Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense

Renaming: patent nonsense -> obvious nonsense

I really know what is meant, but due to nonsense patents being around so much I always get it wrong at first each single encounter of the term ... Are there others with the same sentiment? -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. For historical reasons, I oppose moving the page; this is a reference to one of the earliest edits to Wikipedia, especially because the term "patent nonsense" is used together with "brilliant prose." In fact, it appears that the term "brilliant prose" refered to what are now featured articles; see historical revisions of the Featured articles page. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tomdo08. We shouldn't keep an ambiguous term for purely historical reasons. WP:PATENT really shouldn't redirect here, but changing it, e.g., to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources would break existing uses. (Although, since there only appear to be eight such links, they could feasibly be changed.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. "Patent nonsense" is a well-established expression in our language. Any confusion is immediately cleared up on reading the lede. Secondarily, it creates havoc when WP policies are renamed; it's difficult for anyone to master the policy spaghetti we necessarily generate here, and changing our jargon on fairly cosmetic grounds means users have to give effort to relearning something without improving overall comprehension. Laodah 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The WP:PATENT short-cut links here. I want to put a hatnote on this page to disambiguate with patent (legal) meaning help i.e. link to the essay Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F . Any objections? Widefox; talk 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. It should also help disambiguate the subcase of the nonsense patents above. Widefox; talk 12:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of research, I understand patent nonsense has here an established meaning, but as a novice here I expected it to mean something like nonsense in patent (legal protection of intellectual right) material (which I have sometimes encountered).

For novices like I was when I first came here, a concise explanation of that meaning would be welcome (but I can't provide, or propose, it yet, because here I mostly see what it is not). For the first idea, maybe to be added (possibly to the beginning of the section Not to be confused with ...) something like "not to be confused with nonsense in patents" (see here the rest after the first) "or patented nonsense" (a lot of mumbo-jumbo in publicity industries seems to be copyrighted and protected), which is both related, but far form the meaning here - until something better can be written here. Another addition of "what it is not" is not what I'd like to see; hopefully someone else shall have some better idea. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't some obscure, Wikipedia originated definition of the phrase "patent nonsense". This is the accepted definition of the phrase in the language as a whole. "Patent nonsense" meaning "obvious nonsense" has been part of the English language for far, FAR longer than the internet has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding PN to existing articles.

The way that this page is currently written excludes instructions on what to do if a user adds patent nonsense to an existing article. I would think that in such cases the user should be warned with the uw-test series of templates and that such instances should be reverted (undone or rolled back). Could someone add this to this guideline with easy to read and understand language? I'm not as good at wording things like this as I thought I was based on my experiences attempting to modify wordings on other guidelines. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding random characters to the middle of an article is just garden-variety vandalism. You handle it like you would any other edit. The only time patent nonsense requires special handling is when the whole page needs to be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I came here looking for tips on what to do if a user adds an entire section to an existing page ( [1] ), and I agree that this guideline is not clear on what to do in that case.

I added a few words about UNDO. What else should we say about undoing nonsense added to normal, no-nonsense articles? What other parts of this guideline can we trim down to Wikipedia: avoid instruction creep? --DavidCary (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant prose=featured article?

Something rather confusing about this project page is that brilliant prose is linked to Featured article. First of all, "brilliant prose" is made to sound like a popularly used phrase to describe good articles. Second of all, are "brilliant prose"s only featured articles? Anyway I find this nomenclature weird and the Wikilinking even more baffling. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a hangover from the early days of Wikipedia, when WP:Featured Articles was called 'Brilliant prose'. It was renamed back in 2004 for precisely the reasons you've identified. The link here should really be renamed as well, since Featured Articles do not necessarily contain 'brilliant prose' (whatever that peacock term is meant to mean, anyway). Robofish (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request re: Featured article link

In the section "Dealing with patent nonsense", the first bulleted item is "Replace it with a well-written article." with the "well-written article" linking to WP:Featured articles. I don't think anyone is going to replace a patent nonsense article with a featured article (not off the bat, anyway) and would like to request that the link either be removed or (better) replaced with a link to WP:How to write a great article. This seems more in keeping with dealing with patent nonsense and encouraging editors to replace it with non-nonsense. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I find it amusing that someone could have a WP:COI in patent nonsense. Keira1996 06:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As do I, Keira1996, but it has been suggested that I not attempt to directly edit any policy or guideline as I have disclosed participating in paid editing and am now considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to pretty much anything, including patent nonsense... as nonsensical as that may sound to both of us! Such are the costs of disclosure, it turns out. KDS4444 ^(talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware, and I heavily pity your situation there. I understand the rationale behind the decision, though... I'm going to work through the quicker portions of the COI requests backlog over the next few days, so hopefully your editing won't be too hindered by the waits. Keira1996 05:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Not to be confused with ... section

How could anyone confuse copyright violations, plagiarism, defamation, or underlinked content with patent nonsense? They do not resemble patent nonsense. If we are going to list everything that is not patent nonsense—as opposed to problems that one might plausibly confuse with patent nonsense—this section should grow to approximately the size of Wikipedia. In my opinion, we should remove these items because they detract from the guideline.—Finell 21:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It maybe could be that the person in question had no idea of such material being copyrighted. But yes, i do agree it cannot be some sort of nonsense, unless in some extreme cases — Creesperings (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) (reformatted  :-) SquisherDa (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC))

It seems sensible to clarify tht "patent nonsense" isn’t a catch-all bucket for any-/everything an editor disapproves of? And maybe editors reading the piece occasionally confuse "patent nonsense" with "patently unsuitable"? and condemn (eg) underlinked articles under the wrong heading? The admins on New pages patrol would be the ones to know, I guess. But the point about diverting from / diluting the guideline topic seems probably important. And of the various listed types of duff copy, copyvio is probably the least likely to give classification problems like that - and therefore a rather baffling first item, as at present, in the list. (That bullet is also least clear on what the editor should do in such cases.) So I’m moving that bullet to the end. - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

cos as presently positioned, at the top, it must be unnecessarily baffling. - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We've had problems with people calling any kind of unwanted content "patent nonsense". It's an incentives thing: if I say "Ugh, that's stupid", then all I can do is revert it. But if I say "Ugh, that's patent nonsense", then I can tag it as {{db-nonsense}}, and maybe an admin will delete it, which is far more satisfying, and then I can claim I'm an important Defender of the Wiki™ who protects the public from people who make test edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Super crazy idea: demote to info page

Is this really a guideline? I feel like this is already covered by WP:G1 for entire articles, and Wikipedia:Vandalism / Wikipedia:Disruptive editing for individual edits. "Demoting" would decrease WP:CREEP, but I feel like there is something I am missing here. Thoughts / comments / reasons why this is a WP:BADIDEA? HouseBlaster^talk 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the oldest content guidelines. I agree it may seem obvious. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of demoting something simply because it is obvious. Is there a reason why demoting this would help the encyclopedia? I don't think proposing to demote things reduces creep - I think that is actually increasing creep because we're spending time quibbling on distinctions without differences. Sure, in the end you're left with arguably less creep, but you've increased the aggregate creep over time value x, the area under the line of creep if you will. So, aside from it being a bad idea to go around reducing the emphasis on the idea that the encyclopedia can act with extreme prejudice when something is blatantly nonsensical - why is this a good idea? Andre🚐 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not really arguing that it should be demoted because it is obvious (even though it is obvious). I am arguing that benefit provided by this guideline does not outweigh the institutional creep it creates. creates does not outweigh the benefit it provides to the PAGs does help the encyclopedia, and this guideline does little to actively help the encyclopedia. This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but when I started editing, I was slightly overwhelmed by the number of times I would click on a blue link on a policy page and being was greeted by another massive box with a green or blue checkmark. I imagine I am not the only person with that feeling. Making it just a tiny bit easier for newcomers to learn the rules would help the encyclopedia. From the second sentence of WP:CREEP, "the longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write." It follows that decreasing creep makes people more likely to follow other, less obvious rules, and therefore be constructive contributors. That would help the encyclopedia. Finally, if you need to read this page to know that adding "dsafhialsdjflks" to the end of an article is a bad thing, I would rather you operate under the assumption that it is okay and be CIR blocked just a bit faster. That would help the encyclopedia.
I also respectfully disagree that simply discussing this increases the complexity of the rules, especially when this particular debate centers around simplifying then. Even if it this discussion would only decrease creep in the future, that still means that this would eventually result in a net decrease in creep under the line.
Sure, we would only remove one PAG. But I believe that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. We all know that Wikipedia changes at a glacial pace. This would get the glacier moving in the right direction. HouseBlaster^talk 04:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC) edited for clarity 05:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith argument and reasoning, and I will concede the point that a simplification of a complex system, even a small one, is a good thing. However, I think having a clear bright line rule against obvious nonsense simplifies the operation of the project, so for this reason I oppose your proposal, but I will grant that you have legitimate reasoning for coming here. I am all in favor of moving the glaciers and whatnot. This one doesn't feel like it does actually move in the right direction. I don't think the right direction is "fewer polices and guidelines." We might need fewer in some areas, and more in other areas. Andre🚐 04:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sounds like a solid idea and I agree with HouseBlaster's reasoning. I support the idea of having fewer policies and guidelines. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support demoting: I have little to add, other than that I support condensing the amount of guidelines. —VersaceSpace 🌃 05:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. G1 is a useful speedy deletion criteria and this is the guideline that justifies it. Both are commendably brief, perhaps some other areas of policy could be rewritten to emulate their brevity. ϢereSpielChequers 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with WereSpielChequers on this. Andre🚐 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Without trying to badger, I want to point out why I would disagree with the G1 logic (which I fully believe it is a valid perspective): not every speedy criterion is justified in a separate PAG. WP:C1, WP:F8, WP:G7, and WP:G13, off the top of my head. In fact, WP:A7, a CSD which arguably needs more of an explanation than G1, is justified by the non-PAG WP:CCS. Completely agree that as PAGs go, this one is commendable for its brevity. HouseBlaster^talk 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support change to info page. This is not a demotion. An information page such as this one is simply not a guideline or policy on it's own, but merely a clarification and discussion on actual policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Side note - maybe a grander reshuffling of policy vs guideline vs info in general is in order - for example, Wikipedia:Gaming the system is a guideline... I don't know about you, but that seems like a good candidate for full-on policy to me - "occasional exceptions may apply" just looks kind of dumb on that particular page. casualdejekyll 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "demoting" to information page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page be "demoted" from a guideline to an information page? HouseBlaster^talk 02:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. My thoughts have largely been said above, but the TL;DR version: this guideline is not worth the amount of WP:CREEP it creates. Decreasing CREEP, even slightly, makes it just that little bit easier for newbies to learn our endless volume of rules, and makes it more likely they will follow them. We already have Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which cover individual edits, and WP:G1 for articles. Not every CSD has a policy/guideline to support it (for example, WP:C1 and WP:G13). In fact, WP:A7 is further explained in an information page, not a policy or guideline. HouseBlaster^talk 02:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Is there any actual disagreement that this page is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply? If not, then it should stay a guideline. I see no such disagreement above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, justifies WP:G1. It's useful to have a bright-line rule about obvious nonsense. The guideline isn't needlessly complex or adding a lot of process cruft. It justifies the deletion of word salad and confusing content without a need to justify this content under another reason. A rule that is very old and has a lot of long-time consensus support shouldn't be removed just to reduce the absolute number of policies. Andre🚐 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't see how demoting this really achieves anything. This seems like a "no duh" guideline, but sometimes "no duh" things need to be spelled out. I also don't buy the WP:CREEP argument. If telling newbies not to put nonsense in articles is CREEP, then.....I don't know lol. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support it's a good idea to avoid having unnecessary guidelines, and this one doesn't really say anything useful. Hut 8.5 07:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I should add that the mere fact the community agrees with it doesn't mean it should be a guideline. By that logic you could create a project page with any obvious statement and it would have to be declared a guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be useful as well as accepted. Hut 8.5 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As has already been explained, a “guideline” is something that has been vetted and endorsed by the community and it formally represents the community’s position. No argument has been made that this isn’t the case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing the banner at the top of this page from "This is a guideline" to "This is an information page" doesn't actually reduce the amount of content in this page or reduce the amount of rules you have to read. I don't think that the definition of "Patent Nonsense" is obvious, and I see value in a page that clearly lays out what patent nonsense is, some of the kind of stuff that is frequently mistaken for patent nonsense and how you should deal with said stuff instead. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – This provides a clear definition to support WP:G1, and "demoting" the guideline serves no purpose to further the objectives of Wikipedia. The page has been in place since 2001 and has been updated numerous times since, though I don't know when it was officially made a guideline. Pointing to other CSD criteria that do not have guidelines supporting them as justification for this is a perfect example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, I know those were written specifically in regard to deletion discussions, but they apply here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In researching this guideline ahead of this RfC, I was unable to find a discussion that resulted in its "promotion". It was tagged as a "semi-policy" in 2005 by UninvitedCompany. I would hazard a guess that there was no discussion beforehand, given that on the same day UnivitedCompany made a similar edit to other pages (see, for example, AGF or COI. He also marked IAR as historical). While I am here, I am going to clarify that I mentioned the other CSDs as evidence that "demoting" this page would not require us to depreciate G1. HouseBlaster^talk 16:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    It was more common in 2005 to make bold changes to policies that didn't need to be ratified formally. Andre🚐 17:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - this page is a supplement for policy, not a guideline itself. Note that Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is equally important for understanding some CSDs, is only a {{supplement}}. 93.172.250.69 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Framing this is a "demotion" is counterproductive. Remember that WP:BRD, a critical aspect of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions, isn't a policy or guideline despite its widespread consensus; the general notability guideline is not a policy despite being one of the most rigidly applied standards on the encyclopedia. The labels we use for our essays are not iron-clad and should not be taken as rigid statements about the level of consensus supporting an essay. Instead, they're more useful as descriptive statements about the content: policies are fundamental editorial standards, guidelines document best practices, and information pages, supplements, and essays provide additional context and perspectives on policies and guidelines. These are often organized by levels of consensus, but there are plenty of exceptions at all levels.
  So with all that said, I think this page is best labelled as an {{information page}}. That's not a statement on its level of consensus, rather, it's a statement on the content. This page informs editors about our definition of "patent nonsense" and lists typical responses, but it doesn't really provide best practices or rules in the way that policies or guidelines typically do; what . Without an understanding of WP:CSD and WP:DE, this essay is not particularly enlightening, and so it is best to use a template like {{information page}} which makes that connection clear to editors who are not well-versed in our alphabet soup. The benefit of {{information page}} is that, unlike {{supplement}} or {{essay}}, the text of the banner doesn't disclaim a lack of consensus, and so we don't need to view it as a "demotion" at all. Support — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Meh, I've read the supporting arguments and am unconvinced this is a productive change or a good use of community time to discuss. -FASTILY 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A world-class competencies, and tossed management of people have changed, the hot and garlic. The full involvement and nearly inconceivable with the importance - in quality for destiny with the full involvement of sweet basil, part of pesto is absolutely parsley and baked to golden performance of sweet based managers assume recognize that you'll get a large 1-topped of sweet basil, parsley and garlic. Herostratus (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The above !vote should be discounted, per the guideline. Ha! – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Took me embarrassingly long to understand this comment.... Ovinus (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Wait, you understood it? Can you explain it? Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Huh? Or in the affirmative, I said there are EXACTLY 4 times when that would be apropriate, not necessarily or (and of??) similar impotance like, When do we ever think that way.. This so extremely basic (parsly and pesto, yes, sweet basil no (!)) the guideline must be tomatoes/capsicum, or else what? Because, oterwise I disagree. What Disapointment...! Ovinus (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll have that sweet basil and garlic pesto, sounds delicious. Andre🚐 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "demotion" to "an explanatory essay about a section of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy." This is the WP:CSD#G1 {{Main}} page providing guidelines for enforcement of a component of the speedy deletion policy. As Wikipedia:Spam is the WP:CSD#G11 {{Main}} page providing guidelines for enforcement of another component of the speedy deletion policy. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Explanatory for the CSD tag, does little harm (although it's not as important as the average guideline), mildly amusing, has historical value. Not seeing the WP:CREEP argument, mostly per JCW. Ovinus (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: there should be fewer guidelines per WP:CREEP. This guideline sticks out as a rather strange one: I can't really see how it is useful. As HouseBlaster says, CSD does not require some underlying guideline for each criterion. Nonsense can still be deleted. This would be clear were IAR our only policy or guideline. But we also have things like 5P1 and NOTWEBHOST. The most useful part of this page is probably what is not patent nonsense (e.g. non-English text), but G1 covers that such things are not eligible for G1 deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CREEP, Wugs, and Bilorv. We have too many WP:GUIDELINES and should reduce their number, and this is one that can go. Telling newbies not to insert patent nonsense into articles is "instruction creep" because we don't need to tell newbies not to do that because people already know not to do that. We really should endeavor to just have one page about WP:Vandalism policy, we don't need separate guidelines about specific types of vandalism, like WP:Patent nonsense, WP:Page blanking, WP:Do not create hoaxes, and WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Levivich (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CREEP. I concur with Levivich, this is redundant to WP:VANDALISM. If I opened Joe Biden one day and saw random text in place of the article's usual content, I would identify and treat it as vandalism. This being a guideline is pointless and doesn't actually enforce anything on its own. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support WP:G1 already provides a satisfactory standalone definition. The current page also fails WP:CREEP, because it's not worth drawing a distinction between what is and most of what isn't 'patent nonsense', if it's all bad and should be removed anyway. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is illogical that this be a guideline while WP:Credible claim of significance, about another CSD-related term, is an information page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I really don't see the point of demoting this. Keep it as a guideline. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think anyone has argued that this page contains anything significant that doesn't already follow from other policies or guidelines, so I support the proposal since all else being equal, it's better to have fewer guidelines than more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but with the caveat that we explain in WP:Vandalism how to deal with accidental nonsense (intentional nonsense is of course already covered under "Silly vandalism"). Edderiofer (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems rather redundant to other guidelines, and probably satisfies WP:CREEP. 2601:647:5800:4D2:E5BD:CFBB:FA1E:62F3 (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom & Wug. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not convinced there's an actual problem with this, or improvement by demoting it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have given a weak support but the oppose arguments convinced me — Python Drink (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perfectly fine as it is. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I frankly don't find the argument from WP:CREEP to be convincing; this is a page that explains what patent nonsense means and, as such, serves as a guideline for how to apply a particular speedy deletion criterion and what the criterion does not apply to. This is a good thing, since the community can come to an agreement on what patent nonesense actually means for that purpose. The arguments from WP:CREEP are generally that the value of the guideline is negligible, but I don't think this is actually the case here. And, nobody seems to be objecting to the guideline on the basis that it does not reflect community consensus, which indicates that the argument in support of demotion does not really claim that this document fails to meet the essential definition of a guideline, which is a set of best practices supported by consensus. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can't say that I've ever specifically cited it myself, but I certainly could have had I been more aware of it. This guideline seems quite non-controversial and serves a valuable function. I don't see where it's responsible for unnecessary CREEP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - As a (relatively) inexperienced user, I appreciate having a reference written down that claims to reflect consensus. I'd agree that the page doesn't contain much that's not covered by common sense and other rules, but I think demoting is the wrong response. It doesn't mean the rule disappears or that less time will be spent reading rules, instead readers who reach the page just won't get a clear answer, and may have to open yet another page to try to get a more authoritative description of consensus. I've always reached this page through contextual links. WP:CREEP is reduced by making explanations on other pages more self-contained, or linking to broader well-known rules that sufficiently cover. If it's truly useless, orphan it and then it can be deleted. Starting with demotion means I have to read even more rules to get a clear answer when I land on this page, not less. Mlkj (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - It may be obvious to most of us, but apparently not to everyone. In looking at the 2009 version of this guideline, I do not see significant "creep". --Bejnar (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Followup comment - I don't buy into this meme in which we go around trying to "demote" pages for no other reason than "reducing CREEP". CREEP is simply the principle that policy pages should not be allowed to become overly complex, because the more complex they become, the less people will read them. It is an argument that actually has to be made on a case-by-case basis, not some sledgehammer for users who want to implement a sweeping cull of our policy pages. The tags indicating whether a page is a policy/guideline or information page/essay simply indicate whether the page formally represents the community's views. This has never been controversial, it is an important distinction, and such tags should obviously only be removed if that is no longer the case. Swapping a tag and patting yourself on the back for "reducing creep" does nothing to benefit the project. Like anywhere else on the project, you actually need to articulate a specific argument that there is a specific problem to begin with. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Side note to future editors: If anyone wants to have another (a third?) discussion about this, it might be worth mentioning in that RFC that this page was boldly marked as a guideline with no discussion or WP:PROPOSAL (that I can find). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)