Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some specific, random proposals

Love this project. Some random thoughts for PAGs we really don't need or can be merged follow; I'd love your thoughts on them. Feel free to create more subsections with your own ideas! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Spoilers

WP:SPOILER could be a section in WP:NODISCLAIMERS (or really the banner in Wikipedia:No disclaimers § Unacceptable disclaimers is acceptable, and we can just de-tag it). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

I maintain that WP:Patent nonsense does not need to be a guideline (Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense § RfC on "demoting" to information page). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources could be a line in the MOS. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes could be a line in WP:VAND; WP:BEANS and the principle of WP:RBI ought to apply in not creating guidelines for all dumb ideas. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Artist's impressions of astronomical objects

I just learned we have Wikipedia:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects. WTF? Seriously? You can't make this up. Bye. Consider whether this should be one line in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd expect there to be a similar one for fossil species (paintings of dinosaurs, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
There are actually two noticeboards for that, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review (for non-dinosaurs), with additional guidelines confusingly placed under the "retired" Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List. Leaving details up to the relevant WikiProject seems much more practical than having a whole guideline for that, and we could maybe ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy if they want to take over that page (and have it tagged as {{WikiProject advice}}). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight became a guideline after this discussion, with two (2) participants, including OP. I'd return the {{essay}} tag. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Most obvious one, so opened a proposal at WP:VPP here. Per WP:HISTORICAL, we shouldn't simply retag as essay as it's been so long. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The relevant tag is probably Template:WikiProject advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be a more diplomatic 'demotion' that just making it an essay. Opened a second discussion for a similar page guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
You don't really need to have discussions over these. I've made a few such changes myself over the years, and I don't remember any objections (certainly none that were sustained past the "If you want to call this a guideline, then make a proper WP:PROPOSAL" stage). You can WP:PGBOLDly invoke the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages guideline and fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The user permission pages

Some of these are infopages, some are guidelines, and some are policies. For example, WP:ROLLBACKUSE is certainly treated like a policy, but is tagged a guideline. Might not be a big problem, but something to think about. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "treated like a policy"? Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is not whether the page is strictly enforced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I mean what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role says: I don't think editors treat it with common sense, and occasional exceptions, but rather standards all users should normally follow. (And I think that is a good thing: a tool created for vandalism should not be used on good-faith but misguided edits.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the most recent 1000 rollback entries in Special:RecentChanges, it looks like 98% of actual (MediaWiki) rollback is done by @Primefac. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh that is very much an exception to the rule; I found a user who had made what I felt were inappropriate edits to about that many pages and rolled them back. I very rarely use rollback. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Today, a third of the rollback edits are done by User:ClueBot NG, and 10% are from LuniZunie. Getting a useful picture of who uses it (and who thus might be interested in any changes to that page) would probably require a trip to Wikipedia:Request a query. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Woah, I didn't even think I did that many today. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 22:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
You might not have. I'm really only looking at the most recent 1,000 rollback-tagged edits (maybe approximately half a day's worth?) and making some quick estimates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day could be a section in WP:NOT. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That page is an expansion of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Which really, really feels like an explanatory essay or infopage, rather than a full-fledged guideline. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day/Archive 1#Tag indicates that this is not a new idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
This is an interesting read, although it dates from more than 18 years ago, before we had WP:INFOPAGES that could be tagged with {{infopage}} or {{supplement}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback

Not technically a PAG, but it overlaps with the WP:rollback guideline. Merging it would mean we also get rid of the dated title, given how long rollback has been unbundled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This one is now merged :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inline citation

Wikipedia:Inline citation is a mostly a slightly outdated help page that is listed as an information page for some reason. It could be folded into Help:Footnotes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think RS, inline citation, and V could be merged. I think, separately from this project, it might be beneficial to rethink the primary/secondary source distinction as it creates lots of confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Most of inline citation is about how to use <ref>...</ref> tags, it would be a poor fit for V. It's why I suggest a how to page instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Inline citation is about all the things that count as inline citations, of which only one is <ref>...</ref> ("little blue clicky numbers"). It should not be merged to a page that is exclusively about how to use ref tags. That said, I think there are details on that page that would be better placed/merged elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

This notability guideline has been weakened across the years to be virtually toothless. The only biting power it now possesses is that athelete articles should not be quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Good chance it could be merged into WP:NBIO. Ca talk to me! 01:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Confusingly, WP:NBIO's summary of it states that A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor (emphasis mine), while WP:NSPORT's "nutshell" only says An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, and clarifies that GNG should still be met. The former, in fact, appears to put more weight on NSPORT than it gives itself.
We could have an RfC to decide whether to decide on the "presumed" wording or the "likely" wording, and whether in the latter case the page should stay as a separate SNG for indicative purposes or become a supplementary information page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Don't. NBIO is out of date and just needs updating, with a "match NSPORT wording" edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
In that case, I'm still wondering whether NSPORT can be turned into a supplementary information page, with its summarized version in NBIO having guideline value. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that's a realistic outcome. The part of the community that cares about NSPORTS has taken a battering in recent years, and that can produce reactiveness when your discussion needs calm thought. I wouldn't try that for at least the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I would be all over deprecating NSPORT in favor of the GNG, but WhatamIdoing isn't wrong. There always has been massive pushback against messing with any one sports project's bailiwick, and local consensus at NSPORT is strongly against any further change. Ravenswing 08:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines that are subpages of WikiProjects

Two two recent discussions at VPP dealt with WikiProject subpages that are tagged as guidelines. The first resulted in a consensus to demote to an advice page; the second looks like an RFC will be required to resolve it.

These are the additional ones I have found:

I think there is consensus in those discussions that guidelines shouldn't be located as a subpage of a WikiProject, and that is stated explicitly at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which ironically itself appears in the list above). The two possible paths forward for these guidelines would be to change the tag to a WikiProject advice page or to move out of the WikiProject. I would be interested in thoughts on which is better to pursue. It may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.--Trystan (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I might make an exception for the last (WT:COUNCIL is a bit more of a noticeboard than an actual WikiProject), though the page could just as easily be located at Wikipedia:WikiProject/Guideline. I agree about all the others. Probably most of them aren't actually guidelines in the sense of having a successful WP:PROPOSAL. I'll go correct all the tags (except for the first and last). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree WikiProject Council is something of a special case.--Trystan (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms was reverted. I have started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms#RFC on moving or removing this guideline to address the question.
My change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions was also reverted. I think that a similar discussion should be had there. This edit summary should lead you to the original (apparently non-RFC/non-WP:PROPOSAL) discussion, but as I've already got two RFCs in process at the moment, perhaps someone else would like to start it, or you could remind me in a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Shoudn't there be a RFCBEFORE discussion on the talk pages before starting one? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
RFCBEFORE discussions aren't required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah ok fair enough. GothicGolem29 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Chesterton's fence

Glancing through some of the discussion on this page, I recommend Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence as required reading for anyone planning to participate in this project. WP:Spoiler, to pick one example I've had on my watchlist for years, addresses more than just WP:No disclaimers (i.e. spoiler warnings), and is handy to specifically address that aspect of the topic in a way that a section in WP:No disclaimers likely wouldn't without outweighing the rest of that page. Anomie⚔ 03:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request to reconsider project scope

Given that I've been invited to participate here, please allow me to make a proposal. The mission of this project is presently defined as to simplify and consolidate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The original scope of the project's activities was to actively improve our policy and guideline pages, with the specific caveat that this is not a project for discussing policy changes and improvements, but for actively improving policy...You should be bold, but since your goal in cleaning up is not to push one interpretation or another, it's often more productive to back off from long, time-consuming discussions and let others take care of things - there are many policy pages that need cleanup. I think that the present scope is problematic, because it is premised on the idea that, as a rule, our policies and guidelines need to be simplified or consolidated. Instead, why not revert to the original scope, with the focus on improving the pages themselves, irrespective of whether that improvement consists of something other than simplification or consolidation? This would make the project more similar to mainspace-scoped Wikiprojects. I also think that the caveat remains just as relevant now as it was when it was first added, and therefore propose that it be restored. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I like this proposal. Broadening the scope to the original seems like it would be beneficial and allow for a more wider variety of work/improvements/discussion than with the current scope. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 04:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI