Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

Quotations vs. italics

A lot of people ask about the use of quotations versus italics. I would like to add the following or some version of it to the "editing policy" page; what do you all think? --KQ

Movies, books, CD/LP/8-track :-) titles, TV series, magazines and epic poems (The Iliad, The Odyssey) are italicized; short stories, songs, episodes of TV shows, articles, and most poems are in quotes.

Perhaps more importantly, quotes are never, ever used for emphasis. The single-quote, single-quote notation for emphasis is misleading in this respect.

Talk vs. discuss

The body of the text says the bottom of each page has a link "Talk". They don't, it is "Discuss this page". Does this matter? User:SGBailey

the link text has been changed since that bit was written. Feel free to update it! :-) -- Tarquin

Merge with Wikipedia/Policies_and_guidelines?

It seems to me that this page probably could be merged with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines... or not?... -- Viajero 13:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

not I think.... they serve differing purposes, though this article is probably poorly titled. Martin 14:06, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

agreed, how about something livlier, like Joy of Editing... -- Viajero 15:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Slight edit

Change note: I changed "rephrasing while preserving content" to "rephrasing or accurate precis while preserving content", under acceptable reasons for removing material, which I think correctly interprets the existing policy. Please rollback if you disagree. -- The Anome 16:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

multiple comments?

This is probably more of an etiquette question than a policy question, but I didn't find a page on that subject. Anyway, what I'm wondering is if there is a 'policy' for when someone wants to comment several times in the same talk/voting page. On the one hand, commenting in each section individually probably makes experienced users happy, because Related Changes/Recent Changes/Page History shows "→SectionTitle summary" correctly; on the other hand, it is faster and less disruptive to Watchlists (which I presume most novice users still rely on) to do a single Edit this page and summarize to the best of your ability. What do you all think? nae'blis _(talk) 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

One line summary

There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. Please don't remove it simply because you think the summary is inaccurate for this guideline. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Splash removed the summary, citing again, this template is a profound misstatement of the idea: "leave it in whatever state you like"? that's an excuse to vandals. My summary was this: Improve any page without hesitation, regardless of the state you leave it in. Avoid removing information wherever possible. The word "improve" should rule out vandalism being acceptable. Stevage 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• I object to "regardless of the state you leave it in". It encourages sloppiness. I also object to "avoid removing information" in a oneliner; there is often a good reason for removing things, and putting it right at the top could lead to people ruleslawyering "hey, our editing policy says you cannot remove my information" (see WP:0RR for a related discussion about some 'pedians who believe it is never appropriate to remove other people's work). Radiant_>|< 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I was trying to capture the two important ideas from this guideline:
    1. You should not avoid improving a page simply because it will still be in a bad state afterwards.
    2. You should try to avoid removing information un-necessarily.
  • So how about: Improve any page without hesitation: you don't have to make it perfect. Avoid removing information unnecessarily. Stevage 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The first sentence is good; the last one is still awkward. What about something that focuses on the difference between verified facts and unverified speculation, which seems to be most of what gets removed, besides vandalism? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A Proposal for a Change in Editing Policy

Acknowledging that Wikipedia was set up and is designed to be a resource for all people seeeking knowledge, and

Fully Believing in the vision of Wikipedia as a place where anyone can contribute to this website, and

Noting that a lost of people have and are putting a lot of time and effort into the articles in Wikipedia, and

Deeply disturbed at the amount of senseless vandalism that occurs in Wikipedia, and

Noting that this vandalism is disrespectful to Wikipedia, legitimate contributors, and potential information seekers, and

Whereas the most comment culprits of vandalism on Wikipedia are anonymous users without an account with Wikipedia, and,

Be It Hereby Resolved That:

1.) Make the editing of articles only permissible to those with accounts with Wikipedia.

2.) That a special discussion page be set up so that anonymous users may propose article changes with their reasoning for the change.

3.) If the users change is reasonable then the change can be made. If it is nonsense the it can be ignored.

(Steve 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

I spend as much time reverting vandalism from anon accounts as I do editing. Seconded.Michael Dorosh 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing an edit from anynymous IP with no user page and no talk is signal to check the edit and this way one can easier catch an unsophisticated vandal. If everyone gets a name such hint will dissapear and the huge number of newly created names will make the subconcious decision what to check harder. There's no hope the situation can be changed until stable versions will be implemented, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been proposed before:

• Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users
• Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement

Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Not sure what stable version means. But I think if we want to encourage participation (and I believe we do) then we need to let anon users edit because, in all honesty, that's one of the things that got me hooked. If we don't permit it, the likelyhood of new users joining up and helping will be reduced. At the same time, that IP address is like a red flag. On all the pages I monitor, I check those first. Granted, they may be vandals but most that I came across are just inexperienced users who want to contribute. --Mmounties (Talk) 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - Granted, most are in fact vandals from my own past experience on the pages I go to. Another point in favour is that anyone using a name to go with their edit adds a little bit more credibility. I'd even go so far as to suggest a 'real name' policy such as amazon.com has - not required, but lets a person put their personal credentials behind what they are posting. Personally, I don't place much faith in what donaldducksass|Talk has to say about cold fusion.Michael Dorosh 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak opposition Although vandalism presents a serious problem for Wikipedia, I don't think that restrictions on editing are the answer. I think that the problems with vandalism could be solved by recruiting more administrators to clear the endless back logs of articles, where a consensus has been met to delete. More admins could also clear the Speedy delete nominations a lot faster. Some users such asCooksey are knocked back as admits because standards are currently set far too high. Bobby1011 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So we should "recruit" people to just go around and revert vandalism? What is the point of that? Get rid of the vandals and concentrate on content. I don't understand your comment on "back logs (sic) of articles"...what does this have to do with vandalism to articles not meriting deletion in their entirety? Michael Dorosh 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification I was talking about the backlogs of AfD artilces, where a consensus has been reached, but no admin has gotten around to closing the debate. Bobby1011 02:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mild opposition. Creating a username is no large hurdle, true, but I would never have started editing Wikipedia had it not been possible to do so anonymously. For articles where vandalism is really a significant problem, we have semi-protection. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite annoyed I hate proposing changes on the talk pages of protected pages, anons would be much the same. also, I don't see why there's an obscure form of voting going on. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY. MichaelBillington 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)