Template talk:Wikipedia essays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Pointers[edit]

This template was created during this discussion (old diff linked) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays. It draws together the 4 existing templates ({{Essays on building Wikipedia}}, {{Civility}}, {{Essays on notability}}, {{Humorous essays}}), solves much of the overlap and inconsistency, and creates a more central area for discussion. Hopefully it helps. –Quiddity (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays#Template:Wikipedia essays for explanation & queries, and please watchlist this template. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade[edit]

I've looked at the template, and I noticed it gives conflicting advice - it gives us advice to call a spade a spade, but also gives advice to not call a spade a spade. I'm confused as to which advice to take on this subject. I urge a bit of cleanup in that regard, and I'm siding with the "not spade" option to avoid incivility. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Aerospeed: I think you've got a point. But very often both essays are valuable because they are both are right in their own ways, and show the two sides of an argument.
But I think a better solution might be to merge these pages. You could have a page, e.g. When to call a spade a spade, which gives both sides of the argument. In this case the two pages don't really contradict each other, they basically say don't call a spade a spade unless you have strong evidence of vandalism or disruptive editing, and even then to be civil about it, and perhaps avoid those particular words, e.g. I need to go to an admin about your questionable behaviour.
If you decided to do this it would be best to follow out Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. I may be up for it at some point I guess. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

propose to re-add essay on sham consensus[edit]

I propose to restore the link to the essay on sham consensus, which was deleted from this template as part of "cull[ing] tangents". No other essay listed in the template appears to overlap the essay's scope. While three other essays are related (on false consensus, wrongful consensus, and procedurally flawed consensus), they're not listed in this template but are linked to from within the sham consensus essay, which is the more comprehensive essay. The Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid essay (linked to in the template) is quite different. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (After earlier title correction, corrected punctuation: 02:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC))

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails[edit]

I don't really think Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Unblock Emails is an essay. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

IMHO that page should be Xfd'ed. Debresser (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think that? CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It's worthless. Just a collection of 8 emails that were sent with unblock requests of the most ignorant or confused kind. 1. Has no value for anyone. Nobody will look there to see what arguments to avoid. 2. These emails are more sad than humorous. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)