Wikipedia talk:Grandmothering

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

I for one prefer it when someone I'm talking to provides the link when they cite the policy. It makes it easy to see if the actual page backs up their claims about it. What you don't want is policy-bashing (as outlined in WP:BASH -- see? It's useful to link to the actual page), where all you do is link to the policy and treat that as your entire argument, precluding all counterarguments.

Using shortcuts is not the sin; what's antagonizing is presenting a link to a policy as a complete and incontestable argument. It is always commendable to provide an actual rationale; if the rationale is reflected by an existing policy or essay (and usually there is some relevant page), it is good to provide a link to the page in question. Even experienced users might not be familiar with the cited page in question, and new users definitely benefit from a "this is the page I'm talking about" link.--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, what I don't want is policy-bashing, but I think shortcuts are so often abused, especially WP:WAX, that I wish they were abolished altogether. Merzul (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take that as a lesson that actual "what about" arguments are as uncompelling as link-bashing arguments. I wouldn't accept "we should delete this" arguments on the basis that we deleted something similar, so I don't blame people for ignoring "keep" rationales on the same basis. If we should have the article, it should be defended on its own merits.--Father Goose (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya like International Business Machines Personal Computer[edit]

16-Jan-2009: WTF? Oh ya, now I get it: it's like people could never understand what it means to say "IBM PC". NOT! This essay is some bizarre case of "POV pushing". To all (us) dense people out there, who could never handle a term like "POV", it means: someone with a psychologically bent agenda is trying to shove, force, or otherwise cram their own point-of-view (POV, get it?) ideas as pushed, all out of perspective, about how to stop using the shortcut terms, such as "WP:Verify". The essay is not about reality, but expresses some venting of frustration. Actually, what we have here is a failure to communicate: yes, working with other people is often very difficult, but the solution is not to write an essay outlawing what they can say. Either learn to work with those people, or else move on to some other area where they can be avoided. Please do not write an essay with the intention of "Wikipedia:Using Wikipedia to prove a point". Perhaps a better approach would have been to open a discussion about use of the shortcut acronyms. People have an amazing ability to remember short words (such as "IBM PC") even though they don't know where those words originated. In fact, the use of a shortcut, (such as "WP:CIVIL") indicates some extra thought was spent to abbreviate the policy for easier reference. Please feel free to use shortcuts, whenever, wherever, ASAP (that means "As soon as possible" - just kidding)! -Wikid77 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]