Revision as of 17:37, 25 January 2007 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →My changes← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:24, 26 January 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits →My changes: only a meta-argumentNext edit → | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
***I'd agree with that statement if it were a language-specific page being moved to meta, but not vice-versa. Pages on Meta should theoretically apply to all Wikipedias, including en. I'm not sure how its origin on Meta somehow makes it less applicable to the English Misplaced Pages. Out of curiosity, if the page had been here on en since 2004, would that make a difference? ] 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ***I'd agree with that statement if it were a language-specific page being moved to meta, but not vice-versa. Pages on Meta should theoretically apply to all Wikipedias, including en. I'm not sure how its origin on Meta somehow makes it less applicable to the English Misplaced Pages. Out of curiosity, if the page had been here on en since 2004, would that make a difference? ] 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
****Yes, it would. It would have had years of experience specific to this project, and have wider support than what's indicated here. Many of the points brought up back in December have either failed to be addressed or outright ignored, and no efforts have been made to gain consensus for this to be a guideline here. --] <small>]</small> 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ****Yes, it would. It would have had years of experience specific to this project, and have wider support than what's indicated here. Many of the points brought up back in December have either failed to be addressed or outright ignored, and no efforts have been made to gain consensus for this to be a guideline here. --] <small>]</small> 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
*****That is incorrect. Since it came from Meta it definitely applies to the English Misplaced Pages. There was a brief discussion last year about whether people actually agree to this principle, and the response was that yes, they were. Unless you are able to find people who think instruction creep is a good thing? ] 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Dear BadlyRaddrawniantjeff!, | Dear BadlyRaddrawniantjeff!, | ||
Line 174: | Line 175: | ||
--] 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | --] 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
*I'd like to hear an actual argument against this guideline; so far the only thing we have is meta-arguments. Is there anyone here who thinks instruction creep is good? If not, what exactly are we talking about? At any rate, this is not a ''proposal'', for that term implies it would be something new, when in fact this page has been here for a long time. ] 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:24, 26 January 2007
Would it be okay to redirect this page to Misplaced Pages:Instruction creep, or vice versa? --Folajimi 10:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Original text is from m:Instruction creep, which has been around since July 2004. Davodd 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Avoid instruction creep...an example of instruction creep?
Page Title: "Avoid instruction creep" From the top of the page:"This page is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process." Further down: "All new policies should be regarded as instruction creep until firmly proven otherwise."
So... Isn't this page an example of itself? Isn't it just saying, "Gee, there are getting to be too many stupid rules, processes, and procedures here on Misplaced Pages...It would be better if everyone were supposed to avoid making new rules. I know! I'll propose a new rule that says no more new rules!!! Yeah!!! That'll work!!!" 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is an irony, yes. But this is not a new concept in wiki . Davodd 17:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Avoid instruction creep has been a catch-phrase for a while. Personally, I think this should just be an essay. That would avoid the irony. -- Donald Albury 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians who have used "instruction creep"
- for the full list, see: Search: "Instruction Creep"
The following editors have referenced instruction creep during discussions on Misplaced Pages. (This list is not meant as an implied endorsement, just as an example of the wide use of this wiki policy.):
- User:Angela - Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/13
- User:Arbor - Template talk:AYref
- User:Bkonrad - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of disambiguation types
- User:Cryptic - Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/P1-A, ]
- User:Danny - Misplaced Pages:Wikirules proposal
- User:Davodd - Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles/Nominations
- User:Deathphoenix - Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_6
- User:DESiegel - Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/P1-A
- User:Fenice - Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation
- User:Fubar Obfusco - Misplaced Pages:Deletion reform/Proposals/Butt simple
- User:Jdforrester - Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:No infobox standardization
- User:Johnleemk - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signature Poll, Template talk:AfD in 3 steps
- User:Lar - Template talk:AfD in 3 steps
- User:Michael Snow - Misplaced Pages:Wikirules proposal
- User:Netoholic - Template talk:Wikiquotepar, Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:No infobox standardization, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Spencer195
- User:Phil Boswell - Template talk:Indefblockeduser
- User:Phroziac - Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_6
- User:Radiant! - Misplaced Pages:Bible_verses/Survey, ], Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:No infobox standardization, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Morbidity
- User:Raul654 - Template talk:FAC-instructions
- User:RHaworth - Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Template log
- User:Scimitar - Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1-B
- User:Seth Ilys - Misplaced Pages:Userspace policy proposal
- User:Shell Kinney - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disambiguation (disambiguation)
- User:Silsor - Misplaced Pages:Userspace policy proposal
- User:Sjorford - Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:No infobox standardization
- User:Spencer195 - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Spencer195
- User:SPUI - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Votes for disambiguation
- User:Steve block - Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Template log
- User:Superm401 - Template talk:Mirror
- User:Tony Sidaway - Misplaced Pages:Userspace policy proposal
- User:Tony1 - Template talk:FAC-instructions
- User:TShilo12 - Misplaced Pages:Account suspensions/Witkacy
- User:Uppland - Misplaced Pages:Bible verses/Survey
- User:Wangi - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Root page
- User:Xoloz - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signature Poll
- User:ZayZayEM - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Votes for disambiguation
Wikipage inclusion
- Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z
- Misplaced Pages:Directory#Bureaucracy
- Misplaced Pages:Infobox standardisation
- Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-06-13/Features, removal, admins
- Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-07-11/Speedy deletion changes proposed
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Policy matters
- Misplaced Pages:Tip of the day/June 17, 2006
Suggest change to essay
I suggest this be changed to an essay, as it doesn't actually recommend any particular course of action or create any new requirements. It rather provides a viewpoint. Deco 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ayup! -- Donald Albury 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Clarity
I think I get the second paragraph, but even on multiple rereadings I can't decipher this sentence:
- What's more, many bureaucracies also arise with the deliberate intent, as alternatives to regulations; this is almost always noticed by the other side, and tends to antagonize.
Can anyone clarify? ENeville 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Example?
This page could use a general example of the practice it's referring to. Do people post "do not edit this article except in the following ways" messages on article talk pages? That's my best guess at what this is referring to, but I'm not really sure. --Masamage 08:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this a guideline?
So, is this a guideline or considered as a guideline or a proposed guideline? Based on the discussion so far I don't see consensus, and you can count me out too. I agree that it sounds more like an essay. -- Steve Hart 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The page originates from meta (m:instruction creep), was written in 2004 and has been a guiding principle since before it was written. There appears to be some confusion here about what a guideline is (see WP:POL) and how they are made (see WP:PPP). Specifically, Steve seems to allude that there is a formal process that needs to be followed to make a guideline - but we do not in fact have such a process. We should ask ourselves whether this page is (1) actionable and (2) consensual. The first is obvious, as it specifies a course of action. The second is visible all over the wiki where we, indeed, avoid instruction creep. Note that the talk page lists a total of 43 users who concur. The counterquestion is, can you find me anyone who thinks we should use instruction creep, or bureaucratic instructions for the sake of covering every possible angle? "It sounds like an essay" doesn't really mean anything. (Radiant) 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Instruction creep" is too vague a terminology to possibly be of any use as a guideline, and if it is indeed a guideline, we need to start rolling back policies that have been "creeping" by some measure. This should not be considered a guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's akin to saying we should remove WP:CIV because some people have been uncivil. Please point out policies that have been "creeping". (Radiant) 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not analogous at all. We want to avoid incivility, but we've shown no record of actually wanting to reduce so-called "instruction creep" as a community. Our CSD, AIV, DRV pages have all "suffered" from instruction creep relatively recently, and all for the better. If we "avoided" it, we'd be worse off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to misunderstand what "instruction creep" is. It is not simply the writing of instructions; it is the writing of instructions that are needlessly complex, overly bureaucratic, or that solve no actual problem. An example of instruction creep would be anything written in legalese. (Radiant) 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Given your definition, I actually understand it perfectly well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then please do point out what parts of CSD, AIV and/or DRV were recently added that are needlessly copmlex, overly bureaucratic, or that solve no actual problem, and please explain why you consider this to be "for the better". (Radiant) 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest looking at the actual policies and seeing how they've evolved. I'm not going to spend the next 30 minutes mapping out every complex, bureaucratic, useless change to these policies, or point out the "creepy" changes that actually improved them. They're plain as day on the policies. The necessity for this to be a guideline is nonexistent, and there's no consensus to make it as such, nor has an effort been made to get consensus for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of how those policies evolved, and I note that about a week ago I had to inform you of a monht-old change in DRV that you were unaware of. So it would seem that you're merely handwaving. The long list of users above is a good indication of the consensus behind the principle here, as are the age of this page and the length of time it stood undisputed, and even you appear to be in agreement that changes that are bureaucratic or legalistic are to be avoided. It's a simple corollary of WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and has proven a useful meme. (Radiant) 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- So you're aware of how they evolved, and yet accuse me of handwaving. There's no consensus for this to be a guideline, and you've done nothing to demonstrate it. A meta page isn't much of an indication of anything, and practice demonstrates otherwise. No need to make such grand accusations when you certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alleging to something and then, when asked for specifics, refusing to provide any and stating it speaks for itself, is handwaving. That's not a grand accusation, that's a simple statement of fact. (Radiant) 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then, please, stop handwaving and begin demonstrating where the consensus is and how WP:CREEP is common practice. I've given you specifics on three policies/guidelines/processes that have encountered creep recently, simple statement of fact. So where's your consensus? Where's the common practice in regards to policy and process? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Because I said so" isn't a "simple statement of fact" no matter how many times you rephrase. You could try offering, I dunno, actual simple statements of facts, instead. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Already have, so thanks for playing! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Because I said so" isn't a "simple statement of fact" no matter how many times you rephrase. You could try offering, I dunno, actual simple statements of facts, instead. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then, please, stop handwaving and begin demonstrating where the consensus is and how WP:CREEP is common practice. I've given you specifics on three policies/guidelines/processes that have encountered creep recently, simple statement of fact. So where's your consensus? Where's the common practice in regards to policy and process? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alleging to something and then, when asked for specifics, refusing to provide any and stating it speaks for itself, is handwaving. That's not a grand accusation, that's a simple statement of fact. (Radiant) 14:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- So you're aware of how they evolved, and yet accuse me of handwaving. There's no consensus for this to be a guideline, and you've done nothing to demonstrate it. A meta page isn't much of an indication of anything, and practice demonstrates otherwise. No need to make such grand accusations when you certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am fully aware of how those policies evolved, and I note that about a week ago I had to inform you of a monht-old change in DRV that you were unaware of. So it would seem that you're merely handwaving. The long list of users above is a good indication of the consensus behind the principle here, as are the age of this page and the length of time it stood undisputed, and even you appear to be in agreement that changes that are bureaucratic or legalistic are to be avoided. It's a simple corollary of WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and has proven a useful meme. (Radiant) 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest looking at the actual policies and seeing how they've evolved. I'm not going to spend the next 30 minutes mapping out every complex, bureaucratic, useless change to these policies, or point out the "creepy" changes that actually improved them. They're plain as day on the policies. The necessity for this to be a guideline is nonexistent, and there's no consensus to make it as such, nor has an effort been made to get consensus for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then please do point out what parts of CSD, AIV and/or DRV were recently added that are needlessly copmlex, overly bureaucratic, or that solve no actual problem, and please explain why you consider this to be "for the better". (Radiant) 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Given your definition, I actually understand it perfectly well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You appear to misunderstand what "instruction creep" is. It is not simply the writing of instructions; it is the writing of instructions that are needlessly complex, overly bureaucratic, or that solve no actual problem. An example of instruction creep would be anything written in legalese. (Radiant) 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not analogous at all. We want to avoid incivility, but we've shown no record of actually wanting to reduce so-called "instruction creep" as a community. Our CSD, AIV, DRV pages have all "suffered" from instruction creep relatively recently, and all for the better. If we "avoided" it, we'd be worse off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's akin to saying we should remove WP:CIV because some people have been uncivil. Please point out policies that have been "creeping". (Radiant) 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Instruction creep" is too vague a terminology to possibly be of any use as a guideline, and if it is indeed a guideline, we need to start rolling back policies that have been "creeping" by some measure. This should not be considered a guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't given any specifics. (Radiant) 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure I have. I've directed you to the histories of three policies/guidelines/processes. Choose your own adventure. Meanwhile, you've made a series of claims that this is widely linked (false), that avoiding creep is common practice (false), that you have consensus (not evident), and made false claims about my own opinions on the matter. So let's get some fixes from you first before you continue with your line of reasoning, eh? I'll keep this watchlisted and wait patiently for them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your assumptions are incorrect - Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep makes it clear that this is widely linked, as well as common practice. (Radiant) 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Less than 50 incoming isn't "Widely linked" at all, and actual practice at the policy pages demonstrates otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your assumptions are incorrect - Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep makes it clear that this is widely linked, as well as common practice. (Radiant) 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure I have. I've directed you to the histories of three policies/guidelines/processes. Choose your own adventure. Meanwhile, you've made a series of claims that this is widely linked (false), that avoiding creep is common practice (false), that you have consensus (not evident), and made false claims about my own opinions on the matter. So let's get some fixes from you first before you continue with your line of reasoning, eh? I'll keep this watchlisted and wait patiently for them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Demoted to "proposed" status until there is wider support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, though I think the proposed guideline gets misused, I think it is an important point and should be a guideline. Let's rewrite it though, and add examples... Carcharoth 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see some discussion. My concern is both how this became a guideline despite little discussion and no consensus (as I outlined on Village Pump) and the language of the current version. I find it (as I wrote on VP) unspecified and sort of saying that our policies and guidelines aren't that important. I know I can't support this in its current form. I think the problem with Misplaced Pages procedures has more to do with language, that is, if you can actually find what you need in the first place. But the answer isn't, in my opinion, fewer procedures first and foremost, but simpler and more open-ended ones. -- Steve Hart 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Carcharoth. I do think the core principle is a good one, and there should be something here that's a guideline. However, the current writeup does seem a bit essay-ish ("insidious disease", "tends to antagonize others", etc.). Also per Carcharoth's and Badlydrawnjeff's comments, if the principle is being overused, if editors are misinterpreting "simplification is good" as anything remotely like "simplification trumps substantial improvements to policy", then the writeup should try to head off this misuse. --Interiot 20:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Examples of what is and is not instruction creep
OK. Here are some examples, that will hopefully avoid the silly back-and-forth that Radiant and Jeff got involved in above! Please add your own, and discuss below. Carcharoth 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph from WP:CSD
The above diff introduces one set of edits and reverts on a particular paragraph at CSD. Here are three different versions of that paragraph:
- (1)"Note that administrators should always verify the legitimacy of a speedy deletion candidate before taking action. It is the administrator's responsibility to make sure that speedy deletion tags are accurate." (version before 13/10/2006)
- (2) "Note that administrators should always verify the legitimacy of a speedy deletion candidate before taking action. Verification methods include: reading the page, the talk page (if any), the page history, the page log and checking 'What links here'. It is the administrator's responsibility to make sure that speedy deletion tags are accurate." (13/10/2006)
- (3)"Administrators must verify the legitimacy of a speedy deletion candidate by checking the history of a page before deleting it." (current version - 07/12/2006)
This change I made did not survive, so maybe it was instruction creep. Can the instructions I attempted to provide be found elsewhere? If they can, can someone please point them out. Carcharoth 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Step added to Misplaced Pages:Deletion process
- deletion process stage added (13/10/2006)
This was the addition of a logical step that was missing. Without this step, there is the danger that inexperienced admins would blindly follow process and when "clearing up a CSD backlog", go to Misplaced Pages:Deletion process for 'instructions' and then follow the first instruction, which was "delete", and is now changed to "verify". This change, unlike the one given above, has survived, so maybe this means it isn't instruction creep. Carcharoth 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Instruction creep at meta:Instruction creep
- David Gerard returns the meta page to a "less instruction-crept version". Is this a good example of instruction creep being tidied up? Carcharoth 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Template_log
It's a duplicate of the page history; people are supposed to add their changes here manually, in addition to the automatically-generated history. A textbook example of superfluous bureucracy. (Radiant) 14:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree this is a good example of unecessary bureaucracy. Noting the change in the edit history, and then updating Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Conclusions would seem to be all that is needed. Carcharoth 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote for a total ban on new rulecruft
I HATE all the new "wikipedia is not for postboxes" rules that seem to be springing up. It's awful. Let's get back to basics, if it's verifiable, well sourced and factual, let's keep it. Trollderella 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- And what exactly does that have to do with instruction creep? (Radiant) 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, second that, I'm confused to how this is applicable. Please clarify. Could you define "rulecruft" and define how it applies here. Navou 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Pretty harsh.
The article reads pretty aggressively towards good-faith people. (E.g., calling it an "insidious disease".) I think it needs to be toned down a couple of notches. DroEsperanto 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so. As they say, {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Still, after reading the article, I still don't get where instruction creep would come into the Misplaced Pages setting. By "page instructions" does it mean Misplaced Pages policy like for nominating an article for FA, or does it mean instructions for how to do something in an article? DroEsperanto 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- It refers to unnecessary instructions. For instance, if you want a page merged, you can either do that yourself or propose and discuss. Instruction creep would be "every merger must be noted on the merging noticeboard, kept there for at least 48 (forty-eight) hours, and acquire the assent of at least three (3) editors of good standing (meaning not having been blocked within the last fourteen (14) days and having over a thousand (1000) edits), after which it passes to the next stage of process where it requires 75% support in a vote with a quorum of twelve (12) people lasting for 8 (eight) days". I'm only slightly exaggerating; people can and do propose such bureaucratic measures. >Radiant< 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Upgraded to a guideline again...
...so what changed? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The wording, and the fact that several people reaffirmed the principle of the page. >Radiant< 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- And several people did the opposite. I see nothing since the initial discussion to suggest that this has gone from proposal to guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Kudzu image on meta
I'm adding the Kudzu image that's on the sister page on meta to this page, guidelines are much better with pictures. If this is controversial discuss/revert whatever, but I don't think it will be. --Matthew 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Took me a little while to get it, but I now see its relevance. Picaroon 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
My changes
I just made some changes. None are very major, but they add up to a pretty substantial reworking. This included removing the list of guidelines, seeing as it is both somewhat counterproductive to the point of the page and since Jeff has marked its status down to proposed. The Einstein quote is a nice addition if I do say so myself - it narrowly edged out a different one from Confucius. Discussion welcome. Picaroon 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff is wrong. This page dates from 2004 and marks long-standing practice. It is in no way whatsoever a proposal. >Radiant< 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm correct. Meta is meta. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that statement if it were a language-specific page being moved to meta, but not vice-versa. Pages on Meta should theoretically apply to all Wikipedias, including en. I'm not sure how its origin on Meta somehow makes it less applicable to the English Misplaced Pages. Out of curiosity, if the page had been here on en since 2004, would that make a difference? SuperMachine 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. It would have had years of experience specific to this project, and have wider support than what's indicated here. Many of the points brought up back in December have either failed to be addressed or outright ignored, and no efforts have been made to gain consensus for this to be a guideline here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. Since it came from Meta it definitely applies to the English Misplaced Pages. There was a brief discussion last year about whether people actually agree to this principle, and the response was that yes, they were. Unless you are able to find people who think instruction creep is a good thing? >Radiant< 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. It would have had years of experience specific to this project, and have wider support than what's indicated here. Many of the points brought up back in December have either failed to be addressed or outright ignored, and no efforts have been made to gain consensus for this to be a guideline here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that statement if it were a language-specific page being moved to meta, but not vice-versa. Pages on Meta should theoretically apply to all Wikipedias, including en. I'm not sure how its origin on Meta somehow makes it less applicable to the English Misplaced Pages. Out of curiosity, if the page had been here on en since 2004, would that make a difference? SuperMachine 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm correct. Meta is meta. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear BadlyRaddrawniantjeff!,
Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection? Or are you guys going to start talking with (instead of against) each other?
--Francis Schonken 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear an actual argument against this guideline; so far the only thing we have is meta-arguments. Is there anyone here who thinks instruction creep is good? If not, what exactly are we talking about? At any rate, this is not a proposal, for that term implies it would be something new, when in fact this page has been here for a long time. >Radiant< 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)