I know this is a very unimportant matter (might also go on miscellaneous ), but I was just wondering what we could have for WP:Z; WP:A,B,C, etc. are complete but there is no WP:Z (A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z). I'm proposing that we create a WP:Z that redirects somehwere, but I don't know where! ♠TomasBat 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... perhaps Wikipedia:Zeitgeist? -- Boracay Bill 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the most boring (zzzz) page we can find. >Radiant< 12:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep? Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person that finds WP:CREEP and WP:IAR incredibly ironic? WP:Z could be useful as an intentional redlink --lucid 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah... I like this. Thanks for the chuckle. I like the boring page idea too :) But I'll have to think about this one.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have many pages beginning with Z in the Wikipedia namespace worth linking to. There's Wikipedia:Zeitgeist (inactive), Wikipedia:Zero revert rule (redirect), Wikipedia:Zimbabwe-related regional notice board and Wikipedia:Zap (rejected proposal). Radiant's suggestion looks like the best option here... Hut 8.5 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered too textbook-ish to encourage adding a specific 'prerequisites' section to wikipedia's articles to enhance understanding ? I'm thinking of science/mathematics articles in particular, where things are organized especially hierarchically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.168.141 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I don't know what you mean by hierarchically though--Phoenix 15 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please brush up Wikipedia:Accountability and make it one of fundamental official policies of Wikipedia. Obviously, few persons have edited Wikipedia:Accountability. Probably, for many editors, to achieve accountability is just one of common sense, so they didn't need to read and edit Wikipedia:Accountability from necessity. But it should be established properly by the consensus of many Wikipedians.

Please read Wikipedia:Accountability, and amend it if you can. And please change its status from {{guideline}} to {{policy}} at the good time. -- PBeaver 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC), 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accountability was tagged as a guideline without anything that could ever be called a consensus. It reflects the opinions of you and perhaps one or two other editors. I've removed the guideline tag. You need to show a consensus on the talk page, and that talk page is right now extremely short. Most of the comments there seem to be from people who are bewildered as to how and when the page became a guideline. The page is also very poorly written, extremely far from the level of quality usually attributed to guidelines. I fixed the overview paragraph somewhat, but it still needs much more work before you can even think about making it a guideline.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Are you OK? You need to show the proper reasons and the clear consensus on the talk page, as far as you have requested others to do so and you had removed the guideline tag without any proper reasons and clear consensus.

• I have already shown the proper resons and clear consensus on the talk page on the assumption that almost all decent editors in advanced countries needn't have been taught by WP:ACAB, therefore, needn't have brushed up WP:ACAB.

• Why haven't you still recognized Wikipedia's free-editing policy and Wikipedia's Accountability System?

• I can't think the page is also very poorly written, extremely far from the level of quality usually attributed to guidelines.

For example, a simple sentence such as the following :

"All editors should achieve accountability in all edit summary boxes and talk pages concerned."

is enough for me and probably almost all decent editors.

• Therefore, I can't think that WP:ACAB still needs much more work. What much more work do you think WP:ACAB needs?

• Why haven't you added much more work to WP:ACAB by yourself, if you are really thinking so?

• Please read Wikipedia talk:Accountability#Tagged as one of guidelines again. I already knew what kind of people you are and explained it. -- PBeaver 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That page makes almost no sense. All it says is "Leave an edit summary and get an account," neither of which are required, and both of which are recommended elsewhere. There's simply no point. Atropos 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't complain to me. If you find something to really have to be amended in WP:ACAB, Do It Yourself.

• Which do you think WP:ACAB require you, "Leave an edit summary and get an account" or "Neither leave an edit summary nor get an account"? The former? The latter? I don't know what you are thinking and why you haven't revised them yet.

• Please read Wikipedia talk:Accountability#Tagged as one of guidelines again. I already knew what kind of people you are.

• Have you never left any edit summary against Wikipedia:Accountability and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend?

• Have you never achieved accountability appropriately in talk pages and Village pump against Wikipedia:Talk pages?

• I can't think that Wikipedia:Accountability orders everybody to "get an account."

Of course, "Wikipedia:Accountability" are basically different from "Wikipedia:Account."

• And "Wikipedia:Accountability" are more essential than "Wikipedia:Account." -- PBeaver 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to work on it, you might start by cleaning up the grammar. That's pretty bad. Corvus cornix 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't complain to me. Please don't complain such a thing here. As far as you said so, all you have to do is to amend WP:ACAB by yourself. -- PBeaver 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to clean it up as it is a rejected guideline and should stay rejected. You're the one pushing for it to be implemented, you should be the one cleaning it up so that you don't embarrass yourself. Corvus cornix 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PBeaver keeps replacing the rejected tag with a guideline tag. Anyone know what can be done about that?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have already explained it. Please read well or decipher well Wikipedia talk:Accountability#Tagged as one of guidelines again and around it. -- PBeaver 23:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Round 2

• Who would like to discuss with idiot guys who reject Wikipedia:Accountability as one of policies and guidlines in Wikipedia? I have to say this serious problem here.

• The most important key point about Wikipedia:Accountability is that it has to continue to exist as a basis of all edit summaries, talk pages, policies and guidlines of Wikipedia, regardless of its contents.

• Frankly speaking, it is only that there needs to be the page titled "Wikipedia:Accountability" in Wikipedia.

• At a glance of {{rejected}} on Wikipedia:Accountability, I found that what shouldn't happen in Wikipedia has occured here and there. Therefore, I still haven't interested in its contents. I have been most interested in whether or not the admins of En.Wikipedia are wise enough to make the status of WP:ACAB one of official policies of Wikipedia.

• The most important goals is that some dictatorial and/or arrogant admins have to achieve their own accountability appropriately. Therefore, admins themselves should amend WP:ACAB with proper reasons.

• Never forget that the less quantity WP:ACAB has, the better it become, because almost all decent editors in advanced countries can't feel the necessity of reading Wikipedia:Accountability.

• Have you ever seen WP:IAR?

• WP:ACAB don't need to have many sentences as well as WP:IAR.

• WP:ACAB can't have many sentences as well as WP:IAR.

• Please jump to Wikipedia talk:Accountability#What kind of status WP:ACAB should have?.

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_AP
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---