What is the use of this template by putting it on all manner of guidelines when it links to pages that are totally unrelated to what the user is looking at? The Dispute resolution template, for example, makes sense because all the subjects are directly related to dispute resolution and which a user might deal with in combination. Disambiguation, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with assuming good faith. Even worse, there is no point in having Wikipedia:Hoaxes have this list linking to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages yet having no list with links to Wikipedia:Original research, or to have Wikipedia:Patent nonsense link to Wikipedia:Categorization yet have no link to Wikipedia:Vandalism. These subjects are totally different from each other and there is absolutely no reason to think that a person reading one of them would have any more interest in the others on the list than interest in the Policies, or interest in the Help pages and Wikiprojects that are more relevant. This template just duplicates the list already at Wikipedia:List of guidelines, which we can link to directly. The division of guidelines, policies, help pages, Wikiprojects is a division of how official the pages are, and the authority and collaborative nature of them; it has nothing to do with their actual content and are rather irrelevant for someone interested in learning the ropes of Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is an excellent point. This template gives an arbitrary grouping of some arbitrarily-chosen guidelines. Of course we have way too many guidelines to fit them all on a single template. If a group of guidelines is related, those should have an interlinking template; if not, the category should suffice (which is already linked from ((guideline))). (Radiant) 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
See Template:Dabnav, which I just created and put on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, WP:MOSDAB, etc. as a much more appropriate grouping that actually helps for navigating between related pages. —Centrx→talk • 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's a definite improvement. Possibly it should have a link back to CAT:G? (Radiant) 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok Nitesh kumar sh (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Could this be unprotected (or at least semi-protected)? After all, the similar ((Policy list)) template is not under protection. If not, then please change "helpbox" to "helpbox stackable", to enable this box to be stacked on the right of the page under other similar boxes (or else tell me a way of achieving this effect without making such a change).--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Protection reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Since we're obviously not giong to agree ourselves as to what Linking guidelines should be listed here, I've raised it at WP:VPP#Guideline templates. Let's leave both disputed entries there for now as a good compromise, and wait to see what others say.--Kotniski (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. WP:LINKING is a style guideline. The only other style guideline to have its own listing is WP:MOS itself. I could go either way on this: either take out the ((style-guideline)) from Linking, or remove Linking from this template. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- This template should be summarizing Wikipedia:List of guidelines. They should match each other. This template isn't the place to hash out the discussion of whether or not "Build the web" deserves to be listed at Wikipedia:List of guidelines.
- [instead of what amounts to forum shopping...] Please leave notices directing people to the primary discussion thread(s)
, and maybe try to concisely/neutrally summarize the issue [we don't all have time to research the edit-war from scratch]. scratch that, I see you did summarize it at the thread above the one you linked at VPP. You didn't include any links though.
- (Having not investigated yet, my initial reaction is: Buildtheweb has been a core guideline since 2002 - there better be a damned strong consensus to demote/split it somewhere... Improving/merging the 2 guidelines would probably be preferable, instruction creep is bad m'kay.) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support treating it like Disambiguation.
- (Seems simple enough. What am I missing?) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing (lucky you!) the quarrel over datelinking, now in arbitration. One side of this insists that WP:BTW gives insufficient weight to their vehement detestation of linking any date.
- Would you be prepared, as a fresh set of eyes, to discuss what should be adjusted to distinguish WP:BTW, the guideline, from WP:LINKING, the style guideline? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- They are currently grouped by one being about the philosophy, and one the practicalities.
- The simplest notion would be to replace the 1st 2 paragraphs at WP:LINKING with the 4 paragraphs from WP:BTW - but, place all the content at the (old/original/preferred title) WP:BTW location, and call it an editing guideline. Who is that going to make unhappy? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you look, you'll see the philosophy is in Linking as well. The merge was done as you suggested, it was agreed that the merged page should be called WP:Linking (it was never suggested that it should be called "Build the web", and I see no reason why that should be the title - it is opaque and misleading). Obviously we didn't transfer the full four paragraphs from BTW, we reworded it to make more sense (as we did with the material in the other two guidelines taking part in the merge). It should of course be marked as an editing rather than a style guideline, but one editor seems unhappy about that for some reasons I haven't understood yet. So basically, yes, what you suggest has been done (but a better name has been chosen). The only reason BTW now exists at all is that a few people decided unilaterally to try to partially undo the merge; it is the reverse of what Sept suggests - it is the side that supports date linking that initiated this disruption.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you look, you'll see the philosophy is in Linking as well. I agree with Quiddity, if I understand him correctly: this is what needs fixing; we don't need two full statements of philosophy - especially since they are not the same philosophy.
- Since it was recast by Kotniski, who says he doesn't see any meaning in BTW, assisted by Tony, who disagrees with it, this is not particularly surprising; but reducing the philosophy of LINKING to a summary of BTW, with link, might settle the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It might, if anyone could point to anything of significance in BTW that isn't in Linking. But it seems they can't, meaning that any such onward link to BTW would serve no purpose.--Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- The BTW title: "Build the web" is a powerful wording, like "Assume good faith" and "Be bold". It is a complex communication of ideas, with permutations throughout the site. It describes what we do here, at Wikipedia, in metaphorical language.
- I'm not sure why you think the title is "misleading"; I imagine it has something to do with the date-war. It sounds like it has soured you on this phrasing. For myself (and dozens of other editors) the phrase "Build the web" has incredibly positive connotations.
- I'm trying to not consider how the date-war fits in here. I happen to fall in the "dates should rarely be linked, and never for autoformatting" camp. But, that should not be relevant. If someone is trying to use the BTW guideline to wikilawyer, then beat them over the head with a trout - but trying to destroy/submerge a fundamental tenet of our wikiways is going to piss off too many people - it is our philosophy in condensed poetry, it is part of our scripture.
- It can be misused, but so can IAR, and we're not getting rid of that either. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't see what this has to do with date linking, except it was the date linking crowd that suddenly appeared and forced BTW back into existence after it had been successfully merged with their agreement. Why is "Build the web" misleading? Most obviously because it implies that it is one of our main purposes to make lots of links to outside websites, which it is WP:NOT. It also seems to imply that we make links (internal or external) for the purpose of creating some abstract structure, which I don't think is the reason - we make them to help people find information. If you wanted a poetic title, it would be something like "Signpost the information" (you'll observe I'm not much of a poet, but it's a start). (Incidentally, the Build the Web language has been preserved, at WP:LINKING, where it is placed in proper context and explained, which it never was at the old BTW page.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears to me that the reason why some date-overlinkers want to have separate guidelines that contradict each other (one saying, link as much as possible, with no indication that there might be reasonable bounds; and the other saying, don't link too much or where it doesn't help the reader) is the following: A single, integrated guideline is more likely to resolve the question whether a certain link is appropriate. Where there are two guidelines in opposition you can always "run to the other parent". Editors who want to link (or unlink, but this is not currently a big problem) against consensus profit from the latter situation.
Apparently it took some time for them to realise how this could be gamed, see the edit comments here. (Note that the admin who protected WP:BTW and then edited it through the protection edit-warred on the page recently, after the protection.) Once WP:BTW was protected as a non-redirect, the date-linkers disrupted the talk page discussions with a continuous stream of personal attacks. (From the other side there were some attacks, but also serious attempts to get the discussion on a constructive track.) This obstruction was rewarded by BTW remaining for a month in the unmerged state, thus changing the status quo from merged to unmerged. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose merging this template into ((Wikipedia policies and guidelines)). It is redundant and confusing to have two such navigation templates, and the latter is clearer and easier to read, and more comprehensive; plus this template conflicts with theme-based navigation templates like ((dispute-resolution)). ((Wikipedia policies and guidelines)) has just about everything in this template; missing there but present here are Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables), plus Help:Edit summary (which technically isn't a guideline). ((Wikipedia policies and guidelines)) has several guidelines this template does not, notably in relation to the MoS. I would add the extra pages present here to ((Wikipedia policies and guidelines)) as part of the merge, unless anyone has a reason not to. Comments? Rd232 talk 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, sounds like a good idea.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a bad idea. The templates have two different purposes: The one provides a reasonably complete 'See also' at the bottom of the page; the other provides a brief 'If this isn't the right page, try...' at the top. Some pages (e.g., WP:NOFULLTEXT) contain both. Also, the vertical template can be used at the top of a talk page, whereas the footer version is really useless there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it's simply not true that this template provides a brief 'If this isn't the right page, try...' . First, it isn't brief. Second, it doesn't direct people to related guidelines, it simply lists all the major ones; I simply don't think it's very helpful. Third, it gets in the way of vertical templates like ((dispute-resolution)) which are actually linking related pages. I agree that vertical navigation at the top can be useful in addition to horizontal at the bottom, but then the top needs to do what it's supposed to. One option is to effectively delete the vertical template, and provide space for other vertical templates as appropriate. Another is to explicitly split the template by theme in the way that ((dispute resolution)) does, so eg have a vertical template for behavioural policies and guidelines. Rd232 talk 09:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've actually used this template exactly as I described, which I think is irrefutable evidence that if you're on one guideline page, and it turns out not to have the specific sentence you're looking for, you can use this template to identify other guidelines that may contain what you're looking for. For example, there are facts that could be properly placed in WP:LIST, or WP:CLN, or WP:SETINDEX—all three of which are linked in this template.
- The template may well be overused, and IMO should never be used in preference to a more specific template, but putting a more specific template in place doesn't require deleting this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I thought the template was useless we'd be talking about deletion, not merger to a similar one. What's wrong with the other one? And isn't getting rid of this vertical template going to make it more likely that more useful vertical templates are created and used? Rd232 talk 18:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the other one? Nothing—if I happen to be at the bottom of the page, and I happen to think to look at it. That doesn't seem to happen very often, but my pattern of ignoring horizontal nav boxes doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with that format. Presumably some people find them very helpful.
- I don't think that the existence of this template discourages creation of better ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to what was being proposed. Yes, I think there should be two templates (a vertical one and a horizontal one), but I don't think we should have one that lists only guidelines while deliberately excluding policies (policies and guidelines are basically the same thing, so why exclude the most important ones from the list?)--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, add links in this template to ((Wikipedia policies and guidelines)) and delete ((Guideline list)), which presents a poorly-organized, arbitrary list. G. C. Hood (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Notability is not a content guideline
I just noticed that this template lists WP:N as a content guideline. This template could be helping to contribute to chronic Wikipedia confusion about WP:N, because WP:N is not a content guideline, which is a point that I seem to mention often. For example, at this diff, I stated,
* WP:GNG is not a content guideline The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. See also: [WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article] and [:Category:Wikipedia content policies]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The context for the above quote is posted at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 58#Is one source enough to say a fact is verifiable?. Unscintillating (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have made an edit to insert above "Notability" a new group titled "Stand-alone article". "Stand-alone article" is terminology used in WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No request made. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Possible to add Search the Guidelines search bar option?
The MOS template has a "Search the MOS" feature, which is very handy. Is it possible to add this to the Guidelines? ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
احتيال مالي 2001:16A2:C18E:CDE5:A425:75B4:FCED:18A7 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)