"വിക്കിപീഡിയ:നയങ്ങളും മാർഗ്ഗരേഖകളും" എന്ന താളിന്റെ പതിപ്പുകൾ തമ്മിലുള്ള വ്യത്യാസം

ഉപന്യാസങ്ങളും സഹായ താളുകളും എഴുതുകയും {{tl|ഉപന്യാസം}}, {{tl|സൂചികാതാൾ}} തുടങ്ങിയ ഫലകങ്ങൾ ചേർക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത് പുതുതായി തയ്യാറാക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
<!--Current policy and guideline proposals can be found in [[:Category:Wikipedia proposals]], and rejected proposals can be found in [[:Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals]]. All editors are welcome to comment on these proposals.-->
 
=== Proposals ===
{{anchor|proposal}}
{{shortcut|WP:PROPOSAL}}
{{Seealso|Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance|WP:POLL#Policy_and_guidelines}}
Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{tl|policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. Most commonly, a new policy or guideline simply documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them. [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Request for comments]] (RfC) via the {{tlx|rfc|policy}} tag are recommended to draw wider attention to a proposed new policy or guideline in order to build consensus. Consensus for significant changes to practice are rarely accomplished through polling, and new policies and guidelines are not "approved" through polling, though sometimes polling is used to gauge wider consensus on a well-developed proposal.
 
==== Good practice for proposals ====
The first step is to write the best initial proposal that you can. Authors can request early-stage feedback at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (development)|Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation]] and from any relevant WikiProjects. Amendments to a proposal should be discussed on its talk page. It is crucial to improve a proposal in response to feedback received from outside editors. Consensus is built through a process of listening and discussion with a progressively larger group of editors.
 
Once you think that the initial proposal is well-written, and the issues involved have been sufficiently discussed to form a local consensus among early participants, start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and including the {{tlx|rfc|policy}} tag along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal. After that, you can provide, if you want, a detailed explanation of what the page does and why you think it should be a policy or guideline. The {{tl|proposed}} template should be placed at the top of the proposed page; this tag will get the proposal properly categorized.
 
The RfC should typically be announced at the [[WP:VPP|policy]] and/or [[WP:VPR|proposals]] village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups. If your proposal affects a specific content area, then related WikiProjects can be found at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory]]. For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style]]. If your proposal relates to an existing policy or guideline, leave a note on the talk page of the related policy or guideline. For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. Try to identify the subcategory of guideline or policy (see {{tl|subcat guideline}}). Proposals involving contentious subjects or wide-ranging effects should normally be listed on [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussions]] for the duration of the RfC. RfCs for policy and guideline proposals are normally left open for at least one week, and sometimes as long as a couple of months.
 
To avoid later complaints about insufficient notice, it may be helpful to provide a complete list of the groups or pages that you used to advertise the proposal on the talk page.
 
Editors should respond to proposals in a way that helps identify and build consensus. Explain your thoughts, ask questions, and raise concerns; all views are welcome. Many editors begin their response with bold-font 'vote' of support or opposition to make evaluation easier. Editors should sign their responses.
 
Ending a discussion requires careful evaluation of the responses to determine the consensus. This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any sufficiently experienced independent editor (an impartial editor not involved in the discussion) who is familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal. The following points are important in evaluating consensus:
* [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus]] for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong, though unanimity is not required.
* There must be exposure to the community beyond just the authors of the proposal.
* Consider the strength of the proposed page:
** Have major concerns raised during the community discussion been addressed?
** Does the proposal contradict any existing guidelines or policies?
** Can the new proposed guideline or policy be merged into an existing one?
** Is the proposed guideline or policy, or some part of it, redundant with an existing guideline or policy?
* A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes. [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|Polling is not a substitute for discussion]], nor is a poll's numerical outcome tantamount to consensus.
* <span id="failed" />If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time period, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed.
 
Discussion may be closed as either '''Promote''', '''No consensus''', or '''Failed'''. Please leave a short note about the conclusion that you came to. Update the proposal to reflect the consensus. Remove the {{tl|Proposed}} template and replace it with another appropriate template, such as {{tl|Subcat guideline}}, {{tl|Policy}}, {{tl|Essay}}, {{tl|Wikipedia how to}}, {{tl|Infopage}}, or {{tl|Failed}}.
 
If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not usually be removed. It is typically more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems than to re-nominate a proposal.
 
==={{anchor|historical}}Demotion===
{{shortcut|WP:HISTORICAL}}
An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep|instruction creep]]. In such situations editors may propose that a policy be demoted to a guideline, or that a policy or guideline be demoted to a [[Template:Supplement|supplement]], [[Template:Infopage|informational page]], [[Template:Essay|essay]] or [[Template:Historical|historical]] page. In certain cases, a policy or guideline may be [[Template:Superseded|superseded]], in which case the old page is marked and retained for historical interest.
 
The process for demotion is similar to promotion. A talk page discussion is typically started, the {{tlx|underdiscussion|status|''Discussion Title''}} template is added to the top of the project page, and community input is solicited. After a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus.
 
The {{tl|disputedtag}} template is typically used instead of {{tl|underdiscussion}} for claims that a page was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established.
 
Essays, information pages, and other informal pages that are only supported by a small minority of the community are typically moved to the primary author's userspace. These discussions typically happen on the page's talk page, sometimes with an RfC, but they have at times also been conducted at [[WP:MFD|Miscellany for Deletion]] (despite the MFD guidelines explicitly discouraging this practice). Other pages are retained for historical reference and are marked as such.
 
===Content changes===
{{shortcut|WP:PGCHANGE}}
Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion.
 
Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice. It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page. To update best practices, you may change the practice directly ([[WP:WIARM|you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change]]) and/or set about building widespread consensus for your change or implementation through discussion. When such a change is accepted, you can then edit the page to reflect the new situation.
 
====Substantive changes====
 
'''Talk first.''' Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.
 
If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.
 
If wider input on a proposed change is desired, it may be useful to mark the section with the tag {{tlx|underdiscussion|section|talk<nowiki>=</nowiki>''Discussion Title''}}. (If the proposal relates to a single statement, use {{tlx|underdiscussion-inline|''Discussion Title''}} immediately after it.)
{{shortcut|WP:PGBOLD}}
'''Or be bold.''' The older but still valid method is to boldly edit the page. [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Bold]] editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow [[WP:1RR]] or [[WP:0RR]] standards. Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Process|directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies]]. Consequently, you should not remove any change ''solely'' on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.
 
Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as [[Wikipedia:gaming the system|gaming the system]], especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.
 
===Conflicts between advice pages===
{{shortcut|WP:POLCON}}
If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.
 
More commonly, advice pages do not directly conflict, but provide multiple options. For example, [[WP:Identifying reliable sources]] says that newspaper articles are generally considered to be reliable sources, and [[WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine-related articles)]] recommends against newspaper articles for certain technical purposes. Editors must use their best judgment to decide which advice is most appropriate and relevant to the specific situation at hand.
 
== പേരിടൽ ==
27,399

തിരുത്തലുകൾ

"https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/പ്രത്യേകം:മൊബൈൽവ്യത്യാസം/1750871" എന്ന താളിൽനിന്ന് ശേഖരിച്ചത്