User:Vacant0/Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and essays

This page contains various Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and essays that I have found to be useful. I will most likely use this page when participating in AfD discussions.

Distinction

A policy is widely accepted by the Wikipedia community and describes standards that a user should follow.

A guideline is a set of best practices supported by consensus.

An essay is an opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors. An essay may not be supported by a widespread consensus.

List

(the order of this list is not alphabetical)

Wikipedia:Notability, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV (guideline)

Each article on Wikipedia can be determined whether it is notable with this guideline. Our general notability guidelines state that a topic must be presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What does this mean? Well, not everything deserves an article on Wikipedia, even if it might meet all other criteria (presumed notability). A topic must be addressed in detail (therefore, trivial mentions of the topic are discarded when talking about notability) in multiple reliable secondary sources whose content can be verified online and/or offline. Additionally, the content of these sources must be written by someone who is not affiliated with the topic. WP:SUSTAINED goes over topics that only get significant coverage regarding a single event.

Example: I could give many more examples, but I'll stick to one. To have an article on Wikipedia, a video game must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage in this case would mean a review of the game or discussion about the game's development (for unreleased/early access games). A list of sources that the WikiProject Video Games deems to be reliable can be found at WP:VG/RS (though this is only local consensus and anyone could challenge this). Therefore, a topic that does not meet this criteria should not exist as an article on Wikipedia. Regarding SUSTAINED, a video game is not presumed to be notable only by having its development/release date announced. To meet the notability criteria, other parts of the development should also be covered in reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Subjective importance, WP:ANCIENT, WP:POPULARITY (essay)

In some cases, we might think that if something is old, popular, or famous then it definitely must be notable and that the topic deserves an article. For example, many video games could have millions of players and still not be notable. Ultimately, the guideline above this essay determines whether a topic is notable, not age, popularity, or fame.

Wikipedia:Too soon (essay)

Basically, if sources do not exist for a topic that could potentially become notable in the future, then do not create an article with unsourced content and wait for the topic to receive significant coverage in reliable sources.

Wikipedia:BEFORE (part of a guideline)

This is related to Articles for deletion. Before nominating an article or participating in a discussion, a user should be familiar with policies and guidelines related to deletion and check whether the article meets notability guidelines.

Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy)

An article should contain content that is backed up by reliable sources and whose content can be checked by anyone to see if it is true or not.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy)

Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary, publisher, soapbox, blog, directory, manual, crystal ball, newspaper, indiscriminate collection of information, anarchy, democracy, and bureaucracy.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:UNDUE (policy)

One of the most important policies on Wikipedia, IMO. It is also often missunderstood a lot and used in controversial areas where users actually want to push their POV. Basically, the policy states that neutrality is based on the following principles: avoid stating opinions as facts, avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, avoid stating facts as opinions, prefer nonjudgmental language, and indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

The policy in reality is actually... pretty simple. Just follow what sources say, in a neutral manner of course. Do not let your bias jump in! If you dislike a fact held by the majority, you should not exclude it from an article. The editor should only conclude whether facts are held in the minority or majority view. If there are clashing sides, explain them both. Do not include views held by the tiny minority.

The FAQ also goes over some important questions. What if some users are simply biased? Well, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution luckily exists. So, don't throw a tantrum. Remain calm and polite to others and resolve the issues you both have. If you don't want to, this is not a website for you. Sorry not sorry.

Wikipedia:Civility (policy)

We all make mistakes, which is alright. What is also important is to learn from mistakes. Since day one, I have tried to be civil to others and it seems that it has worked out considering that I have not been warned (for uncivility) nor was ever reported to WP:ANI. It's really simple as this.

If you make a mistake, you can always apologise for it. It'd become an issue if you actually don't apologise and instead continue being unpolite and uncivil. Have I forgotten something? Oh yes, remain calm and do not attack each other. This is, after all, a community project.

Wikipedia:No original research (policy)

Another very simple policy. If there are no reliable sources for some passage of text, it should not even be in the article. Primary sources could be used instead, but in very certain cases, such as if context is needed.

Wikipedia:Article size (guideline)

An average reader of Wikipedia only reads the lede (introduction). Therefore, it is important for the lede to explain the entire article as short as possible. Depending on the article's size, this should be between one and four paragraphs. The entire article, however, should "be neither too big nor too small". An article should generally be below 10,000 words, though there are cases where this can be ignored (e.g., if some texts get cut, important context will be missing). If an article is very large, you could also suggest splitting some parts of it.

Wikipedia:Be bold (guideline)

If you think that your edit will be an improvement, do it.

Wikipedia:Consensus (policy)

Another important policy. File:Consensus Flowchart.svg sums it up well. Besides simply editing, consensus can be also achieved through discussion or from a third opinion.

Wikipedia:Harassment (policy)

Similar to Wikipedia:Civility, editors should not address harass each other.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith (guideline)

This is something that should be always kept in mind. Do not attack each other, even if you are in a disagreement. Do not assume that editors are purposely editing against you. Editors should always assume good faith unless there is evidence that they are purposely trying to destroy Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks (policy)

Again, a very similar policy.

Wikipedia:Ownership of content (policy)

Yes, I have wrote many articles. Do I have complete ownership of them? No. Editors should feel free to edit whatever article they want. If you disagree with someone's edits, you should not revert them for simply disliking that edit. That's ownership. Your position should be positioned on PAGs. If your position is based off a policy or guideline, then cite that policy or guideline.

Wikipedia:Edit warring (policy)

While it is okay to revert vandals, you should always remember that the talk page exists for a reason in other cases. If you disagree with someone regarding something, take it to the talk page instead of edit warring. It'll make you look dumb.

Wikipedia:Articles with a single source (essay)

Articles with a single source actually are probably not even notable at all. But in the other case, when other sources exist, they should generally be present in the article. As this essay already says: "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns."

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (essay)

This is an essay that I've learned about back in 2021 (if I remember correctly) from Beyond My Ken. It says that if you make a bold edit, get reverted, you should then discuss it instead of boldly adding it again. I've since found the essay quite useful and have cited it in my edit summaries.

Wikipedia:No Nazis (essay)

This is an interesting essay. I have not encountered such editors, but caution should always be taken if such editors pop up on Wikipedia. After all, in most cases, such editors would discourage our main policies in favour of their interpretation of [insert something political], which would most likely be a fringe view.

Such editors should be blocked if their username is inappropriate (e.g., HitlerSupporter1488) or their edits whitewash Nazis and fascists. All of this should be decided at WP:ANI. I have a background in studying extremism, so I'll be able to spot them well.

Wikipedia:Ideology warrior (essay)

If you watch over political articles on Wikipedia, particularly political parties, you'd be able to see editors removing or adding ideologies based on their personal interpretation, and not what reliable sources say. This includes examples such as:

1. Changing far-right to right-wing, or far-left to left-wing
2. Changing far-right to "right-wing to far-right".
3. Changing far-right to far-left on articles related to Nazism.
4. Changing ideologies such as social democracy to democratic socialism or vice versa.
5. including more examples, which can be found on that essay's page.

The ultimate problem with such cases is that they will most likely not meet the WP:OR criteria. There are some cases in which it will. For example, the first two examples. A party can be described as both far-right and right-wing or far-left and left-wing. Therefore, the political position can include both of those positions. As a false impretation of the consensus policy, "right-wing to far-right" or "left-wing to far-left" (or similar examples for moderate parties) can be seen in many cases. What I've argued over the years is that this example actually violated the WP:OR policy because in most cases there will be no reliable sources stating that a such party spans from the right-wing to right-wing. Instead, you'll be able to only find sources that describe the party as either right-wing or far-right.

The reason why I mostly put examples of extremism is because in most cases I've seen, this will only occur on such articles. There are also cases for moderate parties but this is less prevalent there. In wikivoice, we should only describe a party as being something if a reliable sources says as so. I ignore my political views when I'm on Wikipedia, as I only rely on our PAGs and what reliable sources say. To give out an example, my reasoning at National Rally was wholly based on what reliable sources said and what our PAGs said. I have never, nor will be, a POV pusher. After all, I have background in studying extremism (both far-left and far-right), so I can easily spot an editor that tries to change something based on their personal interpreation.

Wikipedia:Nationalist editing (essay)

Very similar to the previous one, instead, in this case is nationalism. This is prevalent in controversial topics, such as Western Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Israel–Palestine topics. I won't go too deep into detail, but these are again, in most cases, POV pushers. Although I initially identified as a social democrat up on joining Wikipedia and for years before that, my political views have changed since then and I have since declared myself as a socialist internationalist for years at this point, so do not expect me to fall to someone's nationalist POV.

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" (essay)

I used to do this much frequently back in the day, mostly because there was actually consensus reached on the talk page regarding some political thing. I've later learned about this essay and found it quite useful and therefore have stopped reverting users for simply no consensus. Nowadays, even if an edit does go against the consensus, which should be actually based on PAGs and not personal views of editors, I would cite specific PAGs and explain why it is as it is.

Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment (essay)

Don't be an asshole and instead work together with other editors and treat them like how they deserve.

Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers (essay)

I've been a mentor for several years at this point and I've also mentored several GAN reviewers. So, don't be an asshole to new users. When I started out editing in 2019, I knew nothing. Nor was I offered any help. But if I was new and someone was being an asshole to me? Well, that'd definitely make me stop editing.

Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless (essay)

Wasn't one of them. Did not even know how Wikipedia properly works until 2021. But some editors aren't like me and they'll learn our PAGs first before editing.

Wikipedia:Recentism (essay)

A good test whether something will be worth including in an article is the 10 year test. While it is good that Wikipedia includes up-to-date information, particularly on breaking news events, sometimes it can also be a negative.

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (essay)

This is a... huge essay. The nutshell explains well: 1) discussions are not decided through head count 2) if an article does not meet specific criteria, guidelines, or policies, explain it well 3) make clear and solid arguments 4) avoid short one-liners (something I definitely have to learn).

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (essay)

Even if something might be true, it must be backed up by a reliable source to be included in the article.

User:Ritchie333/How newbies see templates (essay)

When I used to be more active, I also used to warn people a lot. For example, if a user vandalised three pages, I'd post three warnings. I later learned throughout reading stuff is that I actually should not do that. At least since 2023, I have tried to not do that, and instead warn users once. Users, especially new ones, will get scared away from seeing such warnings.