Talk:Bright-line rule

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I was sent to this page from a link on WP:3RR - yet there's no mention of the policy on this page. Are wikipedia policies inappropriate to use as examples, or would that be a way to positively clarify the concept of a Bright-line rule, given the context of us actually looking at wikipedia right now? GGdown (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as potentially a conflict of interest (ie someone might edit this article in order to influence the 3RR policy). I have suspicions about this occurring anywhere on wikipedia and hence I am very weary of links to articles from policy pages. Charles35 (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should certainly not mention Wikipedia policy. This is mainspace. Mainspace references the outside world, not our own working rooms. That would be inward looking, and is opposite to the project aims. Wikipedia policies are inappropriate to use as examples.

3RR is a "bright line" in that it is well defined as to whether the line was crossed. You either did 3 Reverts in 24 hours, or you did not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have an article called "Wikipedia". I think that GGdown is asking whether it would be possible to mention wikipedia not in an instructory fashion (ie the goal is not to make this another policy page). GGdown is asking whether we can reference the wikipedia policy because of its notability. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that have or have thought about referencing certain parts of wikipedia. For instance, on the talk page of List of common misconceptions, we considered the possibility of listing "misconceptions about wikipedia". I think it wouldn't be completely off-limits to mention the 3RR rule as long as it is notable enough and the material we enter is verifiable. Charles35 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s professional or encyclopedic to list self-references as examples. Anyway, that rule doesn’t seem to quite fit the definition. See WT:EW for details if you haven’t already. —Frungi (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric POV?[edit]

This article seems to focus almost exclusively on the US. I'm tagging it with {{Globalize}}. If anybody has any experience with bright-line rules as they are implemented outside of the US, please add to the article. DD4235 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]