Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Isaacl in topic Scope
This page is for discussion about the page Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
Section sizes in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On 22 January 2026, it was proposed that this page be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy and guideline). The result of the discussion was not moved.
Archives
Index
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Adding Official Sources as references WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC) Reply
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW, there is unanimous consensus that this short title is correct and that WP:PRECISE does not apply. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 15:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) → Wikipedia:Village pump (policy and guideline) – Per WP:PRECISE, that's because this section of the village pump is intended for discussions about not only policies, but also guidelines, both already-proposed, as well as changes to existing ones, and per WP:CONSISTENT, to match the Wikipedia project page name at 'Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines'. PK2 (talk; contributions) 10:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose This is not an article, so WP:Article titles does not apply, but if it did we'd want to consider WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Better to retain the long-standing and short name than changing to an overly verbose one. Anomie ⚔ 12:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose because it's grammatically inconsistent. "Policy" in the current title is an uncountable noun, and nobody would refer to guidelines collectively in the singular, so the new title would need to be "policy and guidelines", but then that's a mix of uncountable and countable. It would need to be "policies and guidelines", and that would actually be consistent with the project page title. I'm not bothered by the length of the title increasing, a redirect would take care of muscle memory. — Hex • talk 13:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose The shortname is better and not ambiguous, that a project is named a certain way is of no importance, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE are about article titles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose Totally pointless. Perfection is unattainable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose, basically per Hex. This change is ungrammatical and unnecessary. Toadspike [Talk] 16:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose in addition to the points raised by the others, "policy" as an uncountable noun can be fairly intuitively understood to mean "Wikipedia's written rules and norms," thereby including guidelines. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Reply
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.
WP:PfD currently states:
- Established policies, guidelines, and process pages, along with templates related to them, should not be nominated at deletion venues, because it is outside of their prerogative to modify or revoke policy. Instead, start a discussion on the talk page of the concerned page or at the village pump.
However, WP:VPP seems to have a narrower scope:
- The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones.
Could WP:VPP be expanded to also include explicitly "process pages, along with templates related to them"? Otherwise should such discussions go to WP:VPM, instead? Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Personally, I think the guidance for the policy village pump is sufficiently broad as currently written to include how procedures are implemented in support of policies and guidelines, which is where templates come in. Whether or not a change to a given template is better discussed at the policy village pump or the talk page of the corresponding policy/guideline will depend on the change. isaacl (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply