uwestoehr
I posted what I want to change in the template for commands.
I also stated how I would like to handle Wiki edits in respond to https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=603063&sid=fa55f903c55b84c6afb34bd6a9a4761f#p603063
Before starting this thread, I was not aware of the template GuiCommand_model. I obviously missed this info.
However, now that know, I asked here about the forum thread where this template was discussed/developed. I could not find a thread by searching the forum.
But OK, we are in the here and now. In my today’s long post I made proposals on how to change the existing template.
As I wrote in my initial post of this tread, I would like to have as result of this discussion some written rules (how to deal with edits, reversions etc.) we agree to. chrisb made a proposal and I would add the points I wrote about in my today’s longer post in this thread.
@chrisb, can you please post a list of “hard rules” and “soft rules” as proposal. Then we comment in this. I think this would be a good workflow.
Hmm; does it really need rigd rules? Isn’t it finally all about “you must not destroy the work of others, but you are welcome to improve it”? I have the strong feeling that it is in many cases near to impossible to define in advance the border between improvement and destruction.
Why do you persist with this nonsense? I don’t mind having a discussion about the Wiki and its rules, but let’s stick to the facts first. See: https://wiki.freecadweb.org/User_talk:Roy_043.
uwestoehr This topic is now at an impasse, obviously. Before we can move forward you really need to respond.
Many years ago I tried to contribute to Wikipedia, minor changes only… it goes without saying that all my edits were reverted almost instantaneously 
I was so pissed off inasmuch that I forgo contributing all together. Back to the present day, I decided to give another chance to wiki contributing but this time to the freecad wiki (just because I find this software so great!). Needless to say, I had forgotten all mediawiki syntax, although this time I found the process much more straightforward and simple. To the extend that while I found the syntax daunting at first, I quickly got up to speed because the documentation is there and is very good quality. Somehow, now searching for the rules, syntax, templates, layouts and documentation came very naturally, and more importantly, it made sense. Maybe, because despite all the complexities involved, freecad wiki policies and rules amount to just a fraction of Wikipedia’s ones (they ******* never end!). Alternatively, it may just be the wisdom that comes with the years 
edit: Ooops I did not see this
Sorry for the interruption. 
I don’t exactly know how to move forward now, the OP has left the discussion and we could therefore call it quits and leave things as they are. But some of the things that have been raised here do worry me.
Reading between the lines it seems that the consensus among the other Wiki participants is that every editor should be allowed to do their own thing, and we should not have too many rules or be too strict, it is ‘just’ the Wiki after all. In my opinion this laissez-faire mentality cannot work. I would go as far as to say that the Wiki is just as important as the source code of FreeCAD, and it deserves the same level of attention and the same focus on quality. Am I really alone in this?
No. +1
A Wiki is like an operator’s manual.
Any invention, even the most intuitive one, is worth nothing if it is very complex and has no instruction manual. 
Responding to Roy_043’s doubts, I will quote FBXL5.
No. +1
No! (I could give that question a “-1”)
I feel a bit guilty that my posts may have lead to the assumption that it doesn’t need rules for the wiki.
I referred only to the social level, where someone edits stuff authored by some other wiki editor.
We hope of course that wiki editors are 1) smart and 2) nice to others. Alas, we know that sometimes one of these is not fulfilled and on rare occasions even both.
We could try to add rules telling how to behave, but beyond the obvious - which I tried to express in my previous posts - such rules would become rather complicated and they wouldn’t directly improve the contents.
So you are very right, that guidelines about the contents are needed. If it is clear what and how things should be presented in the wiki, it can help to avoid the issues mentioned above in the first place.
we are all on the same nice boat and we are here for fun, no? no money, no competition, no market and blabla…
I am pro to introduce some flexibility. It may open the Pandora box, yes. We will see and I second chrisb
We hope of course that wiki editors are 1) smart and 2) nice to others. Alas, we know that sometimes one of these is not fulfilled and on rare occasions even both.
how to define a fuzzy border between do_what_you_want and strict rules?
- we can give examples and remind it’s a matter of clarity, intelligence, reading, common sense, down to earth.
- and remind, if there are doubts, open a discussion in camaraderie spirit either in pm or on forum.
Can you please moderate your tone? The point is not that I missed or forgot an info.
The point is that you act according to rules. OK, but then there must be a discussion that lead to the rules.
Therefore I started this thread to discuss the rules and from my perspective to change them. I made proposals to change them. It would be good to hear arguments that are against my proposal since this is what discussion is for - understanding the different points of view, think about for some time than find a way the majority agrees to.
chrisb wrote that we don’t need strict rules. This would be fine with me, but this means that things can be handled less strict, so as I wrote, to omit e.g. the workbench technical name in links.
But I never said I want this. There is a template for how to describe features. That is good. I made a clear proposal in which way I want to change it.
If you like, I can change the template as I propose and input this Wiki page here to the discussion.
I did not leave the discussion but the work after the release was for me after the release even more than before. I am just a human and my spare time is some how limited. Therefore I had to focus the last days in checking regression and installation reports, backporting fixes etc. Besides this, I also wanted to hack a bit because I also have some features in the pipeline for FreeCAD 
.
p.s. now, the first time since 2 weeks I found time to read all posts where I was pinged
You have raised the point of etiquette. Chris has made suggestions that would require a change in attitude from me, yes I admit that, but also from you. Judging from the way you want to brush over your ‘selective memory’ the latter part has not yet sunk in. If this is your interpretation of the new etiquette then this discussion no longer makes sense to me.
- you act according to rules and this is OK
- I did not know the rules and you already pointed me to them.
- I forgot some rules and/or missed some things but I think this is now sorted out.
- Now, that “we found us toghether” as we say in German, we can work together.
I want:
- discuss the rules and the Wiki template
- as result we have a template and some riles the majority of Wiki editors agree