From FasciPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a judgement. (from a FasciPedia Judge) for promotion to guideline or policy. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required actions does not mean the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. It will also get you in big trouble, so don't. Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors and writers already choose to do. Sometimes policy comes down from the top, but this article is discussing proposals by admins, editors, and writers.

Proposals by judges

A judge has 3 options:

  • sending a proposal through this process, in order to get more community input. A Judge may not certify his own proposal.
  • Go directly to Archangel for certification.
  • Obtain a 3 certifications from 3 judges not himself.

Good practice for proposals

One path for proposals is developing them through steps of 1. {{brainstorming}} 2. {{draft proposal}} 3. {{proposal}} 4. {{policy}} or {{guideline}}


The first step is to write the best initial proposal you can. Authors can request early-stage feedback from others, on their user page, for idea incubation and from any relevant Projects. Amendments to a proposal can be discussed on its talk page. It is crucial to improve a proposal in response to feedback received from outside writers. Good ideas are built through a process of listening to and discussing the proposal with many other editors.

Draft Proposal

Once you think the initial proposal is well written, and the issues involved have been sufficiently discussed among early participants to create a proposal that has a solid chance of success with the broader community, m9ve the page to policy FasciPedia space, and start a request for comment (RfC) about your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page and advertised with a notice where appropriate. Include the {{rfc|policy}} tag, along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal. Then, if you want, you can provide a detailed explanation of what it does and why you think it should be a policy or guideline.

The {{Proposal}} 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 where appropriate, and you should notify other potentially interested groups. A sitewide notice may be in order. If your proposal affects a specific content area, then related projects can be found at the project directory. (Once we create one) If your proposal relates to an existing policy or guideline, then leave a note on the talk page of the related policy or guideline

An example

For example, proposed style guidelines should be announced at FasciPedia talk:Manual of Style, (also not created yet) which is the main guideline for style issues. Try to identify the subcategory of guideline or policy (see {{Subcat guideline}} template).

The final step

Proposals involving contentious subjects or wide-ranging effects should normally be listed on FasciPedia:Centralized discussion for the duration of the RfC. Rarely, a particularly important proposal may be advertised via a watchlist notice; sitenotices (which are displayed to all readers, not just to active users). RfCs for policy and guideline proposals are normally left open for at least a week or sometimes a couple months.

Proper Notice

To avoid later complaints about insufficient notice, it is mandatory to provide a complete list of the groups or pages you used to advertise the proposal on the talk page. Be careful not to canvass, and avoid non-neutral wording. Judges and admi s WILL check.


Writers should respond to proposals in a way that is helpful. Rudeness is forbidden, and will get you in trouble. Explain your thoughts, ask questions, and raise concerns. Many editors begin their responses with bold-font 'vote' of support or opposition to make evaluation easier.

Judges Certification

For Judges: Closing a discussion requires careful evaluation of the responses, plus your own valuable experience and intuition. There is a reason that you are a judge. FasciPedia by its nature is not a democracy, and a misguided majority should never supercede a wise minority. You are not in this position to tally votes or "build consensus". You are in a position of responsibility, and you are directed to do what is best for FASCIPEDIA.


  • 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 discussion been addressed?
  • The proposal absolutely cannot contradict existing policy. If this is so, the contradicting policy must be corrected as part of the proposal!
  • You have the option to merge the proposed guideline or policy into an existing one.
  • Is the proposed guideline or policy, or some part of it, redundant with an existing guideline or policy?


If you find that you simply cannot come to a decision within a reasonable time, the proposal has failed. Do not be afraid to do this. There may be pressure. Ignore it. Do not make a hasty decision simply because people are nagging. In fact, if you feel it is affecting your decision-making process, consider a temporary ban, effective until your decision is made.

The REAL last step

Your decision should be a binary choice, one of: Promote, or Failed. Please leave a short note about the conclusion you came to. Update the proposal to reflect your decision. Remove the {{Proposal}} template and replace it with another appropriate template, such as {{Subcat guideline}}, {{Policy}}, {{Supplement}}, {{essay}}, or {{Failed proposal}}.See FasciPedia namespace templates for a listing of banners.

If a proposal fails, the failed tag should not be removed. It is more productive to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch to address problems, or seek to integrate uncontroversial aspects of it into existing pages, than to re-nominate a proposal.