Is this intended to be an all-inclusive list of policies? If so, where are all the rest? If not, what selection criteria are being used to create the list? Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a summary of policies, its the ones lubaf and I talked about on IRC (while we can add more remove some). These ones are the more notable policies which newbies should learn first. If we put everything newbies will not bother reading anything. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that we jettison all the images. They ridicule the policies and make it even less likely that the new users will take them seriously. The images distract from the template and from the point of the policies. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I modifed the images abit how do they look? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that all the images must go. Then the template can be narrowed somewhat (perhaps by having the top text on two lines, since that's the only part that's the full width). Right now this very much dominates the page, which is not good. -- SCZenz 05:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The images simply don't look good. I don't know what the hell that thing is at the top, and the guy "biting" the "newcomer" is just silly. Jettison the images unless you can come up with one for each category that really captures the idea behind it, and make them all look thematically the same. android79 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about now? Thanks to david gerards restructure now it is much much better. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an inherently bad idea IMO - the byzantine rainforest of policies and guidelines is ridiculous at the moment - but the current version is way too big. The selection and ordering of policies could do with work. I will try to find time to have a hack at it later today - David Gerard 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've made the text smaller, and I noticed it basically divides into two aspects: 1. Article writing and 2. Working with others. So I've shuffled the two about.

I asked my wife "What would you think if you were a newbie and saw this?" and she said "I'd give up, it looks like too much." Um. So it's QUITE IMPORTANT to make this not intimidating. Hence commenting out "No legal threats" - and anyway, I don't think anyone who would make a legal threat to get their way would pay any attention to it. I put NOR as a subclause of Verifiability for the same reason, to show that's what we mean by NOR.

Further hacking is probably a good idea - David Gerard 13:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I really want to keep the images to make it interesting. It wouldn't catch adequate newbie attention otherwise. We can make the images smaller or place it so that it doesnt make the table any larger. Snowspinner seems to have removed them . :/ --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it can live without them myself. Mind you, I like the books one - that's appropriate for the article-writing section and puts across the right idea about it. What's a good pic for working with others? (My first thought is something like the Ubuntu Linux "diversity" photos.) - David Gerard 14:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the book one is nice. I also like the winged one (since it can mean a number of policies if you really care to symbolise ie its a complicated enough symbol). The "dont bite newbies" image can go it was there as a place holder, Ill try something... tell me if you like :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The winged one communicates no inherent meaning. Phil Sandifer 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm... what exactly is the winged one supposed to be? An angel? The books one actually looks nice but it's too big - perhaps if we shrink it down? Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've shrunk down the books one to 120 px and removed the winged one - it looks a lot nicer now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a spesific reason why the winged logo bothers anyone? The image has NO meaning, in a sense that it is not a religious symbol. It is not a governmental logo. It is not some sort of wierd cultural thing. Its an ambigious symbol. All of these are philosophical concepts which need symbolism to be "pictured", I believe the symbolism is necesary. I propose it represent the folowing policies.

• Wings: Assume good faith
  1. White wings/white in many cultures represent all thats good.
  2. Angels have white wings for instance.
  3. Symbol of peace is white winged pigeons.
  4. White flag is the the only way to end a war (it actually is not a "surrender flag" but a truce flag which generaly leads to surreder of a side).
  5. I cannot think of a symbol beter representing the AGF philosophy.
• The golden ring on the right: Civility
  • AGF does not work if not surrounded by a level of civility
• The golden ring on the left: Etiquette
  • AGF does not work if not surrounded by a level of etiquette
• Central ring: Resolving disputes
  • Core of everything, when there exists at least two people there will eventualy be disagrements and properly resoving them makes wikipedia run or else you have degraded revert wars etc.
• The purple ring on the right: Don't bite the newcomers
  • What not to do (mind the non golden color)
• The purple ring on the left: No personal attacks
  • What not to do (mind the non golden color)

Since it is an ambigious symbol one can interprete something completely diferent. This is one way to look at it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a big fan of ambiguity, symbolism, and art. However, I don't think that an introduction to basic policy is the place for it. The symbol needs to clearly communicate to a novice user. Phil Sandifer 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

On the countrary one can quote the image to a newbie forgetting something rather than telling him he is commiting personal attacks (some people act defensively when prompted as such) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is more "exciting" to paste an image tha a link to a policy page. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting the books at the top like that is intimidatory in itself - it looks like "LOTS OF SCARY SHIT HERE, FAR TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO READ." When we know that's actually the MoS. - David Gerard 18:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone scared of books wouldnt be on an encyclopedia in my POV. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I dont mind either way. So long as the wing image stays :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a point on books ;-) However, I think something like a pen on paper would be good. A niiice fountain pen. I'll see what I can put together ... The wing image doesn't appear to say anything - there must be some symbol of community that's obvious - David Gerard 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I just showed the winged logo to my wife:

"What does that logo say to you?"

"Nothing ... what's it supposed to mean?"

"Community, and assuming good faith."

"*splutter* Um, no!"

Oh dear ... - David Gerard 20:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't get the table syntax right, but I really like Image:Olowki RB.jpg for the article part - David Gerard 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Leave the wings off. It looks like something you might find on an Aerosmith album cover; it's not suggestive of anything community-related. android79 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah... I am bailing out. You guys handle the template. This is just too stressfull. Please remind me next time never to suggest things. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 :-( - David Gerard 23:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Locke Cole wrote, in an edit summary, responding to a line of mine:

by padding I assume you meant margin? (padding is internal, margin is external)

Yes, you're right. Thank you for your help. The template is no longer either butt ugly, or buggy. (Posted here because it is of interest to everyone interested in this template.) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. =) —Locke Cole 09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this page from the template. This page is most certainly not a policy page, despite the lone author's claim that Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions is a corollary to WP:NPOV. Even if it were a corollary, it is still not policy.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I added * Work towards consensus under Working with others. I can't believe it wasn't there already. Lambiam^Talk 16:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On Firefox 1.5.0.3, each link is way too close to the ones above and below it. It looks pretty bad. Can someone who knows what they're doing try and increase the between-lines spacing? Thanks! drseudo (t) 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO you should do this, I've no clue what your problem is. For starters I've removed cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 and some CSS about padding, but not all, because if there's a general problem from your POV it affects all templates in the category. -- Omniplex 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is solved by removing the line-height: styles. I don't have access to any popular browser other than Firefox at the moment so I have no idea if it will look sensible in e.g. Internet Explorer - someone else will have to verify this. Hairy Dude 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've decided to be bold and do it anyway. Hairy Dude 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For a discussion about the edit link see the Template:Tnavbar(edit talk links history) talk page. For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line breaks see the Category:Maintenance navigation(edit talk links history) talk page, it's more or less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates. -- Omniplex 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to add active guidelines to the list - or at least a link to a main guidelines page that *does* have a list. Actually I think this list could also be made more prominant, as I've been to the policy pages (NPOV, NOT, etc) many times, but have actually never noticed the list on the side! Fresheneesz 06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This template is about official policies. I'd like to add WP:BB or WP:SNOW to the list, but they are apparently no official policies at the moment. -- Omniplex 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of guidelines? Fresheneesz 07:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the policy list WP:LOP the "See also" offers Wikipedia:List of guidelines, a very new page, they asked for help to create it some days ago (I forgot where I saw it). -- Omniplex 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I made these edits recently, and they were reverted (along with about 30 other of my edits) by Centrx. He feels that this template is exclusively for the most prominant minority of the polices - while I think this template should at least give a link to the rest of them. In my edit, I also added a very small link to the 5 pillars, which are founding properties of all policy. Comments anyone? Fresheneesz 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already a link to the full policy list, just a little bit implicit. Doing separate could be fine—though I don't see why it would be necessary—but it clutters the template. The thing about the Five pillars is that it seems too basic for this template, which is helpful to editors who already know what Wikipedia basically is. It is used mostly in userspace; it is used in a couple of dispute resolution pages; I have used it in article Talk pages where appropriate; it is used in some relevant policy pages. Adding a link to Five pillars would be fine, adding a link to everything would be fine, but it clutters the template for little use. —Centrx→talk • 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Centrx. This template already has a determined use, and is as simple as is appropriate. --Quiddity 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, well two extra lines aren't very much "clutter", and I would argue that the Five Pillars are very important, yet are not very visible. New editors come across policy and guidelines far more often than they come across the five pillars. However, you're right that it isn't directly related.

However, I do urge the explicit link to the list of *42* policies, since this template is labeled as a "Policy list", it just seems appropriate that people at least know that there are more than the 11 policies listed. Why exactly would someone click on the header "Wikipedia Policies" ? I would look down the list for something more specific to what i'm looking for. If it isn't there I have assumed that it isn't anywhere. Thats why I'm adement about the explicity. Fresheneesz 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to say there are "42". If anything that would discourage them from learning more ("You mean there are 42 policies I have to read!?") Keep in mind that any editor making legitimate, intelligent contributions to the encyclopedia has no need whatsoever to read Wikipedia policies. There is no reason to lasso them into the policy morass, they are really just fine by themselves. I don't understand why you want to have these navigation templates? —Centrx→talk • 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just my $.2, but WP:5P is not policy, but rather an essay that explains (well, enumerates) the basic policies, aimed at new users. >Radiant< 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The 5 pillars aren't "policy", but neither are they just an essay. They are the core principles of wikipedia, and all policy stems from them.

I disagree that "any editor making .. intelligent contributions .. has no need .. to read .. policies". If an editor wants to defend his work, and know how to contribute in a way that isn't against policy - that editor is going to have to read policy. Policy is a tool, not a burden. Fresheneesz 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Er, no. WP:5P was written in 2005, several years after the core principles were formulated. >Radiant< 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter when that page was written. Those pillars have been around in spirit since the creation of wikipedia - and that is reflected on its page. Fresheneesz 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a retcon. At any rate, there are some pages similar to 5P with different amounts of "pillars" and different amounts of usage; none of those actually are policy. The founding policies started roughly with: IAR, don't write complete pages, don't use bias or tech talk, WINAD and PN. >Radiant< 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that we label this template as "Core Policies" or "Main policies" or something to that effect, to get across that these aren't the only polices wikipedia has. Fresheneesz 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not too happy with that name - it implies that these policies are more important than other policies. >Radiant< 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I sorta get the feeling that thats how people view the policies on this template. Fresheneesz 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're not happy with my suggestion, then suggest your own, would you? Fresheneesz 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced this needs renaming. These seem to be basic editing policies, as an aid to new users, although for that purpose, V and CITE are kind of redundant, as are CIV, FAITH, NPA and ETIQ. >Radiant< 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If they're basic editing policies, why not label them as such? Like I said, I thought these were the only policies for a long time - and if this template is for newcomers - it might mislead them too. Fresheneesz 01:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

These policies are more important for common editors simply editing articles and discussing on the talk page. Any rather normal editor doesn't need to know much more than these policies. If they start posting copyrighted material or ask about vandalism problems, someone will readily point them to Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Protection policy, but the vast majority of editors know they shouldn't post copyrighted material or post penis jokes, and most of the "other" policies are more policies about Wikipedia procedures that don't affect anyone editing an article. —Centrx→talk • 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tim, BLP is a key policy, one of WP's most important. It has been on this list since July 2006. You are trying to remove it, and an objection has been raised to that. Therefore, please do not continue to revert as though there has been no objection. You need to gain consensus for the change here before removing it again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:BLP is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, especially when placed with WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR. It doesn't even apply to a large percent of articles on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia:Copyrights isn't even included. But of course I couldn't get away with this without some automatic BLP enthusiast. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slimvirgin's statement about obtaining consensus before making a change to a longstanding precedent is very true. Also BLP is one of our most important policies. Please read it through (including all the quotes from Jimmy Wales and Arbcom, and notice the BLP noticeboard, and past legal issues it arised to cover) before replying to this thread any further.

(Also, Slimvirgin is a well-respected 3-year admin, and can generally be trusted. Plus, ending your comment with a denigrating remark is highly counterproductive - Positive statements are more likely to generate change, negative statements are only likely to create defensiveness and disrespect.)

To partially-answer your query about Wikipedia:Copyrights: I believe it is more of a Foundation issue, and hence is more fundamental than policy.

Thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that BLP is one of Wikipedia's most important policies, especially when compared to the core policies WP:V...etc. First, it doesn't even apply to the majority of articles on Wikipedia. Whether or not SlimVirgin has been an administrator for three years, or is well-respected is completely irrelevant. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, it's just a matter of fact that BLP is one of our most important policies. We have lots of articles that aren't quite neutral, or aren't full sourced, or may contain OR, and it's hoped that these will be fixed in the fullness of time. But any article that violates BLP has to be fixed immediately, or deleted if it can't be fixed.

I take your point that BLP depends to a large extent on NPOV, V, and NOR, and it used to be nothing more than a reminder to follow those policies very closely, but it has evolved to include more than the advice already in those policies. As for your point that it doesn't cover all articles, that's true, but it does cover a very large number, because it extends to any material about a living person on any page, including talk pages, not only in biographies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed BLP is important, but in reality it is just a subpolicy of NPOV. -Stevertigo 08:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits, were reverted by Slim. She gave the reason for the revert simply as "was better". I respect the fact that she has the capacity to form opinions of this kind, and in case anyone is interested, my favorite color is blue. A more substantive or responsive reason would be nice. - Stevertigo 08:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Processes is not a policy (it looks like you wrote the whole thing today), neither are WP:FIVE or WP:ENC. It doesn't make sense to add them to a template called "Policy list". It's as simple as that, and nonsensical edits do not generally elicit a substantive response... (Sarcasm doesn't increase the chance either) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The MOS template has a "Search the MOS" feature, which is very handy. Is it possible to add this to the Guidelines? ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

''123HHcomAlex'' 45.225.195.195 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The template links to the Principles page which, as a newcomer, I unfortunately find rather confusing and not providing much insight. I have left a more verbose description of my concerns on the corresponding talk page. Depending on the appropriate course of action, the link should be removed or replaced. I appreciate any feedback or guidance on how to proceed. CSMProject (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)