Forum:Temporary forums/T:BOUND Reform: Difference between revisions

Forum:Temporary forums/T:BOUND Reform (view source)

Revision as of 05:02, 12 May 2023

3,112 bytes added , 12 May 2023

m

SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/T:BOUND Reform to Forum:Temporary forums/T:BOUND Reform: Bot: Moved page

SV7

Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

228,839

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Temporary forums archives]][[Category:Policy changers]]
 ==Opening Post==
 So for quite some time it has been the semiofficial stance of this wiki that [[T:BOUND]] implies some additional policy, something vaguely related to people "being bound by the way we currently do things". This informal broadening of the policy has never been precisely fleshed out, but has been alluded to quite a few times in admin decisions, including those that have had substantial discussion on the very nature of "community consensus" or [[T:BOUND]] itself. See, for instance, [[User talk:Shambala108#Community consensus]] and [[Talk:Hugh Grant]].
@@ Line 58: / Line 59: @@
 I also want to note that T:BOUND is sometimes conflated with the closely-linked [[T:POINT]], but this proposal fits neatly into the former, which is about policies in the context of being discussed. (I don't intend on expanding on T:POINT any more here but it might make a good discussion another time; I've been contemplating the differences with how things are done here and Wikipedia, [[Tardis:We're Wikipedia's evil twin|inherent or not]], and if anyone else is interested, [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:The rules are principles|Wikipedia:The rules are principles]] and the pages it links make good food for thought...) [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+Okay. A fairly straightforward closure here, as befits a change to policy that is, as was mentioned multiple times, sort of an application of ''itself'': this has already been current practice for a while! It's just a matter of officialising it! As per broad consensus, some close variant of the wording proposed in the OP by [[User:Najawin]] will be implemented.
+I also find myself somewhat sympathetic to [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc]]'s concern that we “''should phrase this as "don't contradict current practice" rather than "don't go outside current practice"''”; this could of course be taken too far, but editorial paralysis ''is'' a concern, especially so long as we remain locked into the current [[T:TF]] system with only six available Forum slots at a time and a heavy backlog. As such, some clarifying language will be added to these modifications to [[T:BOUND]], noting that the Wikipedian concept of "{{w|Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold}}" does also have ''some'' sway. It is hard and probably counterproductive to articulate specific standards; editors should simply be aware of both policies and try and make an informed choice on a case-by-case basis, with the guiding light of ''constructive'' edits (e.g. introducing a new class of pages) being more likely to pass than ''disruptive'' edits (e.g. removing or renaming a broad class of preexisting pages).
+This should not, however, be construed as endorsement of pages of the specific type Ettolrhc mentioned as an example, e.g. [[Eleventh Doctor's adventures with Alice Obiefune]]. Importantly, I don't think they're against policy for the reason suggested by [[User:Najawin]]. The past rulings to which he refer were largely about ''categorisation'' based on a perceived, real-world notion of "arcs". There is nothing subjective about the idea of an "event" page for such a period of the Doctor's life; its beginning and end are not inherently ambiguous in the same sense that "is XYZ TV story part of 'the Four Knocks Arc'" was ambiguous.
+However, the thing about this proposal is that it seems to me to be redundant with the recent ruling authorising full treatment of recurring characters' biographical data at subpages such as [[Eleventh Doctor/Biography]]. At best, the suggested page-name could be a redirect to the relevant subsection of that page. It seems ''prima facie'' that the separage page would have the exact same contents as the question in section, in the same amount of detail, which would make the separate page redundant and thus make it fall under the vague precedent of [[Talk:Thirteenth Doctor's forced regeneration]]. There may be some subtleties that elude me, but I think the concern is great enough that this ''does'' fall under the risk of being "disruptive" if none else, and would thus need a community discussion to talk things out before any action was taken.
+As always, thanks to everyone who participated! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 19:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
+</div>