448:, help/how-to page, or any other material meant to provide serious advice for editors or to establish rules or best practices. Even a proposal that 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
38:
876:(TfD) back into the parent template, either as an undesired variant, or as an output option simply toggled with an additional template parameter. Templates that output something radically different from Knowledge (XXG)'s normal style or expected needs are usually simply deleted outright. Unnecessary templates have considerable editorial maintenance costs, so TfD is a busy place. See also
880:, especially the sections on it not being a Web host, a social-networking site, a publisher of original ideas, a forum, or a soapbox for promotion. A large number of inappropriate template and output forks are attempts to impose a personal "design vision" on something, to add features that don't belong in an encyclopedia, or to visually emphasize something in an
105:
578:) into an essay that is frequently read than if you create a new page no one knows about or is likely to discover. However, highly personal ruminations are best as stand-alone pages; avoid changing the overall nature and thrust of an existing community or single-author essay. Such materials generally belong in the
338:
the other editor(s) to that new thread. "Take it to user talk" is a common response to inter-personal conflicts that pop up in article talk pages, for example, where the focus should be on content. Some users may request that a reply to something they have posted at one talk page be taken to their
333:
While splitting up user-talk discussions is most often undesirable and potentially confusing or unconducive to resolution of issues, users have broad leeway to reply on their own talk page or that of a particular editor to issues or questions that are sometimes inappropriately raised elsewhere, and
902:
are, and the template does not already rely on the module), and they are kept un-merged for a reason, it is not helpful to fork their options – especially what parameters are supported and what their names are – without a very good reason to do so. It makes using our templates much more difficult
573:
to include your new material (even if it is a counterpoint, in a new section for that). Knowledge (XXG) already has more essays than anyone will ever read. This is both a maintenance problem and a limitation on how much influence your material could have. You will find a bigger and more attentive
343:
the off-topic portion to somewhere else; or to close the original discussion and open a new one at a more appropriate venue. There are no hard-and-fast rules about such matters. In general, if an editor expresses such a preference and it is not a big deal to you, just go along with it. Remember
236:
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
281:
fails to emerge (other than perhaps meta-agreement that no clear consensus on the substance can be expected to emerge from the discussion in that place), the discussion may be brought to an appropriate, broader venue. For example, whether to include information from a given source can, if the
157:
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
761:); this simultaneously drains editorial activity from the viable, broader wikiprojects, and sets up too-narrow "micro-projects" which become moribund within a year or less due to too few participants. Another type of case is the creation of a wanna-be
169:
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
459:
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
471:
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
853:) that produce reader- and editor-visible, pre-formatted output. Many of these form consistent series that are explicitly intended to produce similar and compatible results. While there is some room for variation (e.g., many
799:
Some process forking has been organic, with different – even confusingly dissimilar – procedures evolving over time for rather parallel processes. These have polar tendencies to either slowly normalize towards each other,
356:
A bit of advice for closers of discussions: It is best to not leave participants in a discussion guessing where to go next after a discussion has been closed – regardless of the nature of the discussion (other than
612:
for some indexes in which to list your essay and a brief description of it. Unless you expect that people will frequently refer to the essay on talk pages, it is not necessary and is even undesirable to create a
740:
with
Knowledge (XXG) norms, procedures, and maintenance tools, or an improper understanding of how project organization and management work. An example is the creation of new (or modification of existing)
534:
not opinional, and are well-accepted by the community, representing a broad consensus. It is not constructive to do something like draft up your own opposition version that directly contradicts a page like
468:
template atop the summarizing section to point to the original prominently. This helps people find the controlling material, and helps editors keep the advice and its language compatible across pages.
377:
that didn't quite come to a consensus will often suggest to give the matter a rest for a few months and then to open a new RM with a narrowed rationale and more data, at the same venue. Or, a
679:(both as to benefits and costs), so a new process should not be created (especially not an overlapping one) without a community consensus that there's a need for it. Unnecessary process is
269:). If an issue inappropriate for the present venue turns up in a discussion that by its nature is otherwise in an appropriate place, the new issue can be split off to an appropriate venue.
769:
of a dispute resolution and sanctions venue to enforce its viewpoint on content matters. Yet another example is the creation of a bogus pseudo-process inside a wikiproject to change
540:
884:
way. (If such a template has legitimate uses in the "User:" or "Knowledge (XXG):" namespaces, it might be retained but re-coded to not produce such output in mainspace articles.)
861:
subtly use color associated with the topic, such as a sports team), "output forking" the results of one of a set of templates to clash with the rest of them is not constructive.
864:
Just directly forking the code of a template is often ill-advised. New templates that substantially duplicate the behavior of old ones with a minor variation are usually
895:
reasons), or to not include some information deemed inappropriate, it is generally not okay to fork your own copy that does it the way you wish consensus had settled on.
339:
own (or not taken to their own). Some may also prefer to move a discussion mostly about another user or topic from their own talk page or even to a noticeboard; or to
793:
695:
process first, to ensure that it will be practical. Similarly, it is strongly discouraged to create a new wikiproject or taskforce/workgroup without a consensus at
691:
have found that after creating an "/Assessment" or "/Peer review" process subpage that no one ever uses it; try to create sufficient editorial interest in running a
452:. (If you're certain a general rule needs a special exception, propose that an exception be listed at that rule, rather than fork your own ersatz "counter-rule".)
953:
912:
620:
515:
242:
892:
722:
696:
252:
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.
758:
373:, a closing admin imposing a restriction will usually include where and after how much time an imposed sanction can be appealed. Or, the closer of a
948:
536:
381:
close of an RfC, in which two sides both cite a large number of sources but cannot reach agreement on the sources' reliability, might recommend
877:
809:
683:. No one is going to take it seriously if you create a "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Biochemistry" as a topical alternative to
680:
927:
805:
710:
590:
566:. If you disagree with something in a page like this, it is more productive to propose a change to the current version at its talk page.
485:
441:
298:
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
62:
873:
742:
737:
757:. A related example is the forking of general wikiprojects into increasingly narrow sub-topical ones (especially without a successful
596:
If you do feel your material should be in a separate page, please ensure that it is categorized appropriately in the subcategories of
917:
552:
481:
345:
782:
718:
676:
561:
548:
212:
a discussion to other talk pages, you can help prevent discussion forking at the locations of these notices by prefacing them with
154:
54:
858:
171:
932:
706:
220:, immediately after the section heading for the notice. It is also helpful to spell out the location of the discussion (e.g.,
530:
However, a few essays, and other types of pages with the authority level of essays (i.e., below policies and guidelines) are
746:
604:(if in the "User:" namespace), has cross-references to it in the "See also" sections of other relevant essays (to avoid the
46:
624:
348:
is to respect, within reason, the wishes of another editor with regard to the management and use of their own talk page.
319:
188:
958:
922:
774:
597:
770:
754:
477:
265:); Other pages are not suitable for discussing the content of a particular mainspace article (e.g. user talk pages,
237:
discussion are kept open concurrently, or that the older discussion is closed rather than the newer one. Examples:
200:
586:
456:
114:
50:
17:
556:
61:
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
778:
762:
692:
688:
605:
182:
714:
582:
579:
209:
726:
705:: Creating a new process page in opposition to an established one will almost certainly be interpreted as
888:
789:
575:
449:
278:
159:
66:
869:
846:
821:
644:
614:
497:
445:
394:
340:
303:
129:
76:
777:
process; one project trying this caused a tremendous amount of disruption over several years until a
601:
311:
854:
632:
628:
473:
163:
609:
570:
437:
97:
Explanatory essay about the
Knowledge (XXG):Content forks and Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines
713:(MfD). Wikiprojects are a form, or at least locus, of process. A bogus wikiproject set up as a "
881:
865:
520:
444:
an existing one. This applies to any proposed policy, guideline, supplement, information page,
684:
335:
299:
287:
899:
750:
527:
purpose are often forked intentionally and permissibly, to provide differing perspectives.
382:
370:
283:
266:
262:
246:
23:
374:
366:
766:
261:
Some pages are not suitable for discussing behavioral issues (e.g. article talk pages,
942:
790:
a "local consensus" among a small group of editors can't override site-wide consensus
463:
765:
on a topical basis; it is not within a wikiproject's scope or authority to set up a
898:
Finally, when two templates are very similar (or an old-style template and a newer
360:
215:
804:
to become ingrained and ossified. The former is preferable since it reduces the
544:
891:
has been achieved for a template to format something a particular way (e.g for
773:
to suit the preferences of the project participants, and bypass established
627:, or if they are disused and their principal authors are not active,
617:
for it; the available intelligible shortcuts are a finite resource.
571:
avoid creating a new essay page when an existing one can be expanded
675:
Process-forking (or procedure-forking) is generally a poor idea.
524:
721:
article content for a specific viewpoint, or any other activity
699:
that it will be useful and will have sufficient participation.
224:) rather than to effectively hide it with a piped link (e.g.,
99:
32:
717:
farm" – to oppose a consensus, lobby for changes to policy,
117:
sometimes also applies to internal
Knowledge (XXG) material.
436:
constructive to attempt to create a new page or section of
792:– including about how Knowledge (XXG) operates – absent a
574:
audience if your work can practicably be integrated (with
249:), the article talk topic is hardly ever formally closed;
812:
that
Wikipedians are expected to learn and comply with.
836:
829:
666:
659:
652:
505:
423:
416:
409:
402:
144:
137:
84:
241:
When a discussion moves from an article talk page to
589:namespace are often user-spaced or even removed by
585:; especially contrarian or idiosyncratic essays in
385:for some source examination by uninvolved parties.
745:classes, which breaks compatibility with various
286:; or, if the content regards a living person, to
903:for everyone when related ones are not in-sync.
486:require an elevated level of care and acceptance
476:change the content without prior discussion is
282:discussion remains unresolved, be escalated to
913:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid writing redundant essays
516:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid writing redundant essays
849:(what in most other contexts would be called
697:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Council/Proposals
541:WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
480:, there is a high likelihood that it will be
8:
600:(if in the "Knowledge (XXG):" namespace) or
63:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
928:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid instruction creep
610:Knowledge (XXG):Essays § Finding essays
954:Knowledge (XXG) essays about consensus
725:and smooth operation, will be deleted
365:'ed trolling and the like). E.g., at
918:Knowledge (XXG):Infobox consolidation
723:antithetical to Knowledge (XXG) goals
687:; it would be deleted quickly. Many
484:, because changes to these materials
257:Content issue versus behavioral issue
7:
623:. If you run across some, consider
55:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines
949:Knowledge (XXG) supplemental pages
933:Knowledge (XXG):Redundancy is good
681:undesirable and counter-productive
67:thoroughly vetted by the community
31:
845:Knowledge (XXG) has thousands of
621:Redundant essays should be merged
243:WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard
103:
36:
759:WP:WikiProject Council/Proposal
598:Category:Knowledge (XXG) essays
923:Knowledge (XXG):Should I fork?
878:WP:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
736:effects – usually a result of
537:WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
302:), the topic may be closed or
1:
442:conflicts with or contradicts
306:to a more appropriate venue.
273:Escalation to a broader venue
115:Knowledge (XXG):Content forks
51:Knowledge (XXG):Content forks
18:Knowledge (XXG):Content forks
796:that the community accepts.
732:Some process forks can have
450:against the Consensus policy
178:==Discussion heading here==
569:Even for opinional essays,
307:
975:
819:
711:WP:Miscellany for deletion
703:Disruptive process-forking
642:
591:WP:Miscellany for deletion
513:
495:
392:
127:
74:
24:Knowledge (XXG):ADVICEFORK
874:WP:Templates for deletion
625:proposing them for merger
553:WP:Core content policies
111:This page in a nutshell:
738:insufficient competence
734:incidentally disruptive
549:WP:Compromised accounts
446:wikiproject advice page
959:Knowledge (XXG) essays
935:(opposing perspective)
806:number and peculiarity
521:Knowledge (XXG) essays
174:it, for example with:
440:-style material that
210:neutrally advertising
677:Process is important
602:Category:User essays
294:Patently wrong venue
352:Clarity about venue
320:Moved discussion to
189:Moved discussion to
65:as it has not been
775:WP:Requested moves
743:content assessment
709:, and get sent to
608:problem), and see
587:"Knowledge (XXG):"
346:the community norm
810:rules and systems
201:Discussion bottom
121:
120:
113:The reasoning at
95:
94:
47:explanatory essay
22:(Redirected from
966:
839:
832:
794:very good reason
669:
662:
660:WP:PROCEDUREFORK
655:
565:
508:
467:
426:
419:
417:WP:GUIDELINEFORK
412:
405:
364:
325:
323:
315:
227:
223:
219:
205:
204:
194:
192:
147:
140:
124:Discussion forks
107:
106:
100:
87:
40:
39:
33:
27:
974:
973:
969:
968:
967:
965:
964:
963:
939:
938:
909:
843:
842:
835:
830:WP:TEMPLATEFORK
828:
824:
818:
785:reversed them.
673:
672:
665:
658:
651:
647:
641:
633:doing the merge
559:
557:WP:Five pillars
518:
512:
511:
504:
500:
494:
461:
430:
429:
422:
415:
408:
401:
397:
391:
358:
354:
331:
317:
309:
296:
275:
259:
234:
225:
221:
213:
206:
198:
186:
180:
177:
151:
150:
143:
136:
132:
126:
104:
98:
91:
90:
83:
79:
71:
70:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
972:
970:
962:
961:
956:
951:
941:
940:
937:
936:
930:
925:
920:
915:
908:
905:
841:
840:
833:
825:
820:
817:
816:Template forks
814:
803:
788:Remember that
771:article titles
767:kangaroo court
735:
727:with prejudice
671:
670:
667:WP:PROJECTFORK
663:
656:
648:
643:
640:
637:
606:orphaned essay
533:
523:that serve an
510:
509:
501:
496:
493:
490:
435:
428:
427:
420:
413:
406:
398:
393:
390:
387:
375:requested move
353:
350:
330:
327:
295:
292:
274:
271:
258:
255:
254:
253:
250:
233:
230:
196:
195:
183:Discussion top
176:
160:forum-shopping
149:
148:
141:
138:WP:DISCUSSFORK
133:
128:
125:
122:
119:
118:
108:
96:
93:
92:
89:
88:
80:
75:
72:
60:
59:
43:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
971:
960:
957:
955:
952:
950:
947:
946:
944:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
911:
910:
906:
904:
901:
896:
894:
893:accessibility
890:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
838:
837:WP:OUTPUTFORK
834:
831:
827:
826:
823:
815:
813:
811:
807:
801:
797:
795:
791:
786:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
668:
664:
661:
657:
654:
650:
649:
646:
639:Process forks
638:
636:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
616:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
592:
588:
584:
581:
577:
572:
567:
563:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
532:informational
531:
528:
526:
522:
517:
507:
503:
502:
499:
491:
489:
487:
483:
479:
478:not forbidden
475:
469:
465:
458:
457:summary style
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
433:
425:
424:WP:ADVICEFORK
421:
418:
414:
411:
407:
404:
400:
399:
396:
388:
386:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
362:
351:
349:
347:
342:
337:
328:
326:
321:
313:
305:
301:
293:
291:
289:
285:
280:
272:
270:
268:
264:
256:
251:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
231:
229:
226:Please see ].
222:Please see ].
217:
211:
202:
197:
190:
184:
175:
173:
167:
165:
161:
156:
146:
142:
139:
135:
134:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
102:
101:
86:
82:
81:
78:
73:
68:
64:
57:
56:
52:
48:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
897:
886:
863:
850:
844:
798:
787:
731:
719:over-control
702:
701:
689:wikiprojects
674:
619:
595:
568:
529:
519:
506:WP:ESSAYFORK
470:
454:
431:
389:Policy forks
379:no consensus
378:
355:
332:
297:
276:
260:
235:
218:|pointer=y}}
207:
179:
168:
153:Discussions
152:
110:
44:
779:move review
763:noticeboard
693:peer review
653:WP:PROCFORK
562:humor pages
545:Help:Images
492:Essay forks
410:WP:RULEFORK
312:Wrong venue
308:(See also:
277:If a local
145:WP:TALKFORK
45:This is an
943:Categories
900:Lua module
870:redirected
755:categories
715:canvassing
707:disruptive
635:yourself.
514:See also:
403:WP:POLFORK
232:Exceptions
164:canvassing
155:should not
85:WP:CFORK/I
49:about the
889:consensus
855:infoboxes
847:templates
822:Shortcuts
747:templates
645:Shortcuts
583:namespace
576:consensus
438:WP:POLICY
395:Shortcuts
329:User talk
279:consensus
185:|result=
130:Shortcuts
907:See also
859:navboxes
729:at MfD.
615:shortcut
498:Shortcut
482:reverted
341:refactor
77:Shortcut
851:scripts
781:and an
685:WP:AN/I
580:"User:"
300:WP:BLPN
290:; etc.
288:WP:BLPN
866:merged
753:, and
629:boldly
564:aside)
474:boldly
432:It is
383:WP:RSN
371:WP:ANI
284:WP:RSN
267:WP:ANI
263:WP:DRN
247:WP:DRN
882:undue
631:just
555:, or
525:op-ed
455:When
434:never
367:WP:AE
344:that
304:moved
208:When
191:|] }}
172:close
16:<
868:and
857:and
751:bots
464:Main
369:and
336:ping
334:may
316:and
53:and
887:If
872:by
808:of
783:RfC
361:hat
228:).
216:FYI
162:or
945::
802:or
749:,
593:.
551:,
547:,
543:,
539:,
488:.
466:}}
462:{{
363:}}
359:{{
324:.)
322:}}
318:{{
314:}}
310:{{
214:{{
203:}}
199:{{
193:}}
187:{{
181:{{
166:.
58:.
560:(
245:(
69:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.