DOKUMEN123.COM

as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Shortcuts WP:CONLEVELWP:CONLEVEL WP:LOCALCONSENSUSWP:LOCALCONSENSUS Consensus among a limited group of editors...

Decisions made in ordinary discussions are WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, not CONLEVEL. CONLEVEL does not say anything about the strength or weakness of a given consensus...

sports biographies must include examples of SIGCOV. As such, in light of WP:CONLEVEL, I see no reason that the article should be kept. Arguments that participation-based...

notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC) I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy...

being constantly re-litigated, but is not without its own challenges. CONLEVEL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time...

January 2022 (UTC) AfD isn't "case by case"; you've decided to disregard WP:CONLEVEL by arguing that this should be kept based on some idea that political parties...

mistake, and was super-ceded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...

AFDs were clearly superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL and which recognised the outcome of the previous AFDs as a mistake.FOARP...

only says what has happened; it doesn't say what should happen. Also, CONLEVEL (policy) supports the view that established guidelines trump informal consensus...

have at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV to be kept, and thus per WP:CONLEVEL the argument that there must be sources is not appropriate unless you can...

NACADEMIC are best discussed at the talk page of that guideline (see also WP:CONLEVEL). Most participants seem to agree that the currently-accepted thresholds...

TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC) It's a finding at the highest WP:CONLEVEL that sources do not use "persecution" - in direct contradiction of the...

Sorry, two people cannot create a guideline the overrules WP:N, per WP:CONLEVEL.- MrX 17:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC) A lack of debate over the last five years...

retitled to suit whims. We have policies at WP:Ownership of content and WP:CONLEVEL that exist to prevent inviduals or small groups of editors (in wikiprojects...

excludes ambassadors based on your previous AfDs is in violation of WP:CONLEVEL. Ike Lek (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC) "it grants ambassadors the assumption...

short term, but given its absence your argument must be rejected per WP:CONLEVEL. As for your argument of a redirect, there issue is that he also played...

discussion is no more binding than an unclosed discussion (though see WP:CONLEVEL). The difference is that closed discussions make it easier for uninvolved...

WP:TEMPLATEFORK in strange, guideline-noncompliant directions (which is a WP:CONLEVEL problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Delete and...

to be considered notable. I see no evidence that this is met and per WP:CONLEVEL consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

characteristic cannot be overruled by local consensus at this AfD (see WP:CONLEVEL), and I need to discount almost all "keep" opinions as being at odds with...

discussions have been superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL, I think it highly likely that another bundled deletion would just result...

Wikiproject can overturn a a generally accepted guideline like GNG (WP:CONLEVEL). In any case, the guidance you link to refers back to WP:NRIVALRY which...

cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

activist project to systematically change our policies and guidelines, per WP:CONLEVEL. This is reminiscent of Esperanza, and also WikiProject Conservatism, back...

cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April...

splitting articles without due cause doesn't make it right, just a WP:CONLEVEL problem. Obsessive splitting like this is also a maintenance drain on editorial...

campaign for revolutionary reformation. We have the "Levels of consensus" (WP:CONLEVEL) policy for a reason, and it is frequently upheld and applied by our Arbitration...

currently 3-3, however this is a clear case of Not A Headcount. We have a WP:CONLEVEL site wide RFC explicitly rejecting notability for broadcast lacking independent...

the kritarchy in general, I think the Arbcom statement linked from WP:CONLEVEL says it well: on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus...

confirmed that "postnominals are not allowed in the lead sentence." Per the WP:CONLEVEL policy ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time...

the WP:CONLEVEL policy, as I already explained to you and others elsewhere. The only other place where Francis Schonken mentioned WP:CONLEVEL to me was...

policy like WP:NFCC cannot be superseded by a WikiProject guideline per WP:CONLEVEL. So, unless the NFCC#2 issues are resolved (Getty has been known to claim...

"generally unreliable" etc. based solely on discussions on a very low WP:CONLEVEL. Ljleppan (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) The last discussion about Niche...

WP:TEMPLATEFORKs like this. Just a maintenance nightmare, a breeding ground for WP:CONLEVEL policy failures, and a confusing mess for readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 ...

doesn't take precedence over a community-wide policy like WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL and further clarified in MOS:TVIMAGE. If the soundtrack is notable enough...

Participants in a wikiproject agitating for "their own rules" is counter to WP:CONLEVEL policy. The sport analogy: MOS is like the rules of football, an agreement...

from that discussion? George Ho (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Per WP:CONLEVEL, there is no consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors (eg...

think relisting will get us anywhere productive — and am cognizant of WP:CONLEVEL — so I am closing this as I see no consensus to, if you'll forgive me,...

just as important in building consensus. Levels of consensus - How the CONLEVEL of something can be measured or described. Method for consensus building...

Wikiproject can overturn a a generally accepted guideline like GNG (WP:CONLEVEL). In any case, the guidance you link to refers back to WP:NRIVALRY which...

reflecting that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAPBOX mentality (directly against WP:CONLEVEL policy as well as the RfC results) four years later, so I revised it to...

WP:INDENT], and the Simplified Manual of Style." The policy basis of this is WP:CONLEVEL: no individual or group of topical editors can make up their own rules...

Wolfson (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose anything of the sort per WP:CONLEVEL. WikiProjects don't get to own portals even within their topic sphere....

related to European men's football templates. It's not a consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. Please remove the following + place in a separate discussion so additional...

This was completely normal talk-page management, per WP:REFACTOR, WP:CONLEVEL, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 11 November 2019...

will take precedence over a lone TFD's consensus, you've missed out on WP:CONLEVEL. WP:NOT also isn't relevant here. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015...

WP:CONLEVEL? Graham11 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Documentation of templates is not written by any meaningful consensus - and WP:CONLEVEL explicitly...

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). WP is not a place to "campaign" against site-wide guidelines (WP:CONLEVEL), and BMK has completely failed to establish anything like a "local consensus"...

specific citations should be the scope fore a prospective RfC with the CONLEVEL being specific to that page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)...

rules and impose them on everyone else, against site-wide guidelines (WP:CONLEVEL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC) It's always good to feel...

userbox-related category, like many others we have (in particular, it's a pro-WP:CONLEVEL, anti-WP:OWNership one, and serves the specific purpose of deflating "your...

curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a WP:CONLEVEL failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide...

unreliable, I believe the discussion would need to take place at WP:RSN per WP:CONLEVEL. —siroχo 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Delete most (if not all) are trivial...

articles, is still following the MOS. MB 19:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Per WP:CONLEVEL, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted...

longtime community consensus that goes beyond just that discussion (WP:CONLEVEL) - a prime example I recall reading is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo...

content-related aspects of the issue can be discarded, with just the WP:CONLEVEL and other policy matters, plus behavioral ones, addressed as needed by...

on WP:TALK, it would not overrule Wikipedia-wide consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. Please refrain from reverting again. - Undid revision 1123436409 by Sideswipe9th...

are not "small cliques at Wikiprojects". Trust me, I'm the number-one WP:CONLEVEL fan, I assure you. But this actually comes from MOS:US in the main MoS...

exploration." That's not even a possible result under en.WP policy. Per WP:CONLEVEL, WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, and WP:NOTWEBHOST policies, no wikiproject has any...

the relevant standard. This is silly, though, and incompatible with WP:CONLEVEL, and I can't imagine, for the small number of cases affected by the difference...

accusations [231]. This is WP:FACTION behavior, in an anti-consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL in particular) direction of WP:OWNership of a topical category, and disruption...

who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response." Per WP:CONLEVEL, that site-wide policy takes precedence over the minority of editors attempting...

problem, rather, was about not having the right level of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL) to change a naming convention page (and to implement that change). Sorry...

basis. We have general policies and guidelines for a reason, and WP:CONLEVEL policy makes it very clear that wikiprojects do not get to make up their...

consensus policy appears to be the opposite of what you're saying. See WP:CONLEVEL. The previous discussion was a local consensus, whereas this was a formal...

my actions, many others concurred, we talked policy, and discussed WP:CONLEVEL. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ) Spencer's own words were: "I would additionally...

appeal to local consensus? That goes directly against MOS:GENDERID and WP:CONLEVEL. Also, I don't see how any of my Talk comments or edit summaries could...

that lasted a few hours, so it is not on its own robust consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. As Hzh pointed out in the discussion, the caption RfC was about the caption...

consensus that cannot be overridden by a local consensus as explained in WP:CONLEVEL.There have been numerous discussions about this type of logo use not only...

example of what "tendentious editing" refers to. It is also counter to WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policies; little camps of editors with a stylistic axe to grind...

as I told My very best wishes, my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as WP:NOCONSENSUS seems treated differently in the same policy page (I...

discussion, said wikiprojects were not the only people notified (which is the CONLEVEL justification as well). Having said that, Fæ your email was rather biased...

places. The editors has been directed to read over WP:Advice pages and WP:CONLEVEL and asked to follow BRD while editors talk it out...but to no avail still...

this is something that maybe you might truly not know about, but per WP:CONLEVEL, a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

FleetCommand and me while pretending to do the opposite. And editwarred on a WP:CONLEVEL-violating basis (article got full-protected to put a stop to it), and even...

reasonable, but WikiProjects do not own topics within their scope. (See also WP:CONLEVEL.) --Izno (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC) An essentially similar proposal...

broader look. Nemo 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC) I would argue that WP:CONLEVEL can apply here as this discussion is getting more attention on the matter...

any consensus here isn't going to override community consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I would recommend it be taken to the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)...

left as is. Abstractematics (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Read WP:CONLEVEL. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Yes I read it and I don't see...

I doubt I would defer to a local consensus in this case anyway, per WP:CONLEVEL. Are you still adamantly opposed to this edit?"[298] [4 days pass, during...

made any policy-based argument, Ronz is simply outnumbered. Ronz cites WP:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

you don't have to comply. WP:PUBLISHED supercedes WP:CITEVIDEO (see WP:CONLEVEL and the text at the top of WP:CITEVIDEO that says This page is not ......

compelled to side with DrF on this. The Diaz hasn't seemed to take WP:CONLEVEL into consideration. While there are some on the talk page that agree with...

Putting a stop to attempts to do so is the very reason we implemented WP:CONLEVEL policy. Finally, the entire purpose of a style guide is consistency, and...

(some of those above also dissented in the previous MfD)). Seems like a WP:CONLEVEL issue: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time...

replace this much clearer, narrower wording that does not have the WP:CONLEVEL policy problem of carving out a strange exemption for a single wikiproject:...

own "rules" that directly conflict with policies and guidelines (see WP:CONLEVEL policy and WP:PROJPAGE). The fact that some obscure articles have had bad...

level, this is something that shouldn't be overridden according to WP:CONLEVEL. I think that when problems of this nature arrives, it should go by the...

making up new typographic "conventions" for categories of things (see WP:CONLEVEL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) If that's the case, then...

(including nom's later rebuttals of opposition, above). This is basically a WP:CONLEVEL matter. While the wikiproject might like to create pointless near-empty...

But Marco, what exactly do you mean by "two levels of consensus"? WP:CONLEVEL doesn't refer to anything like that. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:29,...

to discuss them only brings out battleground responses (User_talk:Dmcq#CONLEVEL, User_talk:Dmcq#IDIDNTHEARTHAT). It seems that these disagreements are...

(ever altered or limited) to bring in at least some dissenters? 2. WP:CONLEVEL. Were notices posted at related articles and WikiProjects? 3. WP:TALKDONTREVERT...

think a closure of this discussion would be highly inappropriate. Per WP:CONLEVEL, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

the topic under discussion is more the main focus takes precedence. WP:CONLEVEL may be relevant reading, and WP:FTN may be helpful if the discussions on...

gives very little insight beyond that. There's a tacit application of WP:CONLEVEL but no mention of what "MOS/Guidelines" were relied upon or applicable...

We should make sure that closers of ACE RfCs take into account the WP:CONLEVEL of these statements in comparison with previous RfCs, but setting an explicit...

kind of "my way or the highway" or "style warrior" agenda. See also WP:CONLEVEL and numerous ArbCom decisions: wikiprojects are nothing but pages at which...

address this question, only the wording choice. And I see a bunch of "WP:CONLEVEL doesn't apply to us" kind of posturing at WT:MILHIST, so we should probably...

userbox-related category, like many others we have (in particular, it's a pro-WP:CONLEVEL, anti-WP:OWNership one, and serves the specific purpose of deflating "your...

particular editors involved, but because they are few – i.e., because of WP:CONLEVEL, WP:OWN, WP:VESTED, etc.). Source review is a continual community effort...

user categories for), specifically in favor of WP:5P / WP:EDITING / WP:CONLEVEL and against misinterpretation of wikiprojects as "membership organizations"...

like this one, and this discussion cannot overturn that consensus per WP:CONLEVEL * Pppery * it has begun... 21:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC) The above is preserved...

doesn't seem to be particularly meaningful. This is a discussion, and WP:CONLEVEL specifically exists to prevent a "local consensus" from making up its own...

between policies, guidelines and essays outlines our problem. See also WP:CONLEVEL Revision, January 6, 2017 --Moxy (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Supplement...

lists, that they're free to do so. That is a false assumption, per WP:CONLEVEL policy. The very reason that policy exists is to stop wikiprojects and...

admin on a tinywiki. The community has the solution. It's documented in WP:CONLEVEL. If a wiki goes Nationalistic and violates NPOV and abuses admin tools...

though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes...

TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC) It's a finding at the highest WP:CONLEVEL that sources do not use "persecution" - in direct contradiction of the...

little "rebellion" against this norm needs to end, here and now (see WP:CONLEVEL policy; wikiprojects do not get to make up their own counter-rules against...

something that supersedes a community-wide policy like the WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. If a WikiProject is providing guidance that isn't in accordance with a...

To the extent that WP:NOTAVOTE matters it's mostly a corrolary of WP:CONLEVEL (i.e. votes that go against a wider consensus are not weighted very highly...

consensus", in many cases this is only in a very weak type of consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL, such that once someone shows up to challenge it, there can no longer be...

(currently, there's a strong majority in opposition to the change, and per WP:CONLEVEL policies should not be changed by BOLD editing to begin with). (Swarm ♠...

important context we've missed, it overrides the more local consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I'd add that it's confusing for readers to see one order and then find...

to be improper, there does not appear to have been an RfC, and per WP:CONLEVEL a WikiProject cannot implement a new guideline without consensus from the...

relationship between SNGs and GNG set out in WP:SNG is less significant, per WP:CONLEVEL, than the actual text of the guideline. GNG/NBASIC coverage is simply not...

"non-free" images and cannot decide to supersede a community-wide policy per WP:CONLEVEL. Some WikiProjects like WP:FILM or WP:TV do take non-free content into...

or merely because it exists . . . ." It shouldn't need saying, but, per CONLEVEL, the consensus of the broader community trumps the opinions of those who...

sports biographies must include examples of SIGCOV. As such, in light of WP:CONLEVEL, I see no reason that the article should be kept. Arguments that participation-based...

discussion linked? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC) @Nehme1499: per WP:CONLEVEL, I attach very little weight to a small set of unevidenced "me too"s in...

community-wide policy that can't be superseded by a local consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. However, it might help a repeat of such image use in the future to determine...

not capitalising animal species should prevail over a local habit (WP:CONLEVEL). I think it is an important discussion and do not hesitate to come and...

cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants...

only says what has happened; it doesn't say what should happen. Also, CONLEVEL (policy) supports the view that established guidelines trump informal consensus...

have at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV to be kept, and thus per WP:CONLEVEL the argument that there must be sources is not appropriate unless you can...

then the best place to discuss that would be at WT:NFCC or WP:VP/P per WP:CONLEVEL since any changes to the policy per se need to be discussed separately...

the WP:VESTED principle, and WP:EDITING policy, and WP:MERCILESS, and WP:CONLEVEL, and .... If ArbCom declared something like this, there would be a revolt...

January 2022 (UTC) AfD isn't "case by case"; you've decided to disregard WP:CONLEVEL by arguing that this should be kept based on some idea that political parties...

consensus reached on the article's talk page (excluding anything per WP:CONLEVEL) is going to determine whether content should be added or removed whenever...

claiming that the other, already discussed pages don't matter here. WP:CONLEVEL IS actual policy! Really, deletion discussions like this one should be...

position. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Just state WP:CONLEVEL which is what applies. Consensus can change and how can NGEOtalk not apply...

policies and guidelines, this is a direct application of the section WP:CONLEVEL within WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one...

pricing system to include by default in our drug articles, and per WP:CONLEVEL policy, a gaggle of MOS:MED and WP:WPMED and WP:MEDRS regulars cannot override...

wikiproject] can and do override them", and that stance's conflict with both WP:CONLEVEL policy and a decade+ of ArbCom rulings on this (e.g. very recently here)...

take precendance over anything decided at the WikiProject level per WP:CONLEVEL. You can ask for assistance at the WikiProject and perhaps its members...

references demonstrating it is deserved). (If responding, please review WP:CONLEVEL and WP:FOC). --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Okay I reviewed...

or merely because it exists . . . ." It shouldn't need saying, but, per CONLEVEL, the consensus of the broader community trumps the opinions of those who...

at MfD come out very negative and narrow. Guess which one has more WP:CONLEVEL? Anyway, I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind, I just gave my...

Sorry, two people cannot create a guideline the overrules WP:N, per WP:CONLEVEL.- MrX 17:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC) A lack of debate over the last five years...

splitting articles without due cause doesn't make it right, just a WP:CONLEVEL problem. Obsessive splitting like this is also a maintenance drain on editorial...

Extended discussion of policies, guidelines and WP:CONLEVEL Quick note - PSCI and SOAPBOX are each policy, and people are citing a project level guideline...

REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend...

currently 3-3, however this is a clear case of Not A Headcount. We have a WP:CONLEVEL site wide RFC explicitly rejecting notability for broadcast lacking independent...

policies and guidelines, this is a direct application of the section WP:CONLEVEL within WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one...

notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

to policy or guideline here. At best, this is a vague reference to WP:CONLEVEL? The level of consensus that a guideline like the MOS or a policy like...

suggestion that everyone who !voted "procedural keep" should probably read WP:CONLEVEL and WP:LAWYER and please try to remained focused on the content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants...

relationship between SNGs and GNG set out in WP:SNG is less significant, per WP:CONLEVEL, than the actual text of the guideline. GNG/NBASIC coverage is simply not...

discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

references demonstrating it is deserved). (If responding, please review WP:CONLEVEL and WP:FOC). --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Okay I reviewed...

(talk) 09:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Sataralynd, some related pages are WP:CONLEVEL, WP:Precedents, and WP:OSE. Ironically, they're not fully consistent with...

change to be enacted, because there is no settled consensus as yet. WP:CONLEVEL: Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes...

characteristic cannot be overruled by local consensus at this AfD (see WP:CONLEVEL), and I need to discount almost all "keep" opinions as being at odds with...

like the guidelines as they currently stand. The reality is that, per WP:CONLEVEL, your dislike of the guidelines does not mean that you can override a community-wide...

notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

position. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Just state WP:CONLEVEL which is what applies. Consensus can change and how can NGEOtalk not apply...

footnotes." – confusing template documentation is a very weak excuse, see WP:CONLEVEL policy: if the template documentation is confusing it should be updated...

editorial input and choices of volunteer focus are valued here, that WP:CONLEVEL policy really does apply to your wikiproject too, and that you don't get...

identification of this problem is OR and not relevant to the article's NPOV. Per WP:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

mentioned in CONLEVEL. RetroCosmos, since this was all before your time, let me tell you in very concrete terms what CONLEVEL is actually about: CONLEVEL means...

them. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) ​According to WP:CONLEVEL, policies and guidelines take precedence over local consensus on the article...

though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes...

like the guidelines as they currently stand. The reality is that, per WP:CONLEVEL, your dislike of the guidelines does not mean that you can override a community-wide...

Numerous failures to reach consensus on isolated pages with too much of a WP:CONLEVEL or "locals-only" WP:FALSECONSENSUS problem have been resolved at VPPOL...

likely outcome. RSP recommends RfCs for this at WP:RSPIMPROVE. Per WP:CONLEVEL, we shouldn't be overriding wide community consensus with narrower consensus...

like "you are breaking Wikipedia" or "consensus has changed" (read WP:CONLEVEL - "consensus" here cannot trump the RfC). Though Kww has repeatedly stated...

argument means that they are pushing for a result that is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL, and that is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)...

consensus. Reopen the discussion or leave it as no consensus for now. Per WP:CONLEVEL policy, is not is not permissible for a wikiproject like WP:MATH to try...

even very hard, because of the vast span of Wikipedia policies and how WP:CONLEVEL comes into play. S Marshall is exceptionally adept at closing RfC's (I...

topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC) At Wikipedia:Neutral point...

Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own counter-policy "rules"; cf. WP:CONLEVEL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) There have been many more...

system which began with the inception of WP:RS/Perennial. Also see WP:CONLEVEL. Atsme Talk 📧 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC) OK... Thank you everyone for...

AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this...

reason) not to respect the general conventions (WP:TITLE, WP:FAUNA, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:NCCAPS). Mama meta modal (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC). As with...

would likely be in opposition to OTHERNAMES, which is disallowed per WP:CONLEVEL. Realistically this RFC is poorly formed, and should either be elevated...

the CfD supersedes the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 per WP:CONLEVEL. This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus...

are not special, so I am not sure how this is misleading. See also WP:CONLEVEL. Izno (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) The issues at play weren't about...

not comply with the guidelines was therefore mandated by WP:DGFA and WP:CONLEVEL. All the keep votes violated the consensus rules of GNG and SPORTCRIT,...

25 August 2022 (UTC) Echoing what Avilich said, this is a textbook WP:CONLEVEL violation: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

and policies on style and article titles. That's not permissible per WP:CONLEVEL policy, so the language at SPORTCAPS has to be fixed, whether or not Djsasso...

redlink holes in various past discussions [1]. This is ultimately a WP:CONLEVEL matter. A "maaaybe we might delete this" micro-local quasi-consensus is...

notability. Since this guideline is established community consensus, WP:CONLEVEL is relevant to this discussion; as a local consensus of editors at one...

AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this...

Extended discussion of policies, guidelines and WP:CONLEVEL Quick note - PSCI and SOAPBOX are each policy, and people are citing a project level guideline...

royalty wikiproject grousing that probably amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONLEVEL issues, though I might have missed something. I haven't looked at it in...

policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See WP:CONLEVEL). In my discussion with the closer, he has alluded to unspecified past...

advertised on watchlists and at various policy pumps, there is clearly a WP:CONLEVEL issue with overturning a more widely advertised RfC ran for 1.5 months...

arguments that go against prevailing practices, here as there. Per WP:CONLEVEL, the opinions among a limited group of editors, at one place and time,...

make it more true, and that there has never been a sane way to determine CONLEVEL and re-order stuff based on that. Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025...

can't take precedence over a community-wide policy like WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. Everyone is welcome to participate in any such discusison, but WikiProject...

redlink holes in various past discussions [1]. This is ultimately a WP:CONLEVEL matter. A "maaaybe we might delete this" micro-local quasi-consensus is...

WP:HQRS, or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia. WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place...

case, but they just keep reverting on the same faulty basis (against WP:CONLEVEL) and avoiding substantive discussion, instead dwelling on editor rather...

through AFD (see the AN discussion in the nom). The 2018 RFC at VPP (a WP:CONLEVEL higher than AFD) remains community consensus. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 21 May...

was unable to find anything that would add up to notability. And per WP:CONLEVEL, a WikiProject's views on notability don't take precedence over the community...

WP:CONLEVEL? Graham11 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Documentation of templates is not written by any meaningful consensus - and WP:CONLEVEL explicitly...

not comply with the guidelines was therefore mandated by WP:DGFA and WP:CONLEVEL. All the keep votes violated the consensus rules of GNG and SPORTCRIT,...

community consensus will supplant lower level local consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL. The purpose of this RFC is to avoid arguments over local consensus all...

notability. Since this guideline is established community consensus, WP:CONLEVEL is relevant to this discussion; as a local consensus of editors at one...

reaches are local; that is the heart and soul of WP:CONLEVEL". This is neither consistent with what CONLEVEL says (it gives an example of an unadvertised, non-RFC...

notorious WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. NoahTalk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC) I think WP:CONLEVEL does; just four hours of discussion results in the decision being made...

25 August 2022 (UTC) Echoing what Avilich said, this is a textbook WP:CONLEVEL violation: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

retitled, but that local consensus is not well motivated by policy. Per WP:CONLEVEL we've generally got to side with the project-wide consensus in that situation...

the CfD supersedes the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 per WP:CONLEVEL. This whole thing erupted in the first place because of a local consensus...

across articles, seems to be a live one. It is partially addressed by WP:CONLEVEL, which mostly just says that a global consensus overrules a local one....

six months after the last substantive discussion.See [2] below. See WP:CONLEVEL. In this case, upholding the moratorium because a sufficient number of...

Suggest you review Wikipedia:Consensus Ilenart626 (talk) Sure, the WP:CONLEVEL states that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines...

unreasonable to try to apply this standard evenly to all articles. Per WP:CONLEVEL, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

Rhododendrites has described it is a clear violation of official WP Policy. WP:CONLEVEL states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time...

that it's hard to say there's a WP:CONLEVEL issue - I don't think this is a case where the intention of CONLEVEL is met either. The close seems to be...

consensus to delete here. AfD is superior to discussions elsewhere per WP:CONLEVEL. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Endorse I notice a...

standards do not seem to be Wikipedia's inclusion standards for inclusion. WP:CONLEVEL Each of your concerns are subjective assertions without any persuasive...

WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CONLEVEL need fear no reprimand, even if the close had been overturned. My "Note to closer"[61] outlined the asked the CONLEVEL/NOTVOTE issues...

discussion was procedural keep. This requires discussion elsewhere per WP:CONLEVEL. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Template:Source...

excludes ambassadors based on your previous AfDs is in violation of WP:CONLEVEL. Ike Lek (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC) "it grants ambassadors the assumption...

NOT. This AFD does not have the authority to overrule that RfC due to CONLEVEL. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Hi @Draken Bowser! In...

against WP:P&G they don't like for "their" articles (against WP:EDITING, WP:CONLEVEL, and ArbCom decisions regarding wikiprojects and other would-be article...

kind of "my way or the highway" or "style warrior" agenda. See also WP:CONLEVEL and numerous ArbCom decisions: wikiprojects are nothing but pages at which...

Somewhat a stem off of WP:CONLEVEL, which was the justification for the closure. So I see two interlaced problems: the WP:CONLEVEL closure ideology and the...

operates as a mere suggestion on particular articles, for purposes of WP:CONLEVEL. It's fine to reach such a consensus on a WikiProject if the individual...

affirmative processes, like policies and guidelines, that have a much higher WP:CONLEVEL. This fallacy is a long-term source of squabbling, across many topics....

this RfD obviously cannot override larger consensus on another page (WP:CONLEVEL). The most recent RM also did not contradict the consensus of the RM before...

badly contary to policy, in multiple ways, most obviously WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL policies. Particular editors who camp on particular topics do not get to...

back-alley WikiProject nobody's ever heard of and then enforced as a higher WP:CONLEVEL. I have strong doubts about the validity and scope of any claimed consensus...

reliability of a source for facts not... currently binding? That seems like a WP:CONLEVEL issue if people are disregarding established community consensus attained...

that one on a basic policy establishes a higher level of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL) than an RfC on a set of airport articles, just as an airport RfC trumps...

consensus is obtained. Soni (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Support, per WP:CONLEVEL. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The part that concerns me is...

notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

incredible amounts of awful drama. The very fact that we have to have WP:CONLEVEL policy is largely because of walled-garden behavior by wikiprojects leading...

delete conclusion. The AfC reviewer cannot over-ride that discussion per WP:CONLEVEL, and did not wish to. A return to draft at that point would have saved...

notability. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC) I advice you to read WP:CONLEVEL. If you believe there is consensus against the current wording of policy...

Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. (Striking per WP:CONLEVEL concerns. 19:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs)...

pump (policy) – see Wikipedia:CONLEVEL. Atsme 💬 📧 19:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Ah! yes the many places that CONLEVEL mentions the village pump. If...

vote. Any change to policy requires consensus at the same or greater WP:CONLEVEL as the existing policy, which means an RfC is required. This discussion...

should only be over-ridden by a new consensus that reaches the same WP:CONLEVEL. That could be from this AfD - but only if people concentrate on why this...

AFDs were clearly superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL and which recognised the outcome of the previous AFDs as a mistake.FOARP...

notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

WP:GUIDELINES WP:GUIDES page in the first place per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CONLEVEL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia...

held at WikiProjects? I would believe they shouldn't, in line with WP:CONLEVEL; while the formal discussion invites participation from outside the WikiProject...

the fact of the matter is that essays in general are not policy per WP:CONLEVEL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) I agree, I think that's...

discussions have been superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL, I think it highly likely that another bundled deletion would just result...

all biographies".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC) WP:CONLEVELS disagrees with you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)...

mention the very ARBMAG-esque ending: Rules are above consensus. Per WP:CONLEVEL, a local consensus among a few editors on this talk page cannot override...

in the English-speaking world. "Consensus" cannot override policy (WP:CONLEVEL) unless you're choosing to invoke IAR, in which case there must be something...

nothing of such a discussion|s. Regardless, there is the matter of WP:CONLEVEL and a local consensus does not override consensus reached in a broader...

the specific article)? Milo8505 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:CONLEVEL was already a policy, independent of that resolution. It was just being...

opinions are supposed to be collected and why they should override WP:CONLEVEL. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC) How about an example...

WP:HQRS, or indeed the established practice across the encyclopaedia. WP:CONLEVEL is important here: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place...

unreliable, I believe the discussion would need to take place at WP:RSN per WP:CONLEVEL. —siroχo 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Delete most (if not all) are trivial...

the broad community consensus that set that policy is literally what WP:CONLEVEL say we *cannot* do. Maybe the way to approach that is a footnote after...

consensus can't overrule a wider community consensus (according to WP:CONLEVEL, which is part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy), you can't actually have an...

to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of...

it cannot be over-ridden without a consensus at an equal or greater WP:CONLEVEL. In practice, if text is longstanding in an article and disputed, an RfC...

that engages in edit wars. Just as WP:BRD has its limits, so too does WP:CONLEVEL need to be observed. You are not required to start an RfC each time you're...

seek outside dispute resolution once I was aware it was a Wikiproject WP:CONLEVEL issue. Bringing this to the 3RR noticeboard hours later seems to be an...

course, I recognize that policies take preference over guidelines via WP:CONLEVEL. However, I have always read WP:NOR as essentially concerned with the validity...

of WP:AIRPORTS want to keep the tables ← Sounds like a classic low-WP:CONLEVEL problem. You did well to raise it here.. Bon courage (talk) 05:16, 21 September...

source.. Consensus at a talk page can't be used to ignore policy, see WP:CONLEVEL. Additionally any content that has been challenged must have reliable inline...

"generally unreliable" etc. based solely on discussions on a very low WP:CONLEVEL. Ljleppan (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC) The last discussion about Niche...

notability guideline). I will remind people present in this discussion of WP:CONLEVEL, namely that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

was unable to find anything that would add up to notability. And per WP:CONLEVEL, a WikiProject's views on notability don't take precedence over the community...

mistake, and was super-ceded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included...

so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April...

Anyway, WP:CROWD is an interpretation of the longstanding policy at WP:CONLEVEL, and a fairly uncontroversial one despite its fairly recent documentation...

the kritarchy in general, I think the Arbcom statement linked from WP:CONLEVEL says it well: on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus...

NACADEMIC are best discussed at the talk page of that guideline (see also WP:CONLEVEL). Most participants seem to agree that the currently-accepted thresholds...

make it more true, and that there has never been a sane way to determine CONLEVEL and re-order stuff based on that. Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2025...

formally codified anyway to avoid unintentional cabalish behavior /WP:CONLEVEL problems. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC) FWIW, I...

then the first set here, and if anything have less authority due to WP:CONLEVEL. In any case, SportingFlyer is right above that what we really need is...

minimum threshold of voters. JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) WP:CONLEVEL covers this. An unadvertised RFC with fewer than a quarter of the respondents...

delete conclusion. The AfC reviewer cannot over-ride that discussion per WP:CONLEVEL, and did not wish to. A return to draft at that point would have saved...

 Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) WP:CONLEVEL is pretty clear that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one...

participants that they have done so in order to establish sufficient WP:CONLEVEL. This did not happen here. In this RfC a workshopping section was opened...

NOT. This AFD does not have the authority to overrule that RfC due to CONLEVEL. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Hi @Draken Bowser! In...

 (talk · contribs), has expressed concern re the closing rationale of WP:CONLEVEL, this notice has been referred to WP:AN for a review. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300...

Otherwise, I don't appreciate using an extreme case as a strawman against WP:CONLEVEL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) There was no consensus for...

rule-making authority to a Wikiproject, something that is out of line with WP:CONLEVEL. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC) It is appropriate...

of itself a good reason but there may be other factors such as the WP:CONLEVEL for the status quo or prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 26 September...

above. Οἶδα (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC) 1 or 2a: per above, and WP:CONLEVELS -- a discussion as to how to programme a bot shouldn't override the MoS...

journals, thinking that mattered. I have a vaguer recollection that the WP:CONLEVEL words ("... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally...

defy site-wide consensus on how our content needs to be written (per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROJPAGE).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Here...

these editors attempted to unilaterally demote various guidelines, see WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROPOSAL. The idea that I am involved in any kind of censorship...

accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope (WP:CONLEVEL). Articles about years are summaries of reliable sources about those years...

content before reverting my changes (or even until now)? 3. Doesn't WP:CONLEVEL claim here: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

accepted through longstanding community-wide consensus for years now. And WP:CONLEVELS is explicit that consensus among a limited group of editors at one place...

given how unhelpful it is and how much it encourages original research. WP:CONLEVEL is clear on this point: sitewide consensus—especially in the form of policies...

the guideline should always be disregarded. That would itself violate WP:CONLEVEL. Since the opposes did not argue that this is an exceptional case, but...

should only be over-ridden by a new consensus that reaches the same WP:CONLEVEL. That could be from this AfD - but only if people concentrate on why this...

manual-of-style debates. This is bogus both-sidesism that is contrary to policy (WP:CONLEVEL, etc.). There unmistakably are right and wrong answers to the question...

not matter what a majority of people here viewed it as. That's why WP:CONLEVEL exists. A local consensus based on ignoring a site-wide consensus, as reflected...

behavior that lack evidence." —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC) WP:CONLEVEL is not based on how valid an idea is, but the level of consensus (often...

editors than the ones already deeply involved in a page's topic. We have WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting...

across Wikipedia, indicating a belief, contrary to both WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL policies, that topical wikiprojects get to make up and enforce "rules"...

that page disagree is not something that will change the outcome (see WP:CONLEVEL). It is therefore completely correct to have a notice dissuading editors...

WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay part, WP:CONLEVEL states that WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template...

blurbs for some reason, even though we have policies and guidelines like WP:CONLEVEL and WP:PROJPAGE that explicitly discourage different corners of Wikipedia...

to discount arguments based on that guideline is a contravention of WP:CONLEVEL. For that reason, I believe the close was erroneous. ModernDayTrilobite...

editors too while the number of ITN editors is comparatively small. Per WP:CONLEVEL, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot...

closed, can be interpreted as an implementation of that discussion. Per WP:CONLEVEL, significant consensus among a large number of editors is required to change...

note': diff), which then spread to WT:USCITIES#Highways in infobox. WP:CONLEVEL – Talk:Culpeper, Virginia is probably the wrong venue for the discussion...

consensus to delete here. AfD is superior to discussions elsewhere per WP:CONLEVEL. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Endorse I notice a...

consensus can change, but that's not what happened here. Remember that WP:CONLEVEL is policy, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and...

actually a good thing if the other editor is wrong/not very skilled. WP:CONLEVELS applies here -- a small group of editors can't overrule site-wide consensus...

then the first set here, and if anything have less authority due to WP:CONLEVEL. In any case, SportingFlyer is right above that what we really need is...

Otherwise, I don't appreciate using an extreme case as a strawman against WP:CONLEVEL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) There was no consensus for...

However, I am concerned the results of those RfCs may be cases of WP:CONLEVEL. I think it would be useful to hear more opinions from the wider Wikipedia...

I would not call a project-wide RfC local consensus. See also what WP:ConLevel excerpts from an ArbCom decision: Where there is a global consensus to...

discussion did not convince the broader community that the action is right (WP:CONLEVEL). It convinced (also debatable given that consensus is not determined by...