Template talk:Policy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Policy template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 21 days

Template:Policy is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Has this issue come up before?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An editor recently quoted "Changes made to it should reflect consensus" from this box in support of the proposition that Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" does not apply to policies and guidelines. This seems to conflict with WP:PGBOLD. I'm wondering whether anyone recalls a discussion of this possible conflict between the text in this template and the policy reflected at PGBOLD. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be changed. FaviFake (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Perhaps we could modify it to say something like this: "Changes made to it should usually reflect consensus." Thoughts? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like these small links, they're mostly WP:EASTEREGGs. What do you think about this instead?

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus.

FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Starfleet Command I've created a sandbox version at {{Policy/sandbox}}

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus.

FaviFake (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be fine with that. Support. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow, @FaviFake, @Mr. Starfleet Command: This change would end nearly two decades of stability in the wording of this banner. That said, I support consistency for that sentence between {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}}, and I agree with adding the word "Substantive" as well as with the linking change. As for the other proposed modifications (replacing "[c]hanges" with "edits", removing "made", and replacing "it" with "this page"), I am neutral; ideally, an argument should be made explicitly in favor of each of these. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 21:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gluonz: Thanks for your feedback. "Substantive changes made..." sounds clunky to me. I find that "Substantive edits..." sounds much nicer. I know that's not very concrete, but I'm afraid it's the best argument I can think of.

Changing "it" to "this page" clarifies the meaning. The current wording is technically correct and unambiguous, but to me the meaning is more immediately apparent with "this page" instead.

I fully acknowledge that these points are at least somewhat subjective, but I hope you and others find them helpful in assessing this question. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gluonz I agree with everything Mr Starfleet said, and I would also like to add that "this page" is clearer because, when the relevant parameter to is set "section", for example, the scope of this template on the page is much more clearly confined too that specific section.

All of the changes you mentioned don't modify the meaning in significant ways. "edits" may be the only exception, but it's simply more specific than "changes". FaviFake (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I have not opposed any of these changes. I simply suggested that an argument be made to support those that had not yet been discussed specifically, which has since happened. Personally, I now find the argument that "this page" is clearer to be convincing, and the sentence is slightly more concise without "made". I am still neutral about the swapping of "[c]hanges" with "edits", but that is a relatively insignificant change. I am fine with letting the new wording be implemented as it is, but I will propose one more possible modification: replacing "Substantive" with "{{em|Substantive}}" ("Substantive"). This change originates from a 2017 edit to {{MoS guideline}}. However, I do not feel particularly strongly about this proposal, and I will drop it if anyone disagrees with it. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 03:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gluonz: I'd be fine with emphasizing "Substantive", considering that's what's done on the guideline templates. I don't feel strongly about it, though, so I'll support whatever the consensus is. @FaviFake, I notice that you removed that formatting from {{Guideline}}; do you object to italicizing it, and if so, why? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't remember exactly why I had removed it, but I support adding the italic formatting back, to be consistent with the other templates. I've now modified the Policy/sandbox accordingly.

@Gluonz Thanks for your feedback. The only two reasons I can think of for swapping changes with edits are: consistency with the other templates, which I don't think was brought up before, and improving the flow of the sentence. (To me, "Substantive edits to this page" sounds better than ”Substantive changes to this page".) Plus, "edits" is shorter, which might make a difference in the vertical length of the template in some screen sizes. FaviFake (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Starfleet Command, @FaviFake: Understood. Thanks. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gluonz Thanks. I guess I'll go ahead and reinstate the edit request, now that we're all on the same page? FaviFake (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to reinstate it. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 14:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. There seems to be some disagreement on exact wording, so if/when that gets nailed down feel free to re-implement the TPER. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Thanks. I applied the tag before other opposing views were posted. FaviFake (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The decline is a boilerplate decline. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Thanks. We've now reinstated the edit request. FaviFake (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done—Please reactivate the request if and when the agreed change is clearly stated; preferably in a sandbox diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace with {{Policy/sandbox}} to fix the bolding which appears on WP:IAR. "normally" shouldn't be emphasised in bold, as it changes the meaning of the sentence. The bolding is an uninentended side effect of the template linking directly to that policy page. FaviFake (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 24 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add |alt= to the File:Green check.svg icon to hide it from screen readers, per MOS:BLANKALT. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done -MOS:PDI Moxy🍁 15:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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