![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
This section includes a lot of policy churn; these are just very short sign-post diffs but do not mark particularly significant changes, yet.
Possibly the most hilarious statement ever: "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criterion for inclusion." 24.224.214.165 ( talk) 22:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Description by Blueboar taken from Talk:NOR ( url):
Page created to remove essay-like content from WP:OR that is common to (but not really needed in) all 3 core policy pages. FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This page has very little activity. It also has no categories. In the interests of pigeonholing (another example of which is being discussed heavily at WP:A), what is its status?
I would favor "guideline" at first glance. I'm going to add the "proposed" template boldly just to get conversation started. I would also move this page to the title WP:Neutrality, verifiability, and nonoriginality. JJB 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the above, avoiding cryptic gibberish, and adding a Harvard comma. Not much links here either. Seems obvious, but wanted to get a couple other voices along first, and also want to give this underexposed page a little airing. JJB 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as move of historical archive page is not necessary. Renaming will actually add to any purported confusion, not reduce it. The longer name will reduce access, not add to it. "Nonoriginality" is not a word; therefore the proposed title would violate WP:NEO. B.Wind ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, the title proposed does not really describe the actual subject and content of the page. This does not outline the three policies only their history and creators' motives. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of Wikipedia:Origins of the core policies? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 09:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the above, three editors favored a new name, one favored the old name, and one merely objected to an alleged neologism in one of the new names. Since the three editors did not agree on what the new name should be, in Wikiland that is translated as "no consensus default unmoved". Oh well. Let me reopen the two points that did not get answered by consensus:
Incidentally, the side issue of a merge was very straightforward, so I went ahead with it. I'll wait a bit before listing this at requested moves again, but I think Kubanczyk has made the correct move target just as obvious as the need to move. JJB 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with a move to WP:Origins of the core policies, though it's really only concerning the content policies. I also see little wrong with the title NPOV, V and OR (though NPOV, V, and NOR is actually better). I do have a problem with calling it an essay. It is a page that documents some of the background and development history of these policies. It is neither advice nor opinions of contributors; it is a supplemental information page. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I’m really not sure where (or how) to address this, so I leave it here. “Neutrality” is generally interpreted to mean ideological or political neutrality. However, there are other types of biases; for example, in the sex-related crimes pages there are strong implications that men are the only perpetrators, females the only or majority victims. I’m really not sure that putting the NPOV tag on these articles is appropriate because of the stigma attached to this tag. Some guidance would be appreciated. (18:36, 28 July 2011 Andering J. REDDSON (talk | contribs))
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Damu5545 ( talk) 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
In the second part of the 4th paragraph in Wikipedia:Core_content_policies#History, it says "and established as criteria for inclusion edits that present:"
I would like to request a change to: "and established as inclusion criteria for edits that present:"
If I am misunderstanding the intent of the author by requesting this change, please make the part clearer instead. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 05:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
This section includes a lot of policy churn; these are just very short sign-post diffs but do not mark particularly significant changes, yet.
Possibly the most hilarious statement ever: "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criterion for inclusion." 24.224.214.165 ( talk) 22:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Description by Blueboar taken from Talk:NOR ( url):
Page created to remove essay-like content from WP:OR that is common to (but not really needed in) all 3 core policy pages. FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This page has very little activity. It also has no categories. In the interests of pigeonholing (another example of which is being discussed heavily at WP:A), what is its status?
I would favor "guideline" at first glance. I'm going to add the "proposed" template boldly just to get conversation started. I would also move this page to the title WP:Neutrality, verifiability, and nonoriginality. JJB 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the above, avoiding cryptic gibberish, and adding a Harvard comma. Not much links here either. Seems obvious, but wanted to get a couple other voices along first, and also want to give this underexposed page a little airing. JJB 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as move of historical archive page is not necessary. Renaming will actually add to any purported confusion, not reduce it. The longer name will reduce access, not add to it. "Nonoriginality" is not a word; therefore the proposed title would violate WP:NEO. B.Wind ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, the title proposed does not really describe the actual subject and content of the page. This does not outline the three policies only their history and creators' motives. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of Wikipedia:Origins of the core policies? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 09:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the above, three editors favored a new name, one favored the old name, and one merely objected to an alleged neologism in one of the new names. Since the three editors did not agree on what the new name should be, in Wikiland that is translated as "no consensus default unmoved". Oh well. Let me reopen the two points that did not get answered by consensus:
Incidentally, the side issue of a merge was very straightforward, so I went ahead with it. I'll wait a bit before listing this at requested moves again, but I think Kubanczyk has made the correct move target just as obvious as the need to move. JJB 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with a move to WP:Origins of the core policies, though it's really only concerning the content policies. I also see little wrong with the title NPOV, V and OR (though NPOV, V, and NOR is actually better). I do have a problem with calling it an essay. It is a page that documents some of the background and development history of these policies. It is neither advice nor opinions of contributors; it is a supplemental information page. DoubleBlue ( Talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I’m really not sure where (or how) to address this, so I leave it here. “Neutrality” is generally interpreted to mean ideological or political neutrality. However, there are other types of biases; for example, in the sex-related crimes pages there are strong implications that men are the only perpetrators, females the only or majority victims. I’m really not sure that putting the NPOV tag on these articles is appropriate because of the stigma attached to this tag. Some guidance would be appreciated. (18:36, 28 July 2011 Andering J. REDDSON (talk | contribs))
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous573462 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Damu5545 ( talk) 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
In the second part of the 4th paragraph in Wikipedia:Core_content_policies#History, it says "and established as criteria for inclusion edits that present:"
I would like to request a change to: "and established as inclusion criteria for edits that present:"
If I am misunderstanding the intent of the author by requesting this change, please make the part clearer instead. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 05:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)