Template talk:Policy

Suggestion to remove "should" from first sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

During the above RfC a suggested wording change to drop the word "should" may not have been clear. The proposal was this: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus" A later suggestion to also drop the word "all" was supported, but came very late. As such there was no clarity on support for that particular suggestion. So I think it's worth considering the proposed wording changes in isolation from the must/should debate. Is there support/opposition for the following wording:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that editors normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus

The words "all" and "should" have been removed, leaving the notice wording neutral, informative and factual, with the only obligatory wording being the final sentence, which is the active part of the notice.

This is set up as a simple support or oppose discussion for this template, though it will have implications for the wording on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, so this discussion is linked from Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support as being more reflective of the intention and practise of policies and guidelines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Reasons stated in the above poll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support as more succinct and so clarifying. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC))
• Support Sounds fine to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a little bit WP:ILIKEIT-y...Forbidden User (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and this should be advertised wider, you don't change policies with discussions on template talk pages without even an RfC. As to the question what happens about 'should' I would point to WP:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement. They are not totally optional. There are consequences and they are spelled out and that is community consensus. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have advertised this as an RfC and at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather strange reason, given that nobody has any plans to promote this template to policy status. However, I'm happy to have more people join the conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose How unclear is the present wording? "Editors normally follow" sounds like a trend describtion more than an instruction. This template is used to infrom/instruct users on the function of templates.Forbidden User (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I cite the "descriptive, not prescriptive" principle frequently. It means that we put things in writing to document what we do (as opposed to doing things because they're written down), not that we must avoid conveying that anything is required. The tag's purpose is to explain that editors should comply with policies in most situations, not to make a "neutral" statement that this typically occurs (with no indication that it's non-optional). I agree with Forbidden User that the proposed wording comes across more as a trend description than it does as guidance. —David Levy 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The use of the word "should" indicates that there is a strong expectation that policy be followed (except in cases where it is appropriate to ignore all rules). If we remove the word "should", then the description makes policy sound like something that editors just sort of happen to do. This does not do justice to the importance of policy, so the word "should" should stay. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It depends on your perspective. "You should do this–but you don't have to." "People should tell the truth–but they don't." Telling people that all the other editors are doing it, however, is actually a pretty good way to get people to comply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cunard and Spirit of Eagle. The stronger wording should be retained so that it doesn't mislead editors into thinking that policies are completely optional. Otherwise, there is no distinction between policies and guidelines, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  I'll note that Template:Guideline also contains the word "should" in this context. Its text simply places greater emphasis on the existence of exceptions. Neither policies nor guidelines are optional (in the usual sense). —David Levy 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose  Removing the word "all" is ok, but removing "should" weakens the language.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that the word "all" can be removed. It makes the sentence shorter and more concise without losing meaning in the process. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - the word "should" is correct - it's weaker than "must" (an absolute requirement), which is clearly contradicted by IAR, but string enough to mean that users are expected to do it for the most part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC discussion

Should anything like this come up again, please ping all previous respondents in these RfCs, and myself as well (and anyone else who asks), and list it at WP:Village pump (policy). This looks like trivial copy-editing (and on a template like Template:Wikipedia how-to it might be), but in the WP:PAG context it is not. Such proposed wording alterations deserve careful and community-wide consideration.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Font size

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to have a line break and the lower text be 90% size on {{Policy}} and related templates. More specifically, the consensus is to use Version D.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should {{Policy}} and related templates contain a line-break, and if so, what what should the font size for the lower text be. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Pre-RFC Discussion

@Atón: You've changed the font size on 13 important templates, including this one. In my view the new font size of 11.9px fails WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and looks visibly jarring. Would it be possible to solicit further feedback before continuing? TheDragonFire (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that since my intention was to make it less jarring. I think the new font size makes the template clearer to the reader. The jarring effect could be solved by increasing the line height or the minimum margin between the text and the box instead. I'll wait for further feedback. Atón (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

All the changes should be reverted and a sandbox set up to show the proposal with before-and-after boxes, followed by one discussion. The tiny type is unacceptable. The line break might be good, but I'd want to think about it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted changes to this template, and to {{guideline}} and {{essay}} (those being the the most high visibility). Atón's changes have been moved to {{Policy/sandbox}}. I'll leave the other changes in place pending further discussion. Below is a comparison of original, Atón's version and Johnuniq's version.

Version A

Version B

Version C

TheDragonFire (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (Added version numbering -Tamwin (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

The font size was too tiny, I agree. But a clear distinction between the principal statement and the explanation helps navigate the template, specially in the cases of {{guideline}} and {{essay}} where the explanation is longer. Just a line break doesn't create enough contrast, in my view. I've corrected the font size (from 85% to 90%) and increased the top and bottom margin. It would look like this:

Version D

Atón (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (Added version numbering -Tamwin (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

RFC Discussion

• The samples are nice but they don't convey the impact of the change. When I first noticed it, the guideline I was looking at made the small-text line invisible. The problem is the normal banner blindness where everyone knows to skip over messages in a box at the top—particularly lines in tiny type. A wonderful layout may look good, but if the text is unimportant it would be better to delete it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that "This page is X" pops up. It makes it very easy to spot the 'X' word, which is the most relevant. I don't think the lower text is unimportant, it's helpful for new users, but the "This page is X" statement is enough information for most users. The 85% font size was too small, I agree, but 90% looks OK to me. Atón (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

PD: Deleting the explanation altogether is not a bad idea, as Johnuniq has explained. A link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is enough.

Version E

Are there objections to this solution? Atón (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (Added version numbering -Tamwin (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

I object. They look empty, and there really should be a short version on the page. I don't see why we shouldn't go with as small a modification of the current version as possible. Tamwin (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Version C, D, or A, in that order of preference. These options are the closest to the original in content and meaning, and the least visually jarring. Strong oppose versions B and E, as these look bad/ do not convey the meaning of the original. Tamwin (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Version D looks good. It makes clear that the second line eludicates on the 'headline' (which can be insufficient to new users on its own), but everything is nice and readable. I would object to E. --SubSeven (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version D is my personal favourite. It looks good and is clear. Oppose version A (the original), anything is better. Laurdecl ^talk 07:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Version F

• Support the change, BCD are good, but I suggest this version F. Having the critical sentence on its own line help it pop out. The key sentence should pop out with a larger font size, instead of fiddling with the text size underneath. (To clarify, I suggest POLICY and GUIDELINE should be style F. Essays and How-To should be be style B, C, or D.) Alsee (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose F, the boldness is too much, it distracts from the actual page. Laurdecl ^talk 07:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Version D is also my favourite. Atón (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support C or D. Strong Oppose E. After being away from this discussion for a bit, and returning with fresh eyes, I'm warming up to the linebreak. I think a decision should be made for C or D (or a tweaking of either), with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The detail is important, and I don't feel E is appropriate. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've upgraded the templates except for {{Subcat guideline}}, which is protected. Atón (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverse recent decisions related to line break and font size

I believe that the recent changes to this and related templates make them look outdated. The <br><small> stuff was removed from the mainspace cleanup templates around 2009; the consensus to introduce it to the projectspace templates contradicts precedent. KMF (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• The established (classic) version for this page is the current version (04:21, 23 July 2017). The "small" version is 06:19, 13 July 2017. I support the established version. The small stuff is too finicky and at variance from established styles. If the small text is unimportant, delete it. For this discussion, I don't think the headings are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• OMG, look at what's happend to {{nutshell}}: diff. @Primefac: Do you really like the result? It looks shocking on my system. I was skimming WP:MINOR and the important information (what is in the nutshell) looks as if it should be ignored—I only looked because I know the nutshell is generally an excellent summary of the point. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not strictly opposed to it. There was a TPER related to the above RFC, it was reasonable, and so I made the change. If it's determined that the above RFC should be overturned, I'll probably end up restoring the original version. Primefac (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with Johnuniq regarding {{nutshell}}. The point of changing the font size in {{policy}} and related templates was to make them less wordy by making a distinction between the main statement and the auxiliary explanation. The case of {{nutshell}} is different. The essential text there is the summary, it shoudn't look small. I don't think the result of the RfC above applies to {{nutshell}}. Atón (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  Fair point. Self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose reversion: This looks brand new and much cleaner than the previous one. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on the reversion, but if you're going to keep it please don't do it by putting inline CSS in every individual template. Have the underlying mbox template do it, like {{ambox}} does with |issue= and |fix=. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Has this issue come up before?

An editor recently quoted "Changes made to it should reflect consensus" from this box in support of the proposition that Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" does not apply to policies and guidelines. This seems to conflict with WP:PGBOLD. I'm wondering whether anyone recalls a discussion of this possible conflict between the text in this template and the policy reflected at PGBOLD. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed. FaviFake (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I also agree. Perhaps we could modify it to say something like this: "Changes made to it should usually reflect consensus." Thoughts? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't like these small links, they're mostly WP:EASTEREGGs. What do you think about this instead?

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus.

FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mr. Starfleet Command I've created a sandbox version at {{Policy/sandbox}}

FaviFake (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be fine with that. Support. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow, @FaviFake, @Mr. Starfleet Command: This change would end nearly two decades of stability in the wording of this banner. That said, I support consistency for that sentence between {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}}, and I agree with adding the word "Substantive" as well as with the linking change. As for the other proposed modifications (replacing "[c]hanges" with "edits", removing "made", and replacing "it" with "this page"), I am neutral; ideally, an argument should be made explicitly in favor of each of these. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gluonz: Thanks for your feedback. "Substantive changes made..." sounds clunky to me. I find that "Substantive edits..." sounds much nicer. I know that's not very concrete, but I'm afraid it's the best argument I can think of.

Changing "it" to "this page" clarifies the meaning. The current wording is technically correct and unambiguous, but to me the meaning is more immediately apparent with "this page" instead.

I fully acknowledge that these points are at least somewhat subjective, but I hope you and others find them helpful in assessing this question. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gluonz I agree with everything Mr Starfleet said, and I would also like to add that "this page" is clearer because, when the relevant parameter to is set "section", for example, the scope of this template on the page is much more clearly confined too that specific section.

All of the changes you mentioned don't modify the meaning in significant ways. "edits" may be the only exception, but it's simply more specific than "changes". FaviFake (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I should clarify that I have not opposed any of these changes. I simply suggested that an argument be made to support those that had not yet been discussed specifically, which has since happened. Personally, I now find the argument that "this page" is clearer to be convincing, and the sentence is slightly more concise without "made". I am still neutral about the swapping of "[c]hanges" with "edits", but that is a relatively insignificant change. I am fine with letting the new wording be implemented as it is, but I will propose one more possible modification: replacing "Substantive" with "{{em|Substantive}}" ("Substantive"). This change originates from a 2017 edit to {{MoS guideline}}. However, I do not feel particularly strongly about this proposal, and I will drop it if anyone disagrees with it. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 03:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gluonz: I'd be fine with emphasizing "Substantive", considering that's what's done on the guideline templates. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so I'll support whatever the consensus is. @FaviFake, I notice that you removed that formatting from {{Guideline}}; do you object to italicizing it, and if so, why? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't remember exactly why I had removed it, but I support adding the italic formatting back, to be consistent with the other templates. I've now modified the Policy/sandbox accordingly.

@Gluonz Thanks for your feedback. The only two reasons I can think of for swapping changes with edits are: consistency with the other templates, which I don't think was brought up before, and improving the flow of the sentence. (To me, "Substantive edits to this page" sounds better than ”Substantive changes to this page".) Plus, "edits" is shorter, which might make a difference in the vertical length of the template in some screen sizes. FaviFake (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mr. Starfleet Command, @FaviFake: Understood. Thanks. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gluonz Thanks. I guess I'll go ahead and reinstate the edit request, now that we're all on the same page? FaviFake (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to reinstate it. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. There seems to be some disagreement on exact wording, so if/when that gets nailed down feel free to re-implement the TPER. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac Thanks. I applied the tag before other opposing views were posted. FaviFake (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I know. The decline is a boilerplate decline. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac Thanks. We've now reinstated the edit request. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2025

Replace with {{Policy/sandbox}} to fix the bolding which appears on WP:IAR. "normally" shouldn't be emphasised in bold, as it changes the meaning of the sentence. The bolding is an uninentended side effect of the template linking directly to that policy page. FaviFake (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)