This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi, I find that you have reverted my edit on 'Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines' because of the reason 'edit created 50% empty space in the template', I use opera v 9.50 Alpha at 800 x 600 resolution, I have tested the template on IE v 7.0.5xxx.11 and Mozilla v 2.0.0.11 at same resolution and have not faced the problem as mentioned by you. It seems that you use resolution above 800 x 600 as on changing the resolution of my screen to 1024 x 768 I started facing the problem as mentioned by you (However on using the current version of template in 800 x 600 resolution makes half of the template outside horizontal page limit). Recently I have made similar edits [1] , [2] , [3] etc. however my edits were not reverted nor reported (I may add that few of the templates that I edited were used at many different article). It seems to me that the reason for the apparent 'conflict' is due to 'screen resolution' differences between users, I would like to request you to suggest changes so as to find a solution LegalEagle ( talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want a pro to review it, take it to Template_talk:Navbox and you should have it resolved rather quickly. Regads.-- 12 Noon 2¢ 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So where does WP:OA belong? 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
From MOS (links)#Context: Do not use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles. In using the WikiCleaner disambiguation software, it showed several WP pages that have had their page names changed, for good reason. The navbox should reflect the current full page names (w/o the WP, of course), for those pages. This is according to the MOS and normally would not be a debatable topic. Thank you. Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Had to run WikiCleaner again, to repair link that was reverted and not fixed. Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that this is a good template. Would it be possible to have it set to auto-collapse, instead of collapsed? I think I found one page (naming conventions) that wasn't linked to it, that really should be. Thanks! Funandtrvl ( talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with a lot of the other overly BOLD edits that Gurch has been unilaterally making on policy pages, I agree with him that removing the shortcuts from this template makes it much more readable.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:21, 29 November 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) 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose merging {{ Guideline list}} into this template. Please see discussion at Template_talk:Guideline_list#Merge. Rd232 talk 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about adding the core notability policies to this template? Ocaasi c 00:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was to change the layout as implemented in the edit here. Cunard ( talk) 06:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to change a the layout to make it more user-friendly. It would look like this:
The biggest changes are the added subheadings for policies and guidelines and the removal of the links in the subheadings since almost all link to the same page (the list of policies and guidelines). Overall I believe this improves the navigation of the template. Would anyone object to the change? Atón ( talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we simplify the template as shown in the proposal? Atón ( talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
Version B (Wikimedia Foundation row added, contrast in luminosity between two colors increased. Added 9 june 2017)
I've made a new version that addresses the problems mentioned (see Version B above). This version includes all policies and guidelines' links of the current template as well as links to the enforcement policies. More links can be added, nothing in the template prevents it. Further, the contrast in luminosity between the two colors has been increased. This seems to be enough to avoid WP:ACCESS issues ( proof). The point is to make the template more clearly organized, more visually attractive and more concise. Atón ( talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) PS: I've added the link to WP:MEDRS. Atón ( talk) 22:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Because I didn't find it straightforward to immediately compare the two templates visually, perhaps this may also help others evaluate. Here is a diff of the links provided in the new (version B) template, versus the original. Links starting with + are found in the original but not in the new one, links starting with - are in the new template but not in the original. To generate this list, I simply extracted the wikilinks from each to a separate text file, used the unix sort command on each, then the unix diff command to generate a third file which I manually pruned/cleaned-up to save space (and remove overlapping links which were in both but were included because of link naming change).
An interesting point is that the original also provides links to categories which may be useful, although in theory navigation templates and categories may be equivalent in the end (categories are more useful for automated software, but the amount of detail depends if categorization was done properly).
+[[:Category:Wikipedia administration|Overview]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia guidelines|Guidelines]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia policies|Category: Policies]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia_categories|Classification guidelines]] -[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] -[[Wikipedia:Banning policy|Banning]] -[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Blocking]] +[[Wikipedia:Broad-concept article|Broad-concept article]] +[[Wikipedia:Core content policies|Core content policies]] -[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|medicine]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Behavioral|Behavioural guidelines]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Content|Content guidelines]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Style|Style conventions]] +[[Wikipedia:List of policies#Content|content policies]] +[[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Paid editing disclosure]] -[[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Plagiarism]] +[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Project namespace]] +[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people|Proposed deletion of BLP]] -[[Wikipedia:Protection policy|Page protection]]
— Paleo Neonate - 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Do not include copies of primary sources" to "Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources""Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources".
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is the correct name of the guideline, and "Do not include copies of primary sources" (specifically insofar as it differs from the actual name of the guideline) does not reflect common practice: copying small portions of primary text is perfectly acceptable, and if the primary source in question is not lengthy then even its full text can be quoted quite constructively. I was actually quite surprised when I looked over the template just now to see that it told me explicitly not to do something that I've been doing for years.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Values" link leads to a notice that the page has been relocated to here. Could you please directly relink the page to the new page? Upjav ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Lists of attempts in creating fundamental principles" at the bottom can be simplified to "List of fundamental principles," which better reflects the title and subject of the linked article. May this be changed? Aonus ( talk) 05:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It's quite hard to distinguish between the greenish-blue and green check marks at a glance. Colors like #06c and #070 might work better. – XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi! Can you give me any advice for improving this article?-- Marvins-island ( talk) 23:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This is per the top template on the page:
Can someone link to the discussion where WP:POG was established as a Wikipedia guideline? If not, then it should be removed from this template under "Portal namespace" as misleading. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, as you can see here Category:Wikipedia guideline templates, the page Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is sorted "[[Category:Wikipedia guideline templates| ". IMO it would be better to add "wikipedia" directly after the vertical bar, instead of the space punctuation. This way this page would be sorted like the other pages in this category. -- Dutchy45 ( talk) 07:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage.
Cabayi (
talk) 11:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)The WMF's internal "Values" document for employees is not a policy, and does not have any practical relevance to Wikipedia. Same for the WMF's donor FAQ. Both of these should be removed from the template, in my opinion. The "Friendly space policy" for in-person conferences and events also does not really fit among Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and should be removed.
(It might also make sense to add the wmf:Terms of Use, which are binding on Wikipedia users.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 21:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I have (as far as I know) a normal human color perception ability. The colors used for the policies (#118811) and that used for
guidelines (#0077A4) are almost indistinguishable from each other. I'd suggest
(#008000) (#00FF00) for policies and
(#000000) for guidelines. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 21:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Since the blue checkbox:
is very much indistinguishable from the Green Check:
why not swap it with:
This other blue checkbox:
.
This stands out much better. I have an example of this at the bottom of
my user page.
W.K.W.W.K...
Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The P and G characters should have alt text. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
|group1 = '''<span style="color:#118811;">{{Large|P}}</span>'''
|below=
parameter at the bottom of the template. Thank you for your suggestion!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Using it to generate tooltips elsewhere is a misuse of the underlying HTML and causes accessibility problems.What ideally should happen is for the P and G to be colorized pictures with alt text. If you are ale to do this, I think that would be a helpful change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
|alt=
parameters that are needed in image files just here on Wikipedia, let alone all the Wikipedias. And Kevin's correct about the use of the abbr template being a non-issue since P and G are indeed abbreviations. So please, I think we should return this template back to Kevin's version.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 09:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary as a bracketed to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 04:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove WP:Five pillars, which does not have formal status as a policy or guideline. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC) – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)I propose removing Wikipedia:Five pillars from Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it is not a policy or guideline. – dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose adding Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it is a policy. – dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Looking at this template, it seems to me that it has way too many links, and they're the wrong links. The template isn't for the purpose of listing all WP:PAGs, it's for key PAGs, and I question whether all of the PAGs listed are "key". Examples of what I think should go:
Now, I don't know if others agree that any of these should be removed from the template, but I thought it was worth raising. I think the template would be way more useful if it had about half as many links on it. Levivich 16:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)I'd like to go a bit further, because I think this template was so much more useful in its original form than what it's become. Another thing I think should go is the division of links into "policies" and "guideline". This is a distinction that is useless to the template reader. Nobody is thinking, "I'm looking for the guideline on civility, not the policy", because we don't have duplication like that (we don't have a policy on X and a guideline on X; rather we have a policy on X and a guideline on Y). If people are looking on the template for N, CIV, or RS, it won't matter to them if those pages are policies or guidelines. I doubt anyone thinks, "N is a guideline, I'll look it up under guideline". So I don't see the utility in separating out policies and guidelines on the template and will happily sandbox something that combines them if anyone reading this thinks that's worth doing. Levivich 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change * [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Reliable sources (medicine)]]
to ** [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Medicine]]
for consistency with the rest of the template (matching ** [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people|Biographies]]
and ** [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Signatures]]
)
House
Blaster
talk 00:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Moxy, I undid your addition of the "essay" links here. Based on the history of this template, I think this should be more of a consensus-driven change. I also would note that your edit summary of "ce" wasn't extraordinarily accurate, assuming "ce" stood for "copyedit". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi, I find that you have reverted my edit on 'Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines' because of the reason 'edit created 50% empty space in the template', I use opera v 9.50 Alpha at 800 x 600 resolution, I have tested the template on IE v 7.0.5xxx.11 and Mozilla v 2.0.0.11 at same resolution and have not faced the problem as mentioned by you. It seems that you use resolution above 800 x 600 as on changing the resolution of my screen to 1024 x 768 I started facing the problem as mentioned by you (However on using the current version of template in 800 x 600 resolution makes half of the template outside horizontal page limit). Recently I have made similar edits [1] , [2] , [3] etc. however my edits were not reverted nor reported (I may add that few of the templates that I edited were used at many different article). It seems to me that the reason for the apparent 'conflict' is due to 'screen resolution' differences between users, I would like to request you to suggest changes so as to find a solution LegalEagle ( talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want a pro to review it, take it to Template_talk:Navbox and you should have it resolved rather quickly. Regads.-- 12 Noon 2¢ 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So where does WP:OA belong? 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
From MOS (links)#Context: Do not use a piped link to avoid otherwise legitimate redirect targets that fit well within the scope of the text. This assists in determining when a significant number of references to redirected links warrant more detailed articles. In using the WikiCleaner disambiguation software, it showed several WP pages that have had their page names changed, for good reason. The navbox should reflect the current full page names (w/o the WP, of course), for those pages. This is according to the MOS and normally would not be a debatable topic. Thank you. Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Had to run WikiCleaner again, to repair link that was reverted and not fixed. Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Funandtrvl ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that this is a good template. Would it be possible to have it set to auto-collapse, instead of collapsed? I think I found one page (naming conventions) that wasn't linked to it, that really should be. Thanks! Funandtrvl ( talk) 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with a lot of the other overly BOLD edits that Gurch has been unilaterally making on policy pages, I agree with him that removing the shortcuts from this template makes it much more readable.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:21, 29 November 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) 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose merging {{ Guideline list}} into this template. Please see discussion at Template_talk:Guideline_list#Merge. Rd232 talk 13:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about adding the core notability policies to this template? Ocaasi c 00:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was to change the layout as implemented in the edit here. Cunard ( talk) 06:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to change a the layout to make it more user-friendly. It would look like this:
The biggest changes are the added subheadings for policies and guidelines and the removal of the links in the subheadings since almost all link to the same page (the list of policies and guidelines). Overall I believe this improves the navigation of the template. Would anyone object to the change? Atón ( talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we simplify the template as shown in the proposal? Atón ( talk) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposal
Version B (Wikimedia Foundation row added, contrast in luminosity between two colors increased. Added 9 june 2017)
I've made a new version that addresses the problems mentioned (see Version B above). This version includes all policies and guidelines' links of the current template as well as links to the enforcement policies. More links can be added, nothing in the template prevents it. Further, the contrast in luminosity between the two colors has been increased. This seems to be enough to avoid WP:ACCESS issues ( proof). The point is to make the template more clearly organized, more visually attractive and more concise. Atón ( talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) PS: I've added the link to WP:MEDRS. Atón ( talk) 22:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Because I didn't find it straightforward to immediately compare the two templates visually, perhaps this may also help others evaluate. Here is a diff of the links provided in the new (version B) template, versus the original. Links starting with + are found in the original but not in the new one, links starting with - are in the new template but not in the original. To generate this list, I simply extracted the wikilinks from each to a separate text file, used the unix sort command on each, then the unix diff command to generate a third file which I manually pruned/cleaned-up to save space (and remove overlapping links which were in both but were included because of link naming change).
An interesting point is that the original also provides links to categories which may be useful, although in theory navigation templates and categories may be equivalent in the end (categories are more useful for automated software, but the amount of detail depends if categorization was done properly).
+[[:Category:Wikipedia administration|Overview]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia guidelines|Guidelines]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia policies|Category: Policies]] +[[:Category:Wikipedia_categories|Classification guidelines]] -[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] -[[Wikipedia:Banning policy|Banning]] -[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Blocking]] +[[Wikipedia:Broad-concept article|Broad-concept article]] +[[Wikipedia:Core content policies|Core content policies]] -[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|medicine]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Behavioral|Behavioural guidelines]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Content|Content guidelines]] +[[Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Style|Style conventions]] +[[Wikipedia:List of policies#Content|content policies]] +[[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|Paid editing disclosure]] -[[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|Plagiarism]] +[[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Project namespace]] +[[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people|Proposed deletion of BLP]] -[[Wikipedia:Protection policy|Page protection]]
— Paleo Neonate - 05:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Do not include copies of primary sources" to "Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources""Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources".
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is the correct name of the guideline, and "Do not include copies of primary sources" (specifically insofar as it differs from the actual name of the guideline) does not reflect common practice: copying small portions of primary text is perfectly acceptable, and if the primary source in question is not lengthy then even its full text can be quoted quite constructively. I was actually quite surprised when I looked over the template just now to see that it told me explicitly not to do something that I've been doing for years.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Values" link leads to a notice that the page has been relocated to here. Could you please directly relink the page to the new page? Upjav ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Lists of attempts in creating fundamental principles" at the bottom can be simplified to "List of fundamental principles," which better reflects the title and subject of the linked article. May this be changed? Aonus ( talk) 05:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It's quite hard to distinguish between the greenish-blue and green check marks at a glance. Colors like #06c and #070 might work better. – XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi! Can you give me any advice for improving this article?-- Marvins-island ( talk) 23:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This is per the top template on the page:
Can someone link to the discussion where WP:POG was established as a Wikipedia guideline? If not, then it should be removed from this template under "Portal namespace" as misleading. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, as you can see here Category:Wikipedia guideline templates, the page Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is sorted "[[Category:Wikipedia guideline templates| ". IMO it would be better to add "wikipedia" directly after the vertical bar, instead of the space punctuation. This way this page would be sorted like the other pages in this category. -- Dutchy45 ( talk) 07:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage.
Cabayi (
talk) 11:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)The WMF's internal "Values" document for employees is not a policy, and does not have any practical relevance to Wikipedia. Same for the WMF's donor FAQ. Both of these should be removed from the template, in my opinion. The "Friendly space policy" for in-person conferences and events also does not really fit among Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and should be removed.
(It might also make sense to add the wmf:Terms of Use, which are binding on Wikipedia users.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 21:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I have (as far as I know) a normal human color perception ability. The colors used for the policies (#118811) and that used for
guidelines (#0077A4) are almost indistinguishable from each other. I'd suggest
(#008000) (#00FF00) for policies and
(#000000) for guidelines. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 21:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Since the blue checkbox:
is very much indistinguishable from the Green Check:
why not swap it with:
This other blue checkbox:
.
This stands out much better. I have an example of this at the bottom of
my user page.
W.K.W.W.K...
Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The P and G characters should have alt text. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
|group1 = '''<span style="color:#118811;">{{Large|P}}</span>'''
|below=
parameter at the bottom of the template. Thank you for your suggestion!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Using it to generate tooltips elsewhere is a misuse of the underlying HTML and causes accessibility problems.What ideally should happen is for the P and G to be colorized pictures with alt text. If you are ale to do this, I think that would be a helpful change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
|alt=
parameters that are needed in image files just here on Wikipedia, let alone all the Wikipedias. And Kevin's correct about the use of the abbr template being a non-issue since P and G are indeed abbreviations. So please, I think we should return this template back to Kevin's version.
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there 09:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary as a bracketed to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 04:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove WP:Five pillars, which does not have formal status as a policy or guideline. – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC) – dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)I propose removing Wikipedia:Five pillars from Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it is not a policy or guideline. – dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose adding Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it is a policy. – dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Looking at this template, it seems to me that it has way too many links, and they're the wrong links. The template isn't for the purpose of listing all WP:PAGs, it's for key PAGs, and I question whether all of the PAGs listed are "key". Examples of what I think should go:
Now, I don't know if others agree that any of these should be removed from the template, but I thought it was worth raising. I think the template would be way more useful if it had about half as many links on it. Levivich 16:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)I'd like to go a bit further, because I think this template was so much more useful in its original form than what it's become. Another thing I think should go is the division of links into "policies" and "guideline". This is a distinction that is useless to the template reader. Nobody is thinking, "I'm looking for the guideline on civility, not the policy", because we don't have duplication like that (we don't have a policy on X and a guideline on X; rather we have a policy on X and a guideline on Y). If people are looking on the template for N, CIV, or RS, it won't matter to them if those pages are policies or guidelines. I doubt anyone thinks, "N is a guideline, I'll look it up under guideline". So I don't see the utility in separating out policies and guidelines on the template and will happily sandbox something that combines them if anyone reading this thinks that's worth doing. Levivich 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change * [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Reliable sources (medicine)]]
to ** [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|Medicine]]
for consistency with the rest of the template (matching ** [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people|Biographies]]
and ** [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Signatures]]
)
House
Blaster
talk 00:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Moxy, I undid your addition of the "essay" links here. Based on the history of this template, I think this should be more of a consensus-driven change. I also would note that your edit summary of "ce" wasn't extraordinarily accurate, assuming "ce" stood for "copyedit". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)