Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I'm just writing to say a big ''THANK YOU'' for ] and similar pages. It's exactly what I was looking for, I spent some time in fruitless Googling, and then found these. Misplaced Pages comes through agaian! (Or rather its fine altruistic editors.) ] (]) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just writing to say a big ''THANK YOU'' for ] and similar pages. It's exactly what I was looking for, I spent some time in fruitless Googling, and then found these. Misplaced Pages comes through agaian! (Or rather its fine altruistic editors.) ] (]) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==
Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article . The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at ]. ] (]) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Who am I? I'm a law boy nee art boy who should probably be working, sleeping, or eating right now rather than contributing here. But what can you do.
My main projects on here have been articles on U.S. law, as well as history, art, and local interest topics in Washington, DC, New York City, and Columbus, Ohio. Oh yeah, and comic books. I've also been quite active in trying to shape a sensible category structure.
Makes sense. And location versus nationality corresponds to uses of "in" versus "of" here. I'll make a mental note, probably get to it in a week or so, as I won't be spending too much time on WP over the next several days. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Purpose of policies
What do you think of my response to your post at village pump? Do you think we could implement my idea (making information about the purpose a given policy easily available) somehow? Offliner (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a difficult question. I think a lot of it is a matter of just doing it on a day-to-day basis in every discussion we have on WP, whether on an article talk page, a deletion discussion, or at VP. Maybe there could be a guideline (or even just an essay) urging people not to rely on rote policy citation regurgitation in lieu of substantive explanation (maybe there already is one somewhere?). And reminding people that citing policy is at best only half the work: you may have settled on what you think governs the issue, but you still need to convince others of the best way to apply it in a particular circumstance. To do it properly the focus should always be on what the best editorial decision is, not just the superficial level of what complies with codified policy or guidelines. Yeah, all that should be written down somewhere if it isn't already. In another guideline for people to cite. ; )
I think also we could go policy by policy, guideline by guideline, and ask ourselves whether its purpose is clear. What does it substantively accomplish. That may not always be evident; it may reflect the way consensus tends to go without an articulate reason as to why. A history of how the policy was written could be interesting, but maybe not that helpful, and it would be difficult to summarize. Just looking at the edit history of a particular policy or guideline may omit a lot of developmental discussions that occurred on the talk pages of other policies, the Village pump, or even user talk pages. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
