Template talk:Guideline
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by AndreCarrotflower in topic Template discussion
Template discussion
[edit]I'm absolutely fine with this template. I would oppose deletion; however, it's okay if it stays experimental. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's a useful innovation.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like it should be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do oppose the revert which inserts the restriction making it more difficult to revise a guideline than to revise other pages on Wikivoyage. That's Wikipedia´s policy - where, as a high-volume edit wiki, they would not be receptive to someone making bold changes to something like their Manual of Style. Their call on their wiki, but we shouldn't be blindly pasting WP policy into WV. Otherwise, the template looked reasonable, but our policy Wikivoyage:Using Mediawiki templates does require {{experimental}} status on new imports of WP templates. We do seem to come down hard on n00bs who track templates into WV from WP, so we should be consistent on that point. K7L (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. We don't want people unilaterally making major changes to a guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- If we go as restrictive as WP on changing anything, these supposed "guidelines" end up just as inflexible as "policies" and become nothing more than policy by another name. I'm thinking one step ahead to what happens when this template is slapped onto every other page which says (or has reason to say) "this is a guideline". Statements like "'Can you sleep there' is a guideline. If some otherwise-reasonable division of territory leaves one district without a hotel, so be it." would be transformed from guidelines back into inflexible policy. For that matter, would we want that restriction on Wikivoyage:Words to avoid, the obvious example of a "this is a guideline" disclaimer in our existing documentation? WTA is just a list of examples of promotional language, which then points to at least ten other underlying policy or guideline documents. (It's not policy – if anything, it might fit better alongside the manual of style – but we need to be able to edit it freely). K7L (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I see it, there's nothing wrong with guidelines being inflexible like policies. The difference is that guidelines aren't a "rulebook" like policies are. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Once they're that inflexible, there is no difference between guidelines and policies. K7L (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- K7L, explain why you think something would prevent a person from making edits to details of WTA. I don't think so. But making wholesale changes, such as moving the words somewhere else and turning the article into a redirect, would require just the kinds of discussions currently underway on that article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- By putting this text, which is WP's policy, into this WV Mediawiki template, the ultimate result would be to place the restriction "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." onto any page marked as a {{guideline}}. That affects far more than the one page currently using this template. It makes every guideline harder to change - even ones like the recommended image size for photos used on "Wikivoyage Press" (which is fictional, but still in our project: docs somewhere). On something that supposedly isn't policy, do we need this harsh restriction and not something more moderate, like bold, revert, discuss? If a change is controversial, then put it through that process, but don't cast in stone something like the revision deletions which are not policy (and, at this point, appear to be merely an experiment of unproven worth). K7L (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Let's discuss that on Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition, because it applies specifically to that article. I don't think any other article currrently has this template on it, correct? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Um, the whole point of removing the {{experimental}} tag is to say that this template is accepted for widespread use on other pages, instead of merely being reserved to one (or a handful of) page(s) as a test. K7L (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Um yourself! Where else is it currently being used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, if the point is that as an experimental template, it can't be used in more than one article yet, which articles do you object to placing it on, other than words to avoid? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Strange. It seems that the above comment by K7L was (and probably now will be) the last comment (s)he ever made. (S)He was very active but in the last few months hasn't edited at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I hope he's OK. Maybe we'll see him again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Strange. It seems that the above comment by K7L was (and probably now will be) the last comment (s)he ever made. (S)He was very active but in the last few months hasn't edited at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if the point is that as an experimental template, it can't be used in more than one article yet, which articles do you object to placing it on, other than words to avoid? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Um yourself! Where else is it currently being used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Um, the whole point of removing the {{experimental}} tag is to say that this template is accepted for widespread use on other pages, instead of merely being reserved to one (or a handful of) page(s) as a test. K7L (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Let's discuss that on Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition, because it applies specifically to that article. I don't think any other article currrently has this template on it, correct? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- By putting this text, which is WP's policy, into this WV Mediawiki template, the ultimate result would be to place the restriction "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." onto any page marked as a {{guideline}}. That affects far more than the one page currently using this template. It makes every guideline harder to change - even ones like the recommended image size for photos used on "Wikivoyage Press" (which is fictional, but still in our project: docs somewhere). On something that supposedly isn't policy, do we need this harsh restriction and not something more moderate, like bold, revert, discuss? If a change is controversial, then put it through that process, but don't cast in stone something like the revision deletions which are not policy (and, at this point, appear to be merely an experiment of unproven worth). K7L (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- K7L, explain why you think something would prevent a person from making edits to details of WTA. I don't think so. But making wholesale changes, such as moving the words somewhere else and turning the article into a redirect, would require just the kinds of discussions currently underway on that article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Once they're that inflexible, there is no difference between guidelines and policies. K7L (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I see it, there's nothing wrong with guidelines being inflexible like policies. The difference is that guidelines aren't a "rulebook" like policies are. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- If we go as restrictive as WP on changing anything, these supposed "guidelines" end up just as inflexible as "policies" and become nothing more than policy by another name. I'm thinking one step ahead to what happens when this template is slapped onto every other page which says (or has reason to say) "this is a guideline". Statements like "'Can you sleep there' is a guideline. If some otherwise-reasonable division of territory leaves one district without a hotel, so be it." would be transformed from guidelines back into inflexible policy. For that matter, would we want that restriction on Wikivoyage:Words to avoid, the obvious example of a "this is a guideline" disclaimer in our existing documentation? WTA is just a list of examples of promotional language, which then points to at least ten other underlying policy or guideline documents. (It's not policy – if anything, it might fit better alongside the manual of style – but we need to be able to edit it freely). K7L (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. We don't want people unilaterally making major changes to a guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do oppose the revert which inserts the restriction making it more difficult to revise a guideline than to revise other pages on Wikivoyage. That's Wikipedia´s policy - where, as a high-volume edit wiki, they would not be receptive to someone making bold changes to something like their Manual of Style. Their call on their wiki, but we shouldn't be blindly pasting WP policy into WV. Otherwise, the template looked reasonable, but our policy Wikivoyage:Using Mediawiki templates does require {{experimental}} status on new imports of WP templates. We do seem to come down hard on n00bs who track templates into WV from WP, so we should be consistent on that point. K7L (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like it should be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It's unfortunate really that these people disappear permanently and, in this case, I didn't actually realize the fact that K7L was not around until months later. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let's be honest: There are things that could cause any of us to disappear without notice. And I can think of at least one admin who did. User:Dguillaume was a mentor to me and did really great work. And then, suddenly, he dropped out of sight, never to resurface. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember K7L himself mentioning a user (User:Country Wife) who edited the Calgary article who, to quote K7L's words, "rode off into the sunset..." Sickness, death, personal issues, family, etc. make such a situation where one leaves without warning quite likely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that Country Wife was simply satisfied with the work she did and didn't feel motivated to do more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, on the scale of Wikivoyagers who've gone inactive and then come back again later, a couple of months isn't really that long of a time. Ypsilon, Andrewssi2, Jan, and others have all taken sabbaticals of similar or greater length. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to think that Country Wife was simply satisfied with the work she did and didn't feel motivated to do more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember K7L himself mentioning a user (User:Country Wife) who edited the Calgary article who, to quote K7L's words, "rode off into the sunset..." Sickness, death, personal issues, family, etc. make such a situation where one leaves without warning quite likely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)