus I propose removing this phrase, so the template will read:

This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia (({1))}s|(({1))}]]. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove ", though it is best treated with common sense,"

It doesn't make sense to link to an essay.Curb Chain (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an rfc had been expired with no response to this topic, per above section.Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing, could you explain why you oppose such a removal?Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain has started discussions proposing the removal of "common sense" in at least these locations (the first of the following was started by Bernolákovčina):

• Template talk:Subcat guideline#Removal Of "common sense" Reference
• Template talk:MoS-guideline#RFC For The Removal Of The Non-protocol Page Reference
• Template talk:Policy#Proposal: Instead Of Linking To An Essay, I Propose To Link To wp:iar
• Template talk:Guideline#Requested Deletion Of Phrase
• WT:Manual of Style (layout)#Why Link To An Essay?
• WT:Policies and guidelines#Proposal: Instead Of Linking To WP:UCS, I Suggest We Just Leave Out That Word And The Word Preceding It

It is unhelpful to discuss the same issue at multiple locations. The core page appears to be the last, and I suggest that any further discussion should occur at that page. I am suggesting that no further discussion should occur on this page until the issue is decided at one page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: Skip down to #The real history of the issue to see what I eventually figured out and the question I posed to User:Sardanaphalus.)

The Template:Subcat guideline's documentation section ends with the visible line: ((#ifeq:Subcat guideline|sandbox | |

I believed this line should be removed, but just in case it means something useful that I didn't understand, I tried to find out where it came from.

My conclusion

Although this line appeared in the doc section of the rendered page, it did not appear in the doc editing preview, nor in Template:Subcat guideline/doc, the doc subpage! This is probably why it was ignored since 2007. It appears to be an artifact from splitting off the document page from the template code, from what I could find out.

If I'm wrong and took out too much or too little, please explain why and fix the documentation text. Thanks!

My research notes

The following are the notes I took as I tried to figure this out what this line was and what to do about it.

August 3, 2007 version: Separate doc page created, and the ((#ifeq line is visible on the rendered page for the first time.

June 7, 2007 version: This is the most recent version of Template:Subcat guideline that does not have this ((#ifeq line visible in the doc section of the rendered page.

There is not a separately editable doc section, and when viewing the source for the entire page the closest thing to the current visible line is within the template's code for the hatnote: This page is considered a((#ifeq:(({1))}|editing guideline|n)) [[:Category:Wikipedia (({1))}s|(({1))}]] on Wikipedia.

So it looks like #ifeq is used when writing template code, not documentation. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23ifeq

— Again, if I'm wrong, please explain why and fix the documentation text. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I subsequently realized that the visible ((#ifeq line in the doc section may NOT have been around since 2007, because I was basing that timeline on the template's version history and not the doc subpage's version history. But the rendered page looks fine now and I confirmed via the MediaWiki documentation for #ifeq that it's not a related WP template or template parameter but is a parser function, so it doesn't belong in the See also section and I'm not going to bother figuring out when the problem started. :) --Geekdiva (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real history of the issue

A nap really helped clear this up for me. :)

This line was only present for one previous edit. My confusion was caused by how the current doc subpage (in other words, the most current doc subpage at the time of viewing) appeared in all versions (not diffs) of the main template page that used a transcluded doc page. That's why it appeared the problematic line was present from the time the documentation was split out to a subpage.

User:Sardanaphalus, your edit summary , "(category, replaced <tt>, sandbox non-categorisation)." Was the ((#ifeq line I took out related to sandbox non-categorisation? Was the line complete as you intended it, or was it incomplete? Sorry for my confusing confusion, and thanks in advance. --Geekdiva (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to edit the template to reduce the font size of the explanation, like in Template:Guideline or Template:Policy. This makes the structure of the template clearer to the reader, in my view. Atón (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done...See edit sum. Moxy (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

😟Template talk:Policy#Font size--Moxy (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:Could you please implement version D per Template talk:Policy#Font size, as it is done in Template:Guideline? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Atón (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done as per Template talk:Policy#Font size,--Moxy (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in renaming "naming convention" to "naming guideline"? I find it strange that the word "guideline" is not mentioned even though it appears a naming convention is a guideline. I think it'd be clearer. Looking forward to your thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Wp:Naming conventions was the original name for the wp:Article title policy. It is a standard common phrase see Naming convention. The policy was renamed (sic) because some editors got confused between name as an identifier and as a lable. -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 21#Perhaps we should we rename? (25 January 2010) and the following archived section which was the RFC on this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the link to the RFC. My original concern was that the "This page documents an English Wikipedia naming convention" template didn't mention that it was a guideline. But looking back at the template, I do see the word guideline in it. I think I got confused. I think we're all set, thanks for the info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]