Template talk:Policy

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

Please implement this change per consensus reached above. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done—Please check, and report any issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Idea: Allow option to remove IAR exception

I've noticed that all pages with policy say that this is something that should be followed normally, but not all the time (with a link to WP:IAR). I was just thinking that some policies, like WP:NPA should never be ignored by IAR. Is it a good idea to add a parameter to remove the exceptions bit for policies, or has this been discussed before, or is it just a bad idea? FantasticWikiUser (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding "this is something that should be followed normally," what is "this"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I was closely paraphrasing what it said, not exactly copying what I thought it could be like. I will directly add the part of the template with the WP:IAR exception: It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. My idea is to add a parameter that changes it to It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. or something similar to that for certain pages. Sorry for the confusion! FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "what it said," what is "it"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. I think it means the policy described in the page, but it is very ambiguous, I agree. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Okay, I still not certain, but I gather your concern is that (a) this template, which is on every policy page, says that policy must be "followed normally" and gives wp:IAR as the exception (b) but some pages should always be followed (wp:NPA for example) and should not have an IAR exception. So you propose to modify the template to allow removal of the IAR exception on some policy pages.

I understand your concern but, as a practical matter, I think the solution will create more problems than it solves.

Regarding the problem, how often do folks engage in personal attacks and then say it was okay because the attack improved Wikipedia? My guess is almost never. It's a small, almost theoretical, problem. On the other hand, how likely is it that folks will end up arguing whether the template for a particular policy page should have or not have an IAR exception? Based on past experience, fairly often. Or, at least, more often then disputes will arise over whether IAR applies to a policy that probably has no exceptions. In short, the potential cost of your proposal outweighs the potential benefit. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. FaviFake (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow @FaviFake Fair enough, now you say that I agree. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"documents"

This template is confusing because it says the page "documents" a policy, raising the question of where the actual policy is if this is just documentation. Perhaps it should just say "is"? (Same goes for guidelines btw.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I think the current wording is correct: the policy is really whatever consensus and common practice is, and the page only "documents" that. For example, if someone comes along and changes the text of a policy without discussion, it doesn't necessarily change the actual policy; it only does if people accept the change. Just my impression, though. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Arguably that's true, but a consensus seems much too amorphous to truly be a "policy". In fact, it seems like if we order our definitions properly maybe the consensus is about what the policy (this page) should be... Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It may be amorphous, but if so, then it's the community's policy that the policies be amorphous that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"should normally follow"

This phrasing makes the distinction between policy and guidelines very unclear. I think it should be revised down to "should follow", which will still link to IAR (or maybe just "should" will) Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. There isn't a clear distinction between the page types. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This essay is wrong, which is par for the course for essays. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The essay is certainly right in cataloging the ways that the distinction can become obscured, however. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the footnote in the essay, which says the only reason it's not in the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy itself is because of our choice to use a FAQ format? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with what I believe your implication is (I believe your implication is something like, this essay is basically policy; or that we can conclude from this evidence that this page enjoys resounding consensus). The footnote does not say that's the only reason; the footnote (as it is currently written) simply explains the causal history of the creation of the essay (This explanatory essay was created as a separate "supplement" because [...] most editors thought that it would be easier to handle this material on a separate page, using a FAQ format, instead of trying to shoehorn it directly into the official policy page.). Furthermore {{supplement}} includes the verbiage This is an explanatory essay [...] This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. One is certainly within one's rights to personally conclude that the essay is fully correct, however! Dingolover6969 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it, and I was in those discussions, so I think that I know what we meant at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't really make much difference whether that essay is authoritative. If you believe there is a clear distinction between policies and guidelines, it's not on other editors to prove you wrong; it's on you to prove such a distinction exists. Can you point to something authoritative that establishes a clear distinction between policies and guidelines? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes; in fact, I contend that the current verbiage establishes the difference between policies and guidelines, just unclearly :)

• "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should [...] follow."
• "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

To put it crudely, policies are rules you have to follow. Guidelines are best practices you should heed.

One may also find it illustrative to compare the short list at WP:Content_policies with the long list at WP:Content_guidelines (also Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Content and Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Other content guidelines). But since this produces a gestalt, perhaps subjective, impression, I won't elaborate on it here.

The only reason I can think that people would get confused about this distinction is that WP:IAR is a policy regarding policies, and thus a rule that you have to follow, and it may be unclear what the resolution of conflicts between it and other policies should be. The fact that people might get confused by this confusing thing about the nature of policies does not actually change the distinction between them vs guidelines.

"Normally" in "should normally follow" is a useless hedge that only serves to muddy the situation. When you IAR (which normally links to) you are still following policy. (And, conversely, if you violate policy by disregarding policy in a way that does not "improv[e] or maintain[] Wikipedia"... you shouldn't do that, and you aren't following IAR.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's technically accurate to observe that when you IAR you don't follow one of the other policies (or, indeed, guidelines). I just don't think it's illuminating to express it this way in the explanation of what policies are. It just sows confusion as to the distinction between policies and guidelines. Anyway, that's enough out of me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Rather than "sowing confusion as to the distinction between policies and guidelines", I prefer to thinking of it as "accurately describing the messy and overlapping nature of policies and guidelines". The distinction is already confused and muddled. We can deny that reality, change that reality (difficult), or accept that reality (annoying to people who want Wikipedia's ruleset to be conceptually neat and tidy), but we're not making it be confused; it already is confused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This: To put it crudely, policies are rules you have to follow. Guidelines are best practices you should heed is an oversimplification. It does not align with reality. For example:

• A good deal of policy content is non-rule statements of general principles and background information, so you can't "follow them". For example, the Wikipedia:Editing policy opens with these rule-free words: "Wikipedia is the product of the contributions of millions of editors, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but all united by a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance and improve the content in it at any time." WP:NOTLAW, which I'd recommend you spend more time reading and thinking about says "While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community." There are no rules in there.
• Some guidelines are actually mandatory. To give an extreme example, parts of the Wikipedia:External links guideline are enforced by software, so "you have to follow them" whether you want to or not.

Something that may be useful to know is that before I wrote the WP:PROPOSAL process in 2008, the only two guidelines that followed it were WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and all the other pages were tagged as policy vs guideline semi-randomly. A page could be a policy or a guideline based on who won an edit war. Some of them were tagged at a time when the community wasn't sure that it wanted to make a distinction between policies and guidelines, and several were "downgraded" to "mere guidelines" by editors who wanted to not have what you describe as "rules" at all, and nobody has ever cared enough about the tidiness of the distinction to change it (especially after 2008, when such a change became much more difficult to make).

Other pages have been written to encompass principles (i.e., high-level, abstract content similar to Wikipedia:Five pillars), what you would call 'policy', 'guideline', and 'essay' content. To give an example of this, Wikipedia:Notability contains principles and policy statements in the lead, imposes a broad rule at WP:GNG, describes best practices in sections such as WP:NEXIST, has an essay at WP:WHYN, and ends with a help page at WP:FAILN. The end result is that there is no clear distinction between the various types; one page can be all of them, and even when it's not, the label at the top is not always an accurate guide to the style of contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)