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)
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)
Ok Nitesh kumar sh ( talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
70.166.85.152 ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [1]©⟨⟩
Not done: No request made. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The MOS template has a "Search the MOS" feature, which is very handy. Is it possible to add this to the Guidelines? Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 21:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ok Nitesh kumar sh ( talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
70.166.85.152 ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [1]©⟨⟩
Not done: No request made. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The MOS template has a "Search the MOS" feature, which is very handy. Is it possible to add this to the Guidelines? Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 21:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)