Wikipedia policy/Layout recommendations talk

These are not all rules about layout, properly speaking, and I think you've simply created too many rules. Some of them are just obvious, or they should be obvious, and some of them are idiosyncratic to you. There's a danger in piling on the rules and guidelines, and that's why we (especially I) have let the policy section grow wild with very sparse editing. Rules are, in a way, anti-wiki, which is why Wikipedia has RulesToConsider (as opposed to "The Wikipedia Rules") and why it has the first "rule" that's on that page. Codifications of rules must be written very carefully with this in mind. So, Stefan, unless you want to reorganize RulesToConsider (you have seen that page, no?) and other stuff, I don't really see the point in your adding your own rules page, which is what this is at present. You could make it a subpage of your homepage, of course, and post a link to it from Wikipedia policy (nobody could complain about that). Unless you want to refactor all the relevant policy you've touched upon on this page, what you have done is to add a whole new page of (your own) rules. What's the point of doing that?

I have put it to RulesToConsider although it might not be conform to the layout rules on that page --StefanRybo ;-)

There is a need to summarize, better than we can presently find on the Wikipedia policy pages, the general sense about the issues that you touch upon (and many others that you don't touch upon). I will do that eventually (not before I get back to the U.S., on the 11th), if someone else doesn't do it first. Frankly, I wouldn't trust many people to do a good job with it--not even myself, without help from you all.

--LMS

Perhaps we should create a [Wikipedia style guide]? with advices on how to layout a page, information on how to edit a page, examples of how typical articles could we written (+ layout) (e.g. a biography), etc. Not rules, but well considered advices. Much of this has obviously already been written. --Css