Template talk:Semipolicy
Please see Template talk:Notpolicy for general discussion of this group of templates
moved from user talk:UninvitedCompany:
Given our current methods of classifying policies, I believe we may need extra classification, or we may need to rethink it. "Official policy" is clear. "Semi-policy" is not, however - in this case, it refers to something that is commonly done but that is subject to substantial controversy (see RPA talk). In other cases, such as style guides, it is something that nearly everybody agrees to, but that doesn't sound 'official'. Similarly, "rejected" can refer to something that hasn't gathered consensus, OR to something that has gathered significant consensus opposed to it. Radiant_* 17:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to see widely accepted semi-policy pages be voted upon and moved to the "official policy" category. There are only a handful of these, like Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Profanity, Wikipedia:External links. There are some semi-policy pages that are really style guidelines and should be categorized as such, like Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Then, there are semi-policy pages that simply don't have widespread support, that should probably be moved to the thinktank or outright rejected. Wikipedia:Autobiography, for example, has never really enjoyed much support, and it's such a small part of the overall inclusion/deletion policy now that we probably ought to throw it in the dustbin. I say this even though I was one of its original proponents.
- The remaining semi-policy pages would then be those, like Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and Wikipedia:Sock puppet, where there isn't much agreement. Some people continue to remove personal attacks and some people claim it's not permitted, and that's unlikely to change. The pages are useful to contain the discussion of these issues in one place, and should remain, yet it's likely to be impossible to get much conesnsus on how they should be categorized. My suggestion is to leave them alone, and modify the template text to match their status after moving some of the other pages listed above to more appropriate categories.
- The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll add that perhaps we should have an "essay" category for things that are in the Wikipedia space that are really just the product of one or two editors. We have a lot of stuff floating around that has merit and is useful in elucidating the rationale for certain cases, but that isn't really policy and shouldn't be treated as such. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It does sound like a good idea. There should probably be a talk page on 'semi-policies to be promoted to full policies', stating that they will be promoted if there is no objection within, say, a week. If some people do seriously object then it should be turned into some kind of consensus-forming discussion. This, of course, only applies to those semi-pols that are nearly universally accepted, as per Uninv above. Radiant_* 18:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Template:Semipolicy page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Template:Semipolicy" page.
