438:
full four paragraphs from BTW, we reworded it to make more sense (as we did with the material in the other two guidelines taking part in the merge). It should of course be marked as an editing rather than a style guideline, but one editor seems unhappy about that for some reasons I haven't understood yet. So basically, yes, what you suggest has been done (but a better name has been chosen). The only reason BTW now exists at all is that a few people decided unilaterally to try to partially undo the merge; it is the reverse of what Sept suggests - it is the side that
1059:
576:. It also seems to imply that we make links (internal or external) for the purpose of creating some abstract structure, which I don't think is the reason - we make them to help people find information. If you wanted a poetic title, it would be something like "Signpost the information" (you'll observe I'm not much of a poet, but it's a start). (Incidentally, the Build the Web language has been preserved, at WP:LINKING, where it is placed in proper context and explained, which it never was at the old BTW page.)--
1013:
46:. These subjects are totally different from each other and there is absolutely no reason to think that a person reading one of them would have any more interest in the others on the list than interest in the Policies, or interest in the Help pages and Wikiprojects that are more relevant. This template just duplicates the list already at
594:
following: A single, integrated guideline is more likely to resolve the question whether a certain link is appropriate. Where there are two guidelines in opposition you can always "run to the other parent". Editors who want to link (or unlink, but this is not currently a big problem) against consensus profit from the latter situation.
50:, which we can link to directly. The division of guidelines, policies, help pages, Wikiprojects is a division of how official the pages are, and the authority and collaborative nature of them; it has nothing to do with their actual content and are rather irrelevant for someone interested in learning the ropes of Knowledge (XXG). —
786:
I've actually used this template exactly as I described, which I think is irrefutable evidence that if you're on one guideline page, and it turns out not to have the specific sentence you're looking for, you can use this template to identify other guidelines that may contain what you're looking for.
593:
It appears to me that the reason why some date-overlinkers want to have separate guidelines that contradict each other (one saying, link as much as possible, with no indication that there might be reasonable bounds; and the other saying, don't link too much or where it doesn't help the reader) is the
826:
What's wrong with the other one? Nothing—if I happen to be at the bottom of the page, and I happen to think to look at it. That doesn't seem to happen very often, but my pattern of ignoring horizontal nav boxes doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with that format. Presumably some people find
571:
No, I don't see what this has to do with date linking, except it was the date linking crowd that suddenly appeared and forced BTW back into existence after it had been successfully merged with their agreement. Why is "Build the web" misleading? Most obviously because it implies that it is one of our
437:
in
Linking as well. The merge was done as you suggested, it was agreed that the merged page should be called WP:Linking (it was never suggested that it should be called "Build the web", and I see no reason why that should be the title - it is opaque and misleading). Obviously we didn't transfer the
21:
What is the use of this template by putting it on all manner of guidelines when it links to pages that are totally unrelated to what the user is looking at? The
Dispute resolution template, for example, makes sense because all the subjects are directly related to dispute resolution and which a user
858:
Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to what was being proposed. Yes, I think there should be two templates (a vertical one and a horizontal one), but I don't think we should have one that lists only guidelines while deliberately excluding policies (policies and guidelines are basically the same
766:
linking related pages. I agree that vertical navigation at the top can be useful in addition to horizontal at the bottom, but then the top needs to do what it's supposed to. One option is to effectively delete the vertical template, and provide space for other vertical templates as appropriate.
554:. If someone is trying to use the BTW guideline to wikilawyer, then beat them over the head with a trout - but trying to destroy/submerge a fundamental tenet of our wikiways is going to piss off too many people - it is our philosophy in condensed poetry, it is part of our scripture.
934:
I just noticed that this template lists WP:N as a content guideline. This template could be helping to contribute to chronic
Knowledge (XXG) confusion about WP:N, because WP:N is not a content guideline, which is a point that I seem to mention often. For example, at
816:
If I thought the template was useless we'd be talking about deletion, not merger to a similar one. What's wrong with the other one? And isn't getting rid of this vertical template going to make it more likely that more useful vertical templates are created and used?
494:
Since it was recast by
Kotniski, who says he doesn't see any meaning in BTW, assisted by Tony, who disagrees with it, this is not particularly surprising; but reducing the philosophy of LINKING to a summary of BTW, with link, might settle the matter.
546:
I'm not sure why you think the title is "misleading"; I imagine it has something to do with the date-war. It sounds like it has soured you on this phrasing. For myself (and dozens of other editors) the phrase "Build the web" has incredibly positive
187:
template is not under protection. If not, then please change "helpbox" to "helpbox stackable", to enable this box to be stacked on the right of the page under other similar boxes (or else tell me a way of achieving this effect without making such a
723:
I think this is a bad idea. The templates have two different purposes: The one provides a reasonably complete 'See also' at the bottom of the page; the other provides a brief 'If this isn't the right page, try...' at the top. Some pages (e.g.,
617:
attacks, but also serious attempts to get the discussion on a constructive track.) This obstruction was rewarded by BTW remaining for a month in the unmerged state, thus changing the status quo from merged to unmerged.
647:. It is redundant and confusing to have two such navigation templates, and the latter is clearer and easier to read, and more comprehensive; plus this template conflicts with theme-based navigation templates like
543:
wording, like "Assume good faith" and "Be bold". It is a complex communication of ideas, with permutations throughout the site. It describes what we do here, at
Knowledge (XXG), in metaphorical language.
71:
guidelines to fit them all on a single template. If a group of guidelines is related, those should have an interlinking template; if not, the category should suffice (which is already linked from
874:
802:
The template may well be overused, and IMO should never be used in preference to a more specific template, but putting a more specific template in place doesn't require deleting this one.
509:
It might, if anyone could point to anything of significance in BTW that isn't in
Linking. But it seems they can't, meaning that any such onward link to BTW would serve no purpose.--
465:
I agree with
Quiddity, if I understand him correctly: this is what needs fixing; we don't need two full statements of philosophy - especially since they are not the same philosophy.
351:
613:
was protected as a non-redirect, the date-linkers disrupted the talk page discussions with a continuous stream of personal attacks. (From the other side there were
895:
693:
683:
661:
641:
22:
might deal with in combination. Disambiguation, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with assuming good faith. Even worse, there is no point in having
550:
I'm trying to not consider how the date-war fits in here. I happen to fall in the "dates should rarely be linked, and never for autoformatting" camp. But,
970:
27:
419:, place all the content at the (old/original/preferred title) WP:BTW location, and call it an editing guideline. Who is that going to make unhappy? --
324:
strong consensus to demote/split it somewhere... Improving/merging the 2 guidelines would probably be preferable, instruction creep is bad m'kay.) --
296:. They should match each other. This template isn't the place to hash out the discussion of whether or not "Build the web" deserves to be listed at
949:
The concept of wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on
Knowledge (XXG) or the content of any such article. See also:
988:
I have made an edit to insert above "Notability" a new group titled "Stand-alone article". "Stand-alone article" is terminology used in WP:N.
953:
752:
guidelines, it simply lists all the major ones; I simply don't think it's very helpful. Third, it gets in the way of vertical templates like
672:
728:) contain both. Also, the vertical template can be used at the top of a talk page, whereas the footer version is really useless there.
1040:
878:
67:
That is an excellent point. This template gives an arbitrary grouping of some arbitrarily-chosen guidelines. Of course we have
297:
293:
47:
31:
689:
has several guidelines this template does not, notably in relation to the MoS. I would add the extra pages present here to
320:(Having not investigated yet, my initial reaction is: Buildtheweb has been a core guideline since 2002 - there better be a
239:
Since we're obviously not giong to agree ourselves as to what
Linking guidelines should be listed here, I've raised it at
35:
771:
756:
651:
668:
345:
99:
39:
1019:
993:
978:
961:
156:
415:
The simplest notion would be to replace the 1st 2 paragraphs at WP:LINKING with the 4 paragraphs from WP:BTW -
270:
1044:
373:
You are missing (lucky you!) the quarrel over datelinking, now in arbitration. One side of this insists that
908:
725:
835:
807:
733:
243:. Let's leave both disputed entries there for now as a good compromise, and wait to see what others say.--
172:
1094:
has a "Search the MOS" feature, which is very handy. Is it possible to add this to the
Guidelines? Thanks
43:
796:
106:, etc. as a much more appropriate grouping that actually helps for navigating between related pages. —
1099:
989:
974:
957:
919:
623:
619:
500:
403:
281:
181:
152:
395:
259:
860:
710:
577:
510:
443:
244:
218:
208:
189:
103:
23:
1072:
864:
714:
581:
562:
514:
447:
424:
390:
Would you be prepared, as a fresh set of eyes, to discuss what should be adjusted to distinguish
364:
329:
248:
222:
193:
139:
82:
75:
597:
Apparently it took some time for them to realise how this could be gamed, see the edit comments
971:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Verifiability/Archive 58#Is one source enough to say a fact is verifiable?
831:
803:
729:
676:
788:
111:
55:
792:
610:
602:
573:
391:
374:
263:
240:
1095:
915:
496:
399:
277:
95:
412:
They are currently grouped by one being about the philosophy, and one the practicalities.
830:
I don't think that the existence of this template discourages creation of better ones.
1091:
204:
124:
950:
1067:
558:
420:
360:
325:
1103:
1076:
1048:
997:
982:
923:
882:
868:
839:
821:
811:
781:
737:
718:
703:
627:
585:
566:
518:
504:
451:
428:
407:
368:
333:
285:
252:
226:
212:
197:
160:
145:
127:
117:
88:
61:
557:
It can be misused, but so can IAR, and we're not getting rid of that either. --
262:
is a style guideline. The only other style guideline to have its own listing is
107:
51:
667:
has just about everything in this template; missing there but present here are
177:
Could this be unprotected (or at least semi-protected)? After all, the similar
818:
778:
777:
does, so eg have a vertical template for behavioural policies and guidelines.
700:
134:
I think that's a definite improvement. Possibly it should have a link back to
377:
gives insufficient weight to their vehement detestation of linking any date.
767:
Another is to explicitly split the template by theme in the way that
572:
main purposes to make lots of links to outside websites, which it is
699:
as part of the merge, unless anyone has a reason not to. Comments?
135:
68:
859:
thing, so why exclude the most important ones from the list?)--
317:
the one you linked at VPP. You didn't include any links though.
1007:
787:
For example, there are facts that could be properly placed in
748:. First, it isn't brief. Second, it doesn't direct people to
744:
Sorry, but it's simply not true that this template provides
354:
is the style-guideline, and is listed in the style template.
311:, and maybe try to concisely/neutrally summarize the issue
266:
itself. I could go either way on this: either take out the
313:. scratch that, I see you did summarize it at the thread
936:
606:
598:
352:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
914:, which presents a poorly-organized, arbitrary list.
276:
from Linking, or remove Linking from this template.
609:on the page recently, after the protection.) Once
348:is the guideline, and is listed in this template.
799:—all three of which are linked in this template.
1004:Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015
746:a brief 'If this isn't the right page, try...'
442:date linking that initiated this disruption.--
969:The context for the above quote is posted at
941:
359:(Seems simple enough. What am I missing?) --
342:I'd support treating it like Disambiguation.
305:Please leave notices directing people to the
28:Knowledge (XXG):Sign your posts on talk pages
8:
605:and then edited it through the protection
673:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (tables)
1108:
896:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
694:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
684:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
679:(which technically isn't a guideline).
662:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
642:Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines
459:If you look, you'll see the philosophy
433:If you look, you'll see the philosophy
875:2806:2F0:5580:FE06:21A2:6D7A:1390:D051
930:Notability is not a content guideline
637:I propose merging this template into
601:. (Note that the admin who protected
7:
539:The BTW title: "Build the web" is a
292:This template should be summarizing
1066:
891:Yes, add links in this template to
298:Knowledge (XXG):List of guidelines
294:Knowledge (XXG):List of guidelines
98:, which I just created and put on
48:Knowledge (XXG):List of guidelines
14:
947:WP:GNG is not a content guideline
32:Knowledge (XXG):Original research
30:yet having no list with links to
1057:
1011:
709:Yes, sounds like a good idea.--
36:Knowledge (XXG):Patent nonsense
669:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources
346:Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation
203:Protection reduced. Cheers. --
100:Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation
40:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization
1:
1077:21:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1049:20:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
738:18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
719:13:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
704:13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
89:09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
62:00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
1104:21:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
964:) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
883:05:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
869:06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
840:06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
822:18:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
812:18:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
782:09:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
161:19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
146:15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
128:07:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
118:05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1034:to reactivate your request.
1022:has been answered. Set the
552:that should not be relevant
1132:
241:WP:VPP#Guideline templates
26:have this list linking to
924:19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
628:19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
586:10:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
567:18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
519:10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
505:17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
452:08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
429:03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
408:02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
369:22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
334:22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
286:19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
253:10:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
227:09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
213:17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
198:12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
44:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism
998:13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
983:13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
398:, the style guideline?
967:
394:, the guideline, from
166:Unprotect/edit request
24:Knowledge (XXG):Hoaxes
1084:Search the Guidelines
309:discussion thread(s)
42:yet have no link to
463:in Linking as well.
1086:search bar option?
827:them very helpful.
772:dispute resolution
757:dispute-resolution
652:dispute-resolution
1065:No request made.
1038:
1037:
965:
677:Help:Edit summary
503:
406:
284:
258:Well, let's see.
1123:
1116:
1113:
1082:Possible to add
1070:
1061:
1060:
1054:
1029:
1025:
1015:
1014:
1008:
956:
939:diff, I stated,
913:
907:
900:
894:
776:
770:
761:
755:
698:
692:
688:
682:
666:
660:
656:
650:
646:
640:
499:
402:
280:
275:
269:
186:
180:
176:
142:
123:Fair enough. --
85:
80:
74:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1088:
1068:
1058:
1052:
1027:
1023:
1012:
1006:
990:Unscintillating
975:Unscintillating
958:Unscintillating
932:
911:
905:
898:
892:
774:
768:
759:
753:
696:
690:
686:
680:
664:
658:
654:
648:
644:
638:
635:
497:Septentrionalis
400:Septentrionalis
278:Septentrionalis
273:
271:style-guideline
267:
237:
184:
178:
170:
168:
153:Nitesh kumar sh
140:
96:Template:Dabnav
83:
78:
72:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1129:
1127:
1118:
1117:
1107:
1087:
1080:
1036:
1035:
1016:
1005:
1002:
1001:
1000:
931:
928:
927:
926:
909:Guideline list
888:
887:
886:
885:
871:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
828:
800:
721:
634:
631:
591:
590:
589:
588:
555:
548:
544:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
413:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
357:
356:
355:
349:
337:
336:
318:
302:
301:
289:
288:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
167:
164:
149:
148:
131:
130:
92:
91:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1128:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1085:
1081:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1064:
1055:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:70.166.85.152
1033:
1030:parameter to
1021:
1017:
1010:
1009:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
966:
963:
959:
954:
951:
948:
945:
940:
938:
929:
925:
921:
917:
910:
904:
897:
890:
889:
884:
880:
876:
872:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
854:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:
823:
820:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
801:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
780:
773:
765:
758:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
726:WP:NOFULLTEXT
722:
720:
716:
712:
708:
707:
706:
705:
702:
695:
685:
678:
674:
670:
663:
653:
643:
632:
630:
629:
625:
621:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
595:
587:
583:
579:
575:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
549:
547:connotations.
545:
542:
538:
537:
520:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
464:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
353:
350:
347:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
272:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
234:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
183:
174:
173:editprotected
165:
163:
162:
158:
154:
147:
143:
137:
133:
132:
129:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
90:
86:
77:
70:
66:
65:
64:
63:
59:
58:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
34:, or to have
33:
29:
25:
16:
1111:
1092:MOS template
1089:
1083:
1062:
1056:
1039:
1031:
1020:edit request
968:
946:
943:
942:
933:
902:
832:WhatamIdoing
804:WhatamIdoing
763:
749:
745:
730:WhatamIdoing
636:
614:
596:
592:
551:
540:
462:
458:
439:
434:
416:
321:
314:
310:
306:
238:
235:Village pump
169:
150:
112:
93:
69:way too many
56:
20:
797:WP:SETINDEX
607:edit-warred
182:Policy list
1096:Dig Deeper
1073:(Mrjulesd)
1024:|answered=
916:G. C. Hood
762:which are
620:Hans Adler
501:PMAnderson
404:PMAnderson
396:WP:LINKING
282:PMAnderson
260:WP:LINKING
188:change).--
1063:Not done:
217:Thanks.--
205:MZMcBride
125:Ned Scott
104:WP:MOSDAB
76:guideline
861:Kotniski
764:actually
711:Kotniski
578:Kotniski
559:Quiddity
541:powerful
511:Kotniski
444:Kotniski
440:supports
421:Quiddity
361:Quiddity
326:Quiddity
245:Kotniski
219:Kotniski
190:Kotniski
38:link to
1069:--Jules
789:WP:LIST
750:related
675:, plus
307:primary
141:Radiant
84:Radiant
903:delete
793:WP:CLN
611:WP:BTW
603:WP:BTW
574:WP:NOT
392:WP:BTW
375:WP:BTW
322:damned
264:WP:MOS
108:Centrx
52:Centrx
1028:|ans=
1018:This
819:Rd232
795:, or
791:, or
779:Rd232
701:Rd232
633:Merge
315:above
136:CAT:G
1115:~~~~
1100:talk
1090:The
1045:talk
994:talk
979:talk
962:talk
952:and
937:this
920:talk
901:and
879:talk
865:talk
836:talk
808:talk
734:talk
715:talk
671:and
624:talk
615:some
599:here
582:talk
563:talk
515:talk
448:talk
425:talk
365:talk
330:talk
249:talk
223:talk
209:talk
194:talk
157:talk
113:talk
94:See
81:). (
57:talk
17:Use?
1026:or
973:.
955:.
417:but
151:Ok
138:? (
1102:)
1053:⟨⟩
1047:)
1032:no
996:)
981:)
922:)
912:}}
906:{{
899:}}
893:{{
881:)
873:H
867:)
838:)
810:)
775:}}
769:{{
760:}}
754:{{
736:)
717:)
697:}}
691:{{
687:}}
681:{{
665:}}
659:{{
657:.
655:}}
649:{{
645:}}
639:{{
626:)
618:--
584:)
565:)
517:)
461:is
450:)
435:is
427:)
367:)
332:)
274:}}
268:{{
251:)
225:)
211:)
196:)
185:}}
179:{{
175:}}
171:{{
159:)
144:)
116:•
102:,
87:)
79:}}
73:{{
60:•
1098:(
1051:©
1043:(
992:(
977:(
960:(
944:*
918:(
877:(
863:(
834:(
806:(
732:(
713:(
622:(
580:(
561:(
513:(
446:(
423:(
363:(
328:(
300:.
247:(
221:(
207:(
192:(
155:(
110:→
54:→
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.