|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consensus page.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20|
|The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.|
|edit||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
|Q: When was WP:CONEXCEPT, which says that editors at the English Wikipedia do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added?
A: It was added in January 2007 by User:Circeus, after a brief discussion on the talk page in the context of whether this page should be a policy rather than a guideline. It has been discussed and amended many times since then, e.g., here, here, and here.
|“||Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.||”|
|— Jimmy Wales|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved.|
Consensus building bloat
Under Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building, the 2nd and 3rd subsubsections:
are bloat. They are not "consensus policy". They are useful information, but not everything useful should be written into Wikipedia:Consensus.
It gives too much space to processes and discussions, essentially repeating section 1.2 verbosely, and diminishing the impact of section 1.1.
This information belongs in Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, where much of it already is. I propose merging these to sections to that page, improving that page using what is here, and leaving only a single link to the page alongside, in front of, the current note pointing to: Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.