This is not the page to ask for help or to experiment.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Project namespace page itself. You may be looking for one of the following pages: Wikipedia:Help desk – For questions about Wikipedia and editing. Wikipedia:Reference desk – For questions on factual topics (for example: Who is the pope?) Or click here to ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there. See also: Wikipedia:Village pump – For other policy and technical discussions.

Template:Copied multi

Archives

1

Should a new category be created for summaries of past consensus? If so, how should it be described and what should the template look like? Tamwin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background

A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources seems to favor the creation of a new category under Information and discussions for summaries of past consensus. It was agreed there that this page is the appropriate forum for discussion. Credit for the proposal goes to Humanengr. Several pages appear to fit into the described category, including WP:RS/P, WP:EL/P, and possibly WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES. They may not fit neatly into an existing category (judging by the recent controversy about which one to put them in), and have their own common concerns, such as WP:CCC. Tamwin (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For further context, see Work permit’s summary here. Humanengr (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more context to distinguish this template from Information and Supplemental pages templates: 1) "[I]nformation pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way." (per this); 2) Supplemental pages: "The noun supplement does not mean 'an interpretation' nor just 'something added'. It means precisely 'something added, especially to make up for a deficiency', in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline. …" [added in consideration of Bsherr's comment below; see further discussion there] Humanengr (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

• Support introduction of a new template, as nom. Neutral on adding a new section to this guideline. It's mildly helpful, to provide information, but the goal of not adding to bloat pretty much cancels that. If you made me decide one way or the other, I'd probably add it, but I don't feel comfortable !voting that way. Also, I was summoned here by bot. No, seriously. Tamwin (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new template and inclusion in guideline. The "This is a summary of existing consensuses" template is extremely clear. "Information and discussions" is the right section to place the template, but none of the existing subsections are appropriate. I support including this template in a new subsection named "Summary pages" or something similar. — Newslinger talk 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support b/c as Newslinger wrote, the 'This is a summary of existing consensuses' template is extremely clear. Also thx to Moxy below re adding "to the information section a small mention of the template" and "proper links to the template". Humanengr (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As Wikipedia collects more conversations we need ways to group similar conversations and collectively summarize them. Here are some instances when I tried to list previous conversations to give context to new discussions -

  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities/Archive_10#Lead_image_should_be_a_photo
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_97#Previous_discussion_of_medical_infoboxes
  • Wikipedia_talk:Event_coordinator#History_of_this_userright_and_thanks

  When anyone makes lists of similar conversations even those lists can be lost. Creating templates and categories seems like the current best way to keep tract of these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  See this other thing I wrote - Wikipedia:Prices. It has a discussion list. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I have not seen a compelling argument why an information page or supplement isn't or cannot be in and of itself a summary of existing consensus, so the idea of creating a new category is premature. I know there are differing opinions about the meaning of an information page or supplement in relation to an essay, but if there is concern about the boundaries of the existing categories, I think it would be better to get consensus on those existing categories first before adding new ones. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Does my addition above help? Humanengr (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It sure is. Thanks for taking the time to set that out here. So, generally speaking, we are talking about pages that summarize consensus on a particular matter. Either that consensus is reflected in the existing guideline, or it isn't, and if it isn't, a supplement page is appropriate. No? --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thx for prompting me to work it out further. How about this:

  • Policy or guideline — "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are developed [~ ‘vetted’ in the bullets below] by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia.”
  • Supplemental page — "something added, especially to make up for a … lack or gap in a … policy or guideline"; not vetted by community.
  • Consensus summaries — something added for a reason other than to make up for a lack or gap in a policy or guideline; not vetted by community.

  Iow: The distinction between a Supplemental Page and a Consensus summaries page is between something at a global policy/guideline level and at a context-dependent implementation level.

  Thoughts?

  Humanengr (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So that would be a rational classification in theory. But I think the important question is, why are supplemental pages defined as "especially to make up for a … lack or gap in a policy or guideline"? The implementation of your proposed classification assumes the answer is, to distinguish between pages that address a deficiency and those that do not. But I think the actual answer is that there is a consensus not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency. If you agree with that latter answer, then inquiry is where to classify (within the existing scheme) these pages in question or the information they contain (and I think it is doable within the existing scheme). If you disagree with that latter answer, then I think the right RfC is about expanding the meaning of a supplemental page, not adding a new template to the classification. So, to what extent to you agree with this? --Bsherr (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "there is a consensus not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency." Where is that documented?

  Re "expanding the meaning of a supplemental page", I note Template:Supplement#History speaks of "discussions about how to improve and explain policies and guidelines …". The pages under consideration here seem well outside that scope. They also seem well out of scope of pages clearly circumscribed to "make up for a … lack or gap in a … policy or guideline". Humanengr (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have a reference for saying the consensus is not to have pages subordinate to guidelines that do not actually address a deficiency; I haven't looked to see if there are past discussions. But let's say that's not the reason. What do you think the reason is? Differentiating between pages that do or do not address a deficiency? If so, why would that be useful?

  The crux of the issue is whether these pages can correctly be classified as supplements. I believe they can. But that discussion may be premature, since there is an RfC going on for one of them right now. But the argument is this: all of these pages do address a gap in a guideline. --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To address that framing, I'll leave aside the extent of vetting and restate as:

  • A 'Policy/Guideline' provides a globally applicable principle.
  • A 'Supplemental page' addresses a deficiency in globally applicable principle
  • A 'Consensus of summaries' addresses details specific to each context of implementation, e.g., is <x> an RS? The last is not reasonably viewed as a gap/deficiency/or any such missing element in a globally applicable principle but rather a customization to a specific class or instance.

  Re: "The crux of the issue is whether these pages can correctly be classified as supplements. I believe they can.” Imo, expanding supplements is a slippery slope.

  Re: "But the argument is this: all of these pages do address a gap in a guideline.” No they don’t. See above: Details for specific classes or instances are not policy/guideline-level gaps. Humanengr (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide some clarification on the line between what you describe as a globally applicable principle and a context of implementation? I understand you are asserting WP:RS/P is the latter. What is WP:PERENNIAL? WP:OUTCOMES?

  If there is consensus, a specific example can be added to a guideline, right? Why is its absence not therefore a gap? --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Good qqs, thx. Will respond later this week. Humanengr (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see now that your raising the issue of 'example' helps me better frame this, thx.

So, starting with your para 2, I don't see examples as filling a gap so much as serving as exemplars of a class to help clarify a policy/guideline. Exemplars are not problematic as long as they are non-controversial.

On that basis, I don't have a problem including non-controversial examples in WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES.

But that is different than presenting a compendium of members of a class, as is the case for WP:RS/P. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsherr, [Responding more fully:] The same holds for WP:EL/P or any other such compendium.

As policies/guidelines change more slowly than real-world entities, my view is we shouldn’t impose obstacles to recognizing those changes. Stamping compendia as ‘supplement’, in practice, imposes such a barrier.

So re gap: I now see, thx to your questions, that my concern is limited to use of compendia to fill ‘gaps’. Elaboration of detail in policies/guidelines via supplements — including those with non-controversial examplars — is fine; compendia are more varied and dynamic and thereby unsuitable for policy/guideline or supplement. Humanengr (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but that distinction does not currently exist in the definition of a supplement. Instead, you're really just carving it out, which isn't necessarily problematic, I just think it's wasteful for such a small number of pages. (2?) But we'll know what the RfC result is for Perennial Sources shortly, and I think that could be helpful in deciding how to move forward. --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and workshopping

I'm going to turn this into its own RFC to get more comments. Tamwin (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion, bringing over this form as provided by Tamwin customized for WP:RS/P

Humanengr (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Echoing Work Permit's remark here, I'll offer that for pages that are summaries of prior discussions, the other options listed there don't "seem to fit".

As for using {{Supplement}}, I don't see the purpose of any of the 4 candidate pages (WP:RS/P, WP:EL/P, WP:PERENNIAL, WP:OUTCOMES) as addressing a 'deficiency' in a policy or guideline. (See this extract from Template:Supplement#Current usage.)

As for wording, maybe there's a way to fold in Sunrise's use of the term 'existing consensus' — something like "It summarizes past discussions and existing consensus about …".

All 4 of the pages listed require customization:

* WP:EL/P: … about various websites editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia.

* WP:PERENNIAL: … about things that have been frequently proposed on Wikipedia and, to-date, rejected.

* WP:OUTCOMES: … about how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD.

WP:RS/P is the only one that links to specific discussions but all 4 cover a variety of cases — WP:EL/P and WP:PERENNIAL cover a variety of instances; WP:OUTCOMES, a variety of types. WP:PUS may be another candidate as it covers a variety of instances and types. All are reasonably considered 'lists' (small 'l'). Humanengr (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworking for generalization:

For WP:RS/P

WP:EL/P:

WP:PERENNIAL:

WP:OUTCOMES:

The ‘with links to discussions’ phrasing could be added to the latter 3 templates should such be added to the articles.

WP:PUS doesn’t quite fit the above wrt ‘consensus’. (“It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. … Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.”)

Humanengr (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred generalization looks like this:

I'm not set on the WP:CCC wording, but that's generally how I'd do it. Tamwin (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To explain: Work Permit introduced the ‘list’ term remarking re WP:EL/P that "what this page really is: A summary list of previous discussions.” I added the “with links to discussions” to highlight the value of that feature (as others have noted). (I see it also comports with mention in WP:CCC re linking to prior discussion.) It would currently be used only for WP:EL/P. Thoughts? I’m happy enough with your version — just wanted to make sure those points were given due consideration as that might be a feature profitably applied elsewhere. Humanengr (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr: Hmm. I can see your point, but that sounds wrong to me. Maybe the problem is that "summary" takes the place of "grocery" in the phrase "grocery list", but that's the place "consensus" takes as well. How about "list of consensus summaries"? Also, there's really no reason for the MOS link. Tamwin (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'List of existing consensuses'? so CCC is in the title. After seeing Newslinger's commentary in support proclaiming "'This is a summary of existing consensuses' template is extremely clear." I'll +1 that. Humanengr (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found another candidate: Wikipedia:Historic debates.

Also, @Tamwin and Newslinger: Would it help to have a table of candidate pages to which this might apply indicating what the page is about, current template, and notes on applicability of the new template, etc. -- maybe starting like

Maybe after that we could return to the issue of where it might best fit in the page Information and discussions section. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once and if this goes forward I will add to the information section a small metion of the template. And add proper links to the template.--Moxy (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy, Thanks! Humanengr (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​I've filled out the table above, but I'm not aware of any applicable pages other than the four that Tamwin mentioned. — Newslinger talk 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Newslinger. Re other pages — Wikipedia:Historic debates? Humanengr (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​I'm not as confident about Wikipedia:Historic debates, since it describes "large-scale disputes" and doesn't claim to explain the current consensuses on these topics. The last edit to this page was 2015 (aside from a category edit in 2017), and I'm afraid this page isn't being maintained. This page is also much less popular than ones in the table, with just 99 pageviews in the last 30 days (compared to 2,626 for WP:RSP, 471 for WP:ELP, 1,612 for WP:PERENNIAL, and 1,530 for WP:OUTCOMES). — Newslinger talk 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Blue Rasberry , were you thinking there should be a related small template that could be placed mid-page, e.g., by a commenter on a talk page to announce such a list? Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr: I am not sure. I expect that consensus summaries will typically start on talk pages but I am not sure if they should stay there. I wish there were a workflow where summaries could start as casual conversations, then more detailed conversations, then something like a case book of the sort on Wikimedia Commons. commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter is an example of short summaries which each began as longer talk page summaries. I like that these summaries are short and understandable. I less like that they do not like to previous conversations or the consensus discussion which elevated these to rules. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Following on from discussion above with Bsherr, it seems appropriate to use the template as proposed by Tamwin here for compilations of consensuses regarding external entities (e.g., sources, websites).

Only two of the pages in the table above fall into this category: WP:RSP and WP:ELP; the other two candidates, WP:PERENNIAL and WP:OUTCOMES are not such compilations.

Also, the issue of how to promote, facilitate, … links to discussions can and probably should be addressed separately. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template wording is problematic. "A summary of existing consensus" could very well be a definition of a guideline. If you are going to carve out this type of page, the template needs to better differentiate it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​The last line of the template explicitly states "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I think the wording is accurate. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]