I think the word "key" needs to be removed as factually inaccurate since multiple various links in the uncollapsed list such as all the ones listed under Project content like userboxes and subpages are not "key" policies or guidelines. This even goes for the Editing section which links to minor technical details such as disambiguation, hatnotes, categories, and templates, which also are not "key" policies or guidelines. Even the Deletion section is not "key" nor is it listed anywhere among the Five pillars linked at the top. Only the Content and Conduct sections are about "key" guidance, and even then, the Conduct section has a link to courtesy vanishing, which is hardly a key guideline since it is discretionary only.
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((Edit template-protected)) template. A reason for opposing this change might be the fact that there are about a couple hundred more policies and guidelines in the List of all policies and guidelines linked in the "below" section of the navbar. Taking out the word "key" would leave the template open to a lot of bloat, because any or all of the total number of Ps and Gs could then be included. If you think there is already some bloat, then perhaps a suggestion to remove some of the links from the navbar could be more to the point? In any case, please garner a consensus for such changes to this navbar. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a consensus perspective, I oppose the change. This template has gone through countless iterations and taken quite some time to establish consensus for what is represented here. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To this I would say it might be time to count some new iterations... Huggums537 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can place your vote in the next section, which will be an actual [proposed] page move request. I just now realized I used the wrong template to request a discussion about this move. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 21:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth, that might be a reason to oppose, but it isn't a good one since the title is technically incorrect, and the problem with bloat is easily corrected by putting some rules in the template documentation where such things are supposed to be dictated rather than being dictated through a technically incorrect title. Huggums537 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By putting some rules in the template documentation, you are still going to list only "selected" or "key" policies and guidelines, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. As I was saying, it would be dictated properly, not through a vaguely defined, or shall we say, non-defined title. We reference something fairly often called "core policies", which are somewhat well defined, but this "key" business is not based on any policy or guidance, and as such makes it not just ill defined, but also not compliant/compatible with policy in addition to being a terrible way to dictate what counts as "bloat". Huggums537 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actual request was to change the template's text, not to move the page. Closing so it does not fragment the above discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the word "key" needs to be removed as factually inaccurate since multiple various links in the uncollapsed list such as all the ones listed under Project content like userboxes and subpages are not "key" policies or guidelines. This even goes for the Editing section which links to minor technical details such as disambiguation, hatnotes, categories, and templates, which also are not "key" policies or guidelines. Even the Deletion section is not "key" nor is it listed anywhere among the Five pillars linked at the top. Only the Content and Conduct sections are about "key" guidance, and even then, the Conduct section has a link to courtesy vanishing, which is hardly a key guideline since it is discretionary only.
Oppose not 100% sure what you are proposing, because a page move doesn't make sense. But generally oppose any page move of this template or major change. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you think it makes sense? Huggums537 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the OP's comment, it seems that they actually want to change the template's code and the value current set in its title parameter, not move/rename the template's page title per se. Since editing is under template protection, such a proposal should instead go through a regular talk page discussion and an edit request, not a requested move discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. Now it occurs to me why @Gonzo fan2007 was saying it doesn't make sense. I've gone and used the wrong template again. Argh! Huggums537 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzyzx11, now that this is a regular discussion, what is your vote? Huggums537 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Requested move template from this discussion, as the request seems to be to change text in the template, not to move the page.
The only reason I'm leaving this discussion open after the "not done for now" result by User:Paine Ellsworth, is to allow you the opportunity to find the consensus he mentioned above. - jc37 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (After all these years, I finally figured out why they don't call them "title changes", but page moves. This. It's because of this...) Huggums537 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be closed or it will fragment the discussion started in the previous thread. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My addition of a link to Wikipedia:FAQ, in the footer of this template (next to a link to "Wikipedia:Principles", which is also neither a policy or guideline), was reverted with an edit summary including "there is a long history (see talk page) of what get's included in this template and what doesn't".
Where was it decided not to include the FAQ - whose purpose to explain policies and guidelines - in this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you read through Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Archive 1 you'll see a lot of discussion and consensus building for what gets included and what doesn't. Not specifically referencing the FAQ (to the best of my knowledge), but just in general to the routine addition of one or two links every once in a while. Merely stated that the links in this template were carefully selected over time and generally any addition should be discussed first. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)