SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) editors, please note |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Editors, please note''': |
|||
After four months of discussion at [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], editors have agreed on a means of merging [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] with [[Wikipedia:No original research]], while also streamlining [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] into a simpler FAQ. |
|||
There are no policy innovations suggested: when it goes live, [[WP:ATT]] will be a more cohesive version of the core content policies that the Wikipedia community is already familiar with. From February 16, 2006, [[WP:ATT]] will run concurrently with [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] as a policy for one week. During this period, it is hoped editors will familiarize themselves with the idea behind the merger. Suggesting policy innovations is not encouraged — the merge involves ensuring that [[WP:ATT]] matches [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] in tighter form. |
|||
One week after February 16, 2006, [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] will be redirected to [[WP:ATT]], barring serious objection, and the latter will become one of Wikipedia's two core content policies along with [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]. |
|||
'''The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.''' |
'''The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.''' |
||
Revision as of 00:45, 16 February 2007
Editors, please note:
After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ.
There are no policy innovations suggested: when it goes live, WP:ATT will be a more cohesive version of the core content policies that the Wikipedia community is already familiar with. From February 16, 2006, WP:ATT will run concurrently with WP:V and WP:NOR as a policy for one week. During this period, it is hoped editors will familiarize themselves with the idea behind the merger. Suggesting policy innovations is not encouraged — the merge involves ensuring that WP:ATT matches WP:V and WP:NOR in tighter form.
One week after February 16, 2006, WP:NOR and WP:V will be redirected to WP:ATT, barring serious objection, and the latter will become one of Wikipedia's two core content policies along with Neutral point of view.
The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.
Archives |
---|
Linking to essays
I wrote an essay pertaining to verifiability and original sources, which can be found at WP:NRSNVNA. Is the "see also" section an appropriate place to link to this essay? If not, where is? Thanks! - Chardish 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since I consider the first sentence to be flat-out wrong, I suggest not linking to it at all. An example of an article that contains no cited reliable sources and yet is acceptable is a list, especially when the items in the list are wikilinks to articles that do contain cited reliable sources. --Gerry Ashton 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- An list still requires sources - either those are in the list themselves or in the wikilinks to articles that have sources that explain why they're in the list. Unsourced lists are not aceeptable. Notability requirements aside, I can't create a list of "Politicians frequently seen wearing striped ties" without sources that would back up "Senator so-and-so always wears a striped tie." But this is beside the point, and outside the scope of this talk page. - Chardish 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Gerry, some editors believe that lists of that type should not be admitted to Wikipedia (cats are better) and it is of course policy that lists of foos should be completely sourced.Grace Note 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe that linking to an essay that propounds a theory that is far from having consensus (that unsourced articles should be deleted) from a policy page is an appropriate action. JulesH 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Succession boxes
I would like comments on [1]. Some of the forms of usage, I cannot verify and now I'm being told that we don't need verification of the forms as it's a matter of "Style". I cannot agree with that position and I'd like others to weigh in on the Talk board there about whether I'm right or wrong. Wjhonson 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Countering Analytical Propositions
I'm curious about how other members of the wikipedia community feel about a lack of citation for the last sentence of the following paragraph of a hypothetical article:
- The poll asked respondents whether they agree that people should exercise 5 minutes per day.[CITATION]. Based on 51% of respondents answering this question in the affirmative, the poll concluded that 51% of respondents agree that people should jog 5 minutes per day. [CITATION]. ABC organization criticizes this conclusion, arguing that not all people who agree with the need for five minutes of daily exercise agree that jogging is a good method of exercise. [CITATION]. Similarly, it is possible that more than 51% of respondents support daily exercise, as those who answered the poll question negatively might have done so because they believe more than 5 minutes of exercise is needed per day. [NO CITATION].
I believe that no citation is needed in the last sentence. See my reasoning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roe_v._Wade#JPerkins. Jperkins683 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The last sentence is a novel synthesis, and if not supported by a citation from a reliable source, is pure speculation, i.e., original research. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The last sentence is indeed speculation. --Gerry Ashton 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely needs a citation. Without a citation the last sentence is a inference based upon facts not in evidence. Cheers. L0b0t 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
three core content policies
The box (template) on the right has 5 content policies WP:NOT and WP:BLP in addition to the three agreed upon. I suggest either changing three to five in the text or editing the template so the three are somewhat seprated from the other two. The current 'three in text, five in the template' is confusing and needs to be fixed one way or another.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)