Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

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]

There is no requirement to "discuss first". Unless there is a cogent argument against the reason I gave above for this specific link's inclusion, it should be reinstated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page template ({{Permanently protected}}) above quite literally says Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. The talk page archive I referenced easily has 6 different discussions regarding adding or subtracting links on the template, including a specific discussion on cutting the number of links down to those that are just specifically relevant and important (see "Trimming this template" section in the archive). Either way, consider my reversion of your edit as identifying my opposition to the FAQ addition, making it controversial, and consider all the past discussions as precedent that additions to this template should start with a notification/discussion here first. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So no argument against its inclusion, much less a cogent one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: "The addition of superfluous links clutters and devalues the important links that are currently on the template."

I'll also note that I have commented as such on all of the past discussions I pointed to, and believe it or not, created this template 17 years ago. So maybe this is a topic I know a lot about and have had a lot of discussions on before? So how about cutting out the (weirdly) negative attitude, start a new section, propose a change and see what happens? And maybe be quicker than 9 months to reply? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not superfluous. How abut you read WP:OWN? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

Ullas p (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

© 2022 by is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

 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]

As seen at Template:Manual of Style we have a nice user friendly and convenient search box. Should we do the same here? Here is an example that mimics the MOS template Moxy🍁 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the benefit of the search bar for the MOS, because our MOS is massive and often you are trying to find one very specific sentence. I'm not sure I see the same need here, as this template already covers almost all the relevant policies and guidelines for most editors. And if you are looking for a very specific thing, you are likely already well-versed in how to perform a deeper search. These search bars already existing at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which would be more of a natural starting place than an autocollapsed template (i.e. the search bars don't show up in most standards views). I oppose its addition as just not much use. If it does get implemented though, at the very least the formatting should improve as both search bars on top of each other don't look great and causes a lot of blank space. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to make accessibility easier for those of us with disabilities...... it's a long road. Went ahead and made {{Editor search boxes}} for all of us.Moxy🍁 23:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy I'm not sure I follow the accessibility part. If I am missing something in that vain, happy to reconsider. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: I think that we could stand to add the UCOC to this template. I could not figure out how to make the template parameters show, so this was the best solution. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Original section 7:
<code>
| 7_list1 =
* [[:wmf:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]]
* [[:wmf:Policies|List of policies]]
* [[:wmf:Friendly space policy|Friendly space policy]]
* [[:wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy|Licensing and copyright]]
* [[:wmf:Privacy policy|Privacy policy]]
</code>

New section 7:
<code>
| 7_list1 =
* [[:wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct]]
* [[:wmf:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]]
* [[:wmf:Policies|List of policies]]
* [[:wmf:Friendly space policy|Friendly space policy]]
* [[:wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy|Licensing and copyright]]
* [[:wmf:Privacy policy|Privacy policy]]
</code>

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]