This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theWikipedia policies and guidelines template.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed

Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:30 days

Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines isindefinitelyprotected from editing as it is aheavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported byconsensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template'sdocumentation to add usage notes orcategories. Any contributor may edit the template'ssandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked usingtest cases.

SeeWP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. Seehow to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating ofpolicy and guideline pages.

My addition of a link toWikipedia:FAQ, in the footer of this template (next to a link to "Wikipedia:Principles", which is also neither a policy or guideline), was reverted with an edit summary including "there is a long history (see talk page) of what get's included in this template and what doesn't".

Where was it decided not to include the FAQ - whose purpose toexplain policies and guidelines - in this template?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you read throughTemplate talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Archive 1 you'll see a lot of discussion and consensus building for what gets included and what doesn't. Not specifically referencing the FAQ (to the best of my knowledge), but just in general to the routine addition of one or two links every once in a while. Merely stated that the links in this template were carefully selected over time and generally any addition should be discussed first. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to "discuss first". Unless there is a cogent argument against the reason I gave above for this specific link's inclusion, it should be reinstated.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits20:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page template ({{Permanently protected}}) above quite literally saysSubstantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use{{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. The talk page archive I referenced easily has 6 different discussions regarding adding or subtracting links on the template, including a specific discussion on cutting the number of links down to those that are just specifically relevant and important (see "Trimming this template" section in the archive). Either way, consider my reversion of your edit as identifying my opposition to the FAQ addition, making it controversial, and consider all the past discussions as precedent that additions to this template should start with a notification/discussion here first. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @21:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So no argument against its inclusion, much less a cogent one?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits21:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: "The addition of superfluous links clutters and devalues the important links that are currently on the template."

I'll also note that I have commented as such on all of the past discussions I pointed to, and believe it or not, created this template 17 years ago. So maybe this is a topic I know a lot about and have had a lot of discussions on before? So how about cutting out the (weirdly) negative attitude, start a new section, propose a change and see what happens? And maybe be quicker than 9 months to reply? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not superfluous. How abut you readWP:OWN?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Please change the "Don't create hoaxes" link to "Do not create hoaxes". The contraction is not in the article's actual title. Edit: Fixed typoYellowmarkers (talk)00:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Donephuzion (talk)01:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

AddWikipedia:Writing articles with large language models to the content guidelines.Warm Regards,Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs)05:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there question marks all over this template?SilverhairedHarry (talk)17:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Put your mouse cursor over it or click them....seeTemplate:Tooltip for more info.Moxy🍁17:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]