Wikibooks talk:Avoid instruction creep

Simplified
I like this new revision, it is much more simple and to-the-point then the wikipedia version is. Lead by example: it's a good idea. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad! I started writing a little note here to seem less of a rouge, but then my nieces woke up ... --Swift 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking good so far. It's definitely a good policy to have. Wikipedia policy has grown ridiculously fat trying to keep people from abusing or confusing rules. Oh, and good luck to new admins trying to extract info on how their new tools actually work from amongst all the harsh warnings about what not to do with them! GarrettTalk 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Guideline
I am in no particular hurry to make this page official, because I'm sure that there are more things that can be said on the issue, and more people who should chime in before we try to make it official. However, I am thinking that this proposal would probably make a better guideline, then a policy. If we specify that distinction early, it will be much easier ( i think) to get the votes to pass it later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Applying WB:CREEP to itself
In regards to this edit, I appreciate the irony. However, this page is at present only an essay, but pertains to policies and guidelines, and thus does not logically apply to itself. Moreover, the points removed were not making the page harder to understand or manage, but rather were helpful tips. With that said, I do see why it might be problematic to say that each requirement should have "clear consensus", as it's not necessarily good to remove an instruction just because consensus was never explicitly established for it. The last point, "prune instructions regularly", might be problematic for similar reasons. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

'Requirements which are found to lack community consensus should be removed or modified.'
I changed this sentence to 'Requirements without community consensus should be removed or modified', though this was later changed back. IMO the sentenced should be shortened in the above manner for concision. This is because it requirements are 'found to' lack community consensus, they do lack community consensus; if it is not 'found to' lack community consensus, how does one know that it lacks community consensus? Leaving out 'are found to' also removes a passive voice phrase. As for 'lacks;, if something lacks community consensus, then it doesn't have community consensus. Kayau 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that saying it that way could encourage summary removal of instructions for no reason other than that consensus was never explicitly established for them. Granted, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it could cause disruption. "Are found to lack community consensus" seemed like it would encourage discussion. If the grammar is a problem, perhaps there is a better way to say it. Belteshazzar (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If consensus was never explicitly established for them, surely one cannot tell, at first glance, that there is no consensus? Kayau 12:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Belteshazzar, the sentence should be clear that discussion should happen before lack of consensus is considered to be the case. I also think lack of consensus and no consensus can mean two different things. --dark lama  14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much 'common sense' that discussion should happen, IMHO. In any case, I don't think 'found to' implies discussion either. What is the difference between lack of and no consensus? Kayau 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "common sense" can be found in many pages in the Wikibooks namespace. Lack of consensus can mean there was lack of an attempt to find common ground and an agreeable compromise. No consensus can mean that several clear options have been expressed with some people agreeing with each, but overall the options conflict with one another and no common ground could be found as a result despite attempts to find an agreeable compromise. --dark lama  00:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I see the difference between lack and no. But then, does 'found to' really imply the need of discussion? Kayau 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "found to" may mean that a person attempted to look into whether there is a consensus or not. I think Decision making might imply the need for discussion. --dark lama  10:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)