Is this intended to be an all-inclusive list of policies? If so, where are all the rest? If not, what selection criteria are being used to create the list? Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that we jettison all the images. They ridicule the policies and make it even less likely that the new users will take them seriously. The images distract from the template and from the point of the policies. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't an inherently bad idea IMO - the byzantine rainforest of policies and guidelines is ridiculous at the moment - but the current version is way too big. The selection and ordering of policies could do with work. I will try to find time to have a hack at it later today - David Gerard 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a big fan of ambiguity, symbolism, and art. However, I don't think that an introduction to basic policy is the place for it. The symbol needs to clearly communicate to a novice user. Phil Sandifer 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Putting the books at the top like that is intimidatory in itself - it looks like "LOTS OF SCARY SHIT HERE, FAR TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO READ." When we know that's actually the MoS. - David Gerard 18:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a point on books ;-) However, I think something like a pen on paper would be good. A niiice fountain pen. I'll see what I can put together ... The wing image doesn't appear to say anything - there must be some symbol of community that's obvious - David Gerard 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I just showed the winged logo to my wife:
Oh dear ... - David Gerard 20:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Leave the wings off. It looks like something you might find on an Aerosmith album cover; it's not suggestive of anything community-related. android 79 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Locke Cole wrote, in an edit summary, responding to a line of mine:
Yes, you're right. Thank you for your help. The template is no longer either butt ugly, or buggy. (Posted here because it is of interest to everyone interested in this template.) Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this page from the template. This page is most certainly not a policy page, despite the lone author's claim that Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions is a corollary to WP:NPOV. Even if it were a corollary, it is still not policy. — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I added * Work towards consensus under Working with others. I can't believe it wasn't there already. Lambiam Talk 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
On Firefox 1.5.0.3, each link is way too close to the ones above and below it. It looks pretty bad. Can someone who knows what they're doing try and increase the between-lines spacing? Thanks! drseudo ( t) 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
For a discussion about the edit link see the Template:Tnavbar( talk links history) talk page. For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line breaks see the ( talk links history) talk page, it's more or less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates. -- Omniplex 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be very useful to add active guidelines to the list - or at least a link to a main guidelines page that *does* have a list. Actually I think this list could also be made more prominant, as I've been to the policy pages (NPOV, NOT, etc) many times, but have actually never noticed the list on the side! Fresheneesz 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I made these edits recently, and they were reverted (along with about 30 other of my edits) by Centrx. He feels that this template is exclusively for the most prominant minority of the polices - while I think this template should at least give a link to the rest of them. In my edit, I also added a very small link to the 5 pillars, which are founding properties of all policy. Comments anyone? Fresheneesz 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
These policies are more important for common editors simply editing articles and discussing on the talk page. Any rather normal editor doesn't need to know much more than these policies. If they start posting copyrighted material or ask about vandalism problems, someone will readily point them to Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Protection policy, but the vast majority of editors know they shouldn't post copyrighted material or post penis jokes, and most of the "other" policies are more policies about Wikipedia procedures that don't affect anyone editing an article. — Centrx→ talk • 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Tim, BLP is a key policy, one of WP's most important. It has been on this list since July 2006. You are trying to remove it, and an objection has been raised to that. Therefore, please do not continue to revert as though there has been no objection. You need to gain consensus for the change here before removing it again. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits, were reverted by Slim. She gave the reason for the revert simply as "was better". I respect the fact that she has the capacity to form opinions of this kind, and in case anyone is interested, my favorite color is blue. A more substantive or responsive reason would be nice. - Ste vertigo 08:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
Should this template include a link to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, which is generally held to be a summary about our official policies designed for new editors, rather than an actual, official policy itself? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A few points:
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) 21:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The template links to the Principles page which, as a newcomer, I unfortunately find rather confusing and not providing much insight. I have left a more verbose description of my concerns on the corresponding talk page. Depending on the appropriate course of action, the link should be removed or replaced. I appreciate any feedback or guidance on how to proceed. CSMProject ( talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this intended to be an all-inclusive list of policies? If so, where are all the rest? If not, what selection criteria are being used to create the list? Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that we jettison all the images. They ridicule the policies and make it even less likely that the new users will take them seriously. The images distract from the template and from the point of the policies. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't an inherently bad idea IMO - the byzantine rainforest of policies and guidelines is ridiculous at the moment - but the current version is way too big. The selection and ordering of policies could do with work. I will try to find time to have a hack at it later today - David Gerard 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I am a big fan of ambiguity, symbolism, and art. However, I don't think that an introduction to basic policy is the place for it. The symbol needs to clearly communicate to a novice user. Phil Sandifer 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Putting the books at the top like that is intimidatory in itself - it looks like "LOTS OF SCARY SHIT HERE, FAR TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO READ." When we know that's actually the MoS. - David Gerard 18:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a point on books ;-) However, I think something like a pen on paper would be good. A niiice fountain pen. I'll see what I can put together ... The wing image doesn't appear to say anything - there must be some symbol of community that's obvious - David Gerard 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I just showed the winged logo to my wife:
Oh dear ... - David Gerard 20:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Leave the wings off. It looks like something you might find on an Aerosmith album cover; it's not suggestive of anything community-related. android 79 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Locke Cole wrote, in an edit summary, responding to a line of mine:
Yes, you're right. Thank you for your help. The template is no longer either butt ugly, or buggy. (Posted here because it is of interest to everyone interested in this template.) Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this page from the template. This page is most certainly not a policy page, despite the lone author's claim that Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions is a corollary to WP:NPOV. Even if it were a corollary, it is still not policy. — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I added * Work towards consensus under Working with others. I can't believe it wasn't there already. Lambiam Talk 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
On Firefox 1.5.0.3, each link is way too close to the ones above and below it. It looks pretty bad. Can someone who knows what they're doing try and increase the between-lines spacing? Thanks! drseudo ( t) 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
For a discussion about the edit link see the Template:Tnavbar( talk links history) talk page. For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line breaks see the ( talk links history) talk page, it's more or less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates. -- Omniplex 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be very useful to add active guidelines to the list - or at least a link to a main guidelines page that *does* have a list. Actually I think this list could also be made more prominant, as I've been to the policy pages (NPOV, NOT, etc) many times, but have actually never noticed the list on the side! Fresheneesz 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I made these edits recently, and they were reverted (along with about 30 other of my edits) by Centrx. He feels that this template is exclusively for the most prominant minority of the polices - while I think this template should at least give a link to the rest of them. In my edit, I also added a very small link to the 5 pillars, which are founding properties of all policy. Comments anyone? Fresheneesz 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
These policies are more important for common editors simply editing articles and discussing on the talk page. Any rather normal editor doesn't need to know much more than these policies. If they start posting copyrighted material or ask about vandalism problems, someone will readily point them to Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Protection policy, but the vast majority of editors know they shouldn't post copyrighted material or post penis jokes, and most of the "other" policies are more policies about Wikipedia procedures that don't affect anyone editing an article. — Centrx→ talk • 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Tim, BLP is a key policy, one of WP's most important. It has been on this list since July 2006. You are trying to remove it, and an objection has been raised to that. Therefore, please do not continue to revert as though there has been no objection. You need to gain consensus for the change here before removing it again. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits, were reverted by Slim. She gave the reason for the revert simply as "was better". I respect the fact that she has the capacity to form opinions of this kind, and in case anyone is interested, my favorite color is blue. A more substantive or responsive reason would be nice. - Ste vertigo 08:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
Should this template include a link to the Wikipedia:Five pillars, which is generally held to be a summary about our official policies designed for new editors, rather than an actual, official policy itself? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A few points:
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) 21:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The template links to the Principles page which, as a newcomer, I unfortunately find rather confusing and not providing much insight. I have left a more verbose description of my concerns on the corresponding talk page. Depending on the appropriate course of action, the link should be removed or replaced. I appreciate any feedback or guidance on how to proceed. CSMProject ( talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)