| Revision as of 23:53, 6 June 2018 editSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,689 edits →Policy forks: more to the point← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:23, 30 June 2018 edit undoSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,689 edits →Process forks: new section with examplesNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| If you disagree with the wording or interpretation of any policy material (broadly defined), the appropriate process is to open a discussion on its talk page and seek consensus to change or clarify it. While an attempt to just ] change the content without prior discussion is ], there is a high likelihood that it will be ], because changes to these materials ]. | If you disagree with the wording or interpretation of any policy material (broadly defined), the appropriate process is to open a discussion on its talk page and seek consensus to change or clarify it. While an attempt to just ] change the content without prior discussion is ], there is a high likelihood that it will be ], because changes to these materials ]. | ||
| ==Process forks== | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:PROCFORK}} | |||
| Process-forking is generally a poor idea. ] (both as to benefits and costs), so a new process should not be created without a community consensus that there's a need for it. Unnecessary process is ]. No one is going to take it seriously if you create a "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Biochemistry" as a topical alternative to ]; it would be deleted quickly. Many wikiprojects have found that after creating an "/Assessment" or "/Peer review" process subpage that no one ever uses it; wait until there's sufficient editorial interest in running a ] process for it to be practical. Similarly, it is strongly discouraged to create a new wikiproject or taskforce/workgroup without a consensus at ] that it will be useful and will have sufficient participation. | |||
| '''Disruptive process-forking''': Creating a new process page in opposition to an established one will almost certainly be interpreted as ], and get quickly deleted. Wikiprojects are a form, or at least locus, of process. A bogus wikiproject set up as a "] farm" – to oppose a consensus, lobby for changes to policy, ] article content for a specific viewpoint, or any other activity ] and smooth operation, will be deleted ] at ]. | |||
| Some process forks can have {{em|incidentally disruptive}} effects – usually a result of ] with Misplaced Pages norms, procedures, and maintenance tools. An example is the creation of new (or modification of existing) ] classes, which breaks compatibility with various ], ], and ]. Another example is the creation of a wanna-be ] on a micro-topical basis; it is not within a wikiproject's scope or authority to set up a ] dispute resolution and sanctions venue to enforce its viewpoint on content matters. A similar example is the creation of a bogus pseudo-process inside a wikiproject to change ] to suit the preferences of the project participants, and bypass established ] process; one project trying this caused a tremendous amount of disruption over several years until a ] and an ] reversed them. | |||
| Remember that ] – including about how Misplaced Pages operates – absent a ] that the community accepts. | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 20:23, 30 June 2018
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut |
 | This page in a nutshell: The reasoning at WP:CONTENTFORK sometimes also applies to internal Misplaced Pages material. |
Discussion forks
ShortcutsDiscussions should not be forked to multiple talk pages, noticeboards, or other venues, but centralized in a single place. Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. Intentionally forking discussions may be interpreted as forum-shopping or canvassing.
It is sometimes useful to relocate a discussion to a more appropriate page; this is usually effectively done by posting a pointer to the new discussion from the old one, though if discussion continues in the original location, it may be appropriate to close it, for example with:
{{Discussion top|result= {{Moved discussion to|] }} }}, then a closing {{Discussion bottom}}.
When advertising a discussion to other talk pages, you can help prevent discussion forking at the locations of these notices by prefacing them with {{FYI|Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.}}, immediately after the section heading for the notice. It is also helpful to spell out the location of the discussion (e.g., "Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources#Sample topic.") rather than effectively hide it with a piped link (e.g., "here").
Exceptions
In most cases an open discussion is preferably kept at the place where it first began, with split-off discussions closed and retargetted to the oldest open discussion. However, in some of the exceptional cases described below it is also possible, depending on circumstances, that both old and new discussion are kept open concurrently, or that the older discussion is closed rather than the newer one. Examples:
- When a discussion moves from an article talk page to WP:DRN, the article talk topic is hardly ever formally closed;
- When a discussion moves from that noticeboard to another noticeboard, it is always the older DRN discussion that is closed in favour of the newer one.
An advice for closers of discussions is that it is in most cases best to not leave participants in a discussion guessing where to go next after a discussion has been closed, e.g. at WP:AE it is mostly indicated by the closing admin where and after how much time a decision can be appealed.
Content issue vs. behavioural issue
Some pages are not suitable to discuss behavioural issues (e.g. article talk pages, WP:DRN); Other pages are not suitable to discuss the content of a particular mainspace article (e.g. user talk pages, WP:ANI). If an issue of a different nature turns up in a discussion that by its nature is in the appropriate place, the former issue can be split off to an appropriate venue.
Escalation to a broader venue
If a local WP:CONSENSUS fails, and all parties in a discussion agree that nothing more can be expected to continue the discussion in that place, the discussion may be brought to a more appropriate, broader venue, e.g. whether or not information based on two sources can be included in an article can, if the discussion remains unresolved, be escalated to WP:RSN, or, if the content regards a living person, to WP:BLPN, etc.
Patently wrong venue
If a new discussion topic is opened in a venue where it doesn't belong (e.g. an issue regarding the biography of a 19th-century person at WP:BLPN), the topic may be closed and/or moved to a more appropriate venue. See also: {{Wrong venue}}
Policy forks
ShortcutIt is never constructive to attempt to create a new page or section of WP:POLICY-style material (at an existing or proposed policy, guideline, supplement, information page, wikiproject advice page, help/how-to page, or other material meant to provide advice to editors) that conflicts with or contradicts an existing one. Even one which is simply redundant will not be accepted, but merged or deleted, as retaining separate pages covering the same issue would inevitably lead to diverging advice and avoidable conflict between editors. The same concerns apply to modifying an existing page of this sort to conflict with another existing one. In particular, forking topic-specific guidance to conflict with site-wide norms is against the Consensus policy.
When summary style is applied to such material – e.g., with one narrow page summarizing the applicable guidance of another, broader one – the original page or section should be linked to from the summarizing one, and it may be appropriate to use a {{Main}} template atop the summarizing section to point to the original prominently.
If you disagree with the wording or interpretation of any policy material (broadly defined), the appropriate process is to open a discussion on its talk page and seek consensus to change or clarify it. While an attempt to just boldly change the content without prior discussion is not forbidden, there is a high likelihood that it will be reverted, because changes to these materials require an elevated level of care.
Process forks
ShortcutProcess-forking is generally a poor idea. Process is important (both as to benefits and costs), so a new process should not be created without a community consensus that there's a need for it. Unnecessary process is undesirable and counter-productive. No one is going to take it seriously if you create a "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Biochemistry" as a topical alternative to WP:AN/I; it would be deleted quickly. Many wikiprojects have found that after creating an "/Assessment" or "/Peer review" process subpage that no one ever uses it; wait until there's sufficient editorial interest in running a peer review process for it to be practical. Similarly, it is strongly discouraged to create a new wikiproject or taskforce/workgroup without a consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals that it will be useful and will have sufficient participation.
Disruptive process-forking: Creating a new process page in opposition to an established one will almost certainly be interpreted as disruptive, and get quickly deleted. Wikiprojects are a form, or at least locus, of process. A bogus wikiproject set up as a "canvassing farm" – to oppose a consensus, lobby for changes to policy, over-control article content for a specific viewpoint, or any other activity antithetical to Misplaced Pages goals and smooth operation, will be deleted with prejudice at WP:Miscellany for deletion.
Some process forks can have incidentally disruptive effects – usually a result of insufficient competence with Misplaced Pages norms, procedures, and maintenance tools. An example is the creation of new (or modification of existing) content assessment classes, which breaks compatibility with various templates, bots, and categories. Another example is the creation of a wanna-be noticeboard on a micro-topical basis; it is not within a wikiproject's scope or authority to set up a kangaroo court dispute resolution and sanctions venue to enforce its viewpoint on content matters. A similar example is the creation of a bogus pseudo-process inside a wikiproject to change article titles to suit the preferences of the project participants, and bypass established WP:Requested moves process; one project trying this caused a tremendous amount of disruption over several years until a move review and an RfC reversed them.
Remember that a "local consensus" among a small group of editors can't override site-wide consensus – including about how Misplaced Pages operates – absent a very good reason that the community accepts.
Categories: