Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Please do not bite the newcomers page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Why is a joke about a tiger biting a soccer ball in this article? This just seems very idiotic and pointless.--CheeseInTea (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea[reply]

I've noticed that pages about Wikipeida and its functioning usually allow more informality and occasional humor. There's probably better out there than this tiger, but the replacement might also be something with at least some levity to it. B k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. In fact, it seems funny to me, because this page is indeed supposed to be humorous. Berpihakdibalutkenetralan (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some existing non-admin users treat new or IP users as "inferior" to them. 42.116.53.21 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are several questions, as follows:

1. Should the lead of the current guideline be replaced with lead of the rewrite?
2. Should the "Common newcomer scenarios" section and the "How to avoid being a "biter" section of the current guideline be replaced with "How to avoid biting" section of the rewrite?
3. Should the "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "It is okay not to be aware of guidelines" section of the rewrite?
4. Should the "What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or "have been bitten" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "I have bitten someone—what do I do?" section of the rewrite?

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing. Also see the idea lab discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. After the last RfC, User:Alalch E. has done work on cleaning up the "Understanding newcomers" section. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please answer with Yes or No in below each section.
• Pinging previous participants: @Chaotic Enby @RudolfRed @Novov @Voorts @Aaron Liu @SmcCandlish @Bugghost @CFA @Alalch E.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The phrasing Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process is the core reason that we have this guideline, and it so well encapsulates this into a short phrase. But the rewrite of the lead totally removes this, which is tragic, and alone is reason enough to oppose replacing the current lead. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No - As per RTH, and it isn't clear why this rewrite is an improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not a fan of the rewrite; the most important thing for me is that it does not focus on the "we" as much, which is important for reminding editors that we are all in the same boat. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can the new policy at least mention that 'experienced editors can still need a gentle reminder?'

  JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The prose of the new version is much clearer, which is particularly important for a page that may be directed at new users. Any nuance that the existing version tried to provide got lost because the phrasing was bloated. Removing the unnecessary internal references like "not having a clue", "fourth pillar", and "editor lifecycle" is a very good call, and the new version is much more persuasive for it. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You refer to these items as unnecessary internal references. This is a guideline written for established editors about how to talk to new editors; I think that highlighting these long-established concepts, rather than trying to de novo just writing a guideline, is the way to go forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The original seems...not well written. The revision is better. I object to the language "Not having a clue" - overly informal, or derogatory even. But: "It is unlikely for a new editor to be familiar with" change to: "It is unlikely a new editor will be familiar with"; "Initial interactions sets the expectation" change to: "Initial interactions set the expectation"; "So next time you feel frustrated" change to: "So the next time you feel frustrated". Bdushaw (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as clearer than the original. I particularly like the new paragraph focusing on initial interactions, which is where I think we have the most work to do. Ajpolino (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it's clearer and the "CLUE" thing could seem quite odd to someone who doesn't know the in-jokes, which is the type of editor this is about. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the grounds that not using our bizarre inside-baseball jargon is a good example for experienced editors to follow when interacting with newbies. The revision is more concise and less full of itself. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Among the other reasons above well-mentioned, the fact WP:CLUE is seen as "inside baseball" is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for increased clarity. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The new version is more clear and more well-written than the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for basically the same reasons as everyone else. Thanks for the rewrite. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport in large part, but not the deletion objected to in this pithy first comment: "The phrasing Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle. We want editors to survive this process is the core reason that we have this guideline, and it so well encapsulates this into a short phrase."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in large part Agree with RTH and SMcCandlish that we should keep these two sentences of the original. I agree with Freedom4U that using terms like "fourth pillar" and "editor lifecycle" are too technical for a page that many new users see when experienced editors are being cautioned. However, WP:CLUE is intertwined with WP:BITE and needs this wikilink in the lead. I also agree with the second and third of Bdushaw's proposed grammar fixes. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as written. If that makes it easier, we can also append Not having a clue is a normal stage in the editor lifecycle, and se want editors to survive this process to the end of the second paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try linking to each of the options you would like us to consider, so we know exactly what we are being asked to consider. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do like the how the new section is trimmed down, numbered, and combines the two lists (which seem a little duplicative). If I had my druthers, It would be written in a "do this, not that" way and would be a little longer, because part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didn't read the original text all the way through, so take that comment with a grain of salt. Also, I wish each list item would have a bolded word or phrase describing what it was about. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think bolding is necessary since the new list items are short. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The new list does a good job of streamlining the recommendations to maximize focus and clarity. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes the new list loses some information that was present in the old, but JuxtaposedJacob clarified it for me with part of me wonders if we are cutting out some valuable information. However, I didnt read the original text all the way through.... The old list is so long that you find yourself skimming it. The new one is shorter and to-the-point, and may actually be read. There's some valuable info in the old list, but I'm sure it's repeated elsewhere. The new list keeps us focused on "Please do not bite the newcomers", which is the topic of this page. Ajpolino (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we shouldn't have policies so long that experienced editors don't read them.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The existing version is so long that it impairs its ability to be helpful. The new one is short, to the point, and still includes tons of important content. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes "Helpful advice" shouldn't make the reader's eyes glaze over. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No, but .... This concision edit is heading in the right direction, but has gone too far. The original has grown crufty and long-winded, but needs to be reduced to about 1/3 to 1/5 of its current size, not to less than 1/10 (and to use clearer language, which this proposal is largely doing). Too much insight is lost in a compression that harsh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I understand SMcCandlish's worry of lost insight, but as Ajpolino noted, the advice on signatures and talk page guidelines is already better covered at WP:SIG and WP:TALK. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: We don't need all those examples on a guideline about principles. I've reviewed and contrasted the trimmed version before, and I wonder which specific insights McCandlish would like to restore. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, much clearer and simpler. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it's the English Wikipedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: Good heavens, of course. This isn't the legal field, and attempting to impress people with our erudition. Ravenswing 18:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Much clearer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThis is much clearer, not duplicative, and is itself less bitey than the original ("you yourself violate our policies and guidelines") JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Much clearer and more to-the-point. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh man the proposed version is night and day compared to the old one. Support ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - The same message distilled into fewer words. Ajpolino (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, more clear. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The new version looks much cleaner. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The old version starts off like this: "Here is an intimidating Latin phrase — but wait, that unfamiliar thing is not how we do things here!" That's hardly a clear flow. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, huge improvement. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No, but .... As with the one above, the concision goal is admirable but this loses too much. Try to restore some key points like (for the biter or potential biter) that they should try to help newcomers learn the ropes, and employ gentleness and respect. The point of this section is not only that ignorance can be an excuse. Another key point is that length and depth of tenure here are not measures of editorial value. The original's weirdly obfuscatory ways of making these points – veering from tedious pedantry, to weird Victorian-esque constructions, to outsider-impenetrable synecdoche like "barnstars" standing in for experience – can easily be avoided. My thrust here is that the cure for poor-quality writing (both tumid and unclear) isn't by fire and sword but by scalpel.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Disagree with SMcCandlish that this section needs to reiterate that length and depth of tenure are not stand-ins for actual editorial value, given that the lead of the rewrite clearly opens with this point. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Viridian. As seen in discussions, repeating a point does not make it better. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question I like the simplicity of the rewrite, but what are we going to do about the people coming to the page after having been bitten? The new writing is not tailored to that group. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. I would not be opposed to giving advice to people who come here after having been bitten, but I don't think it's necessary for two reasons. First, the new users who are being bitten are by their position unlikely to know about this page. Second, imagine a new editor who has been bitten like this person comes here trying to understand how to appeal their block. They're already confused and likely frustrated after being blocked and reprimanded for adding red-link categories, which a new editor would not understand is a problem. Then, here they get told to "be reasonable" and "move on" which in their case would translate to "leave Wikipedia and never return". The previous advice for folks who have been bitten is both confusing and potentially liable to amplify the new editor's frustration. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The new version is much more useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Advice to the biter and to the bitten should be cleanly separated. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Not overall an improvement. Parts of it are, and can be integrated a bit at a time through normal editing, no RfCs and drafting pages needed. But in other ways this is worse, and is sometimes abandoning its own concision goals. E.g., "Chose to learn from the incident.", short and simple, was redundantly reiterated in the blathering "Find something of value in the experience, and move on. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.", which is ... well, it's, um ... something I suppose. For no explicable reason the jabbery version was retained, complete with its silly Dickensian tone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish That point is not an extension of point #1, but rather a merging of #1, #4, and #6. No new sentences were created for the point, and I think the insight that there is a learning process for both newbies and oldies deserves to be retained. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think it's merging 3 points that we already made then it was even more redundant in the original that I suggested. Your "I think that insight X deserves to be retained" actually backs up what I've been saying throughout the sections of this revision proposal thread: the concision goal is good, but over-zealous pursuit of it in this draft has resulted pretty consistently in excessive loss of information from the original instead of compression of it into tighter wording. As for keeping the "unintentionally veiled" line because of its underlying point, there's no reason to retain that point in the original's bizarre wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my point is it absolutely does not make it worse, and I would like to know what else you dislike about this section of the rewrite. (I also tried to rewrite that sentence, but couldn't think of better ways fit to conclude a section with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Disagree that "Choose to learn from the incident" is better than the rewrite's third point. After biting, it is easy to dismiss the incident as an embarrassing aberration, so the extra words feel necessary for introspection. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this structured section by section instead of an up or down !vote? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured(and multiple people recommended to me) it would be more likely to gain consensus if I was going step-by-step instead of attempting to replace the entire guideline. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it easier to compare the options, you are more likely to get useful feedback. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't really care for the way this is structured. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; I will work on this this afternoon. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question by question (or subheader by subheader):

1. No link needed; it's the lede
2. Replace WP:Bite#Common newcomer scenarios and Wikipedia:Bite#How to avoid being a "biter"——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#How to avoid biting
3. Replace Wikipedia:Bite#Ignorantia juris may excuse——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#It is okay not to be aware of guidelines
4. Replace Wikipedia:Bite#What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or have been bitten——with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite#I have bitten someone—what do I do?

Aaron Liu (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Request I like the easy section comparison, but I wish that it read left-to-right, in that the original would be on the left and the rewrite would be on the right. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aaron Liu, thank you! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks! there's a help:thank feature btw lol Aaron Liu (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My beautiful friend @Aaron Liu, life is too short to transact every happy thing in private JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 14:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]