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.


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)

Sausages for tasting[edit]

Please discuss if Wikipedia:Sausages for tasting, a humorous essay concerning Articles for deletion, should or should not be included on this template. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose- IMO this essay is poorly written, confusing, and not very funny. Reyk YO! 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
And I note that my previous interactions with the above user show they are strongly against the methodology proposed by the essay. Smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPA Reyk YO! 10:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Well I don't think it's a particularly bad essay, it's more that it doesn't really make any particular points. Most humourous editors make points about how you should or shouldn't edit Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. I can't see one in this essay; I also can't see it having much impact The main problem is that there is 74 essays in the humor category, and to include them all might clutter the template, and hide the more accepted essays. So I'll !vote weak oppose for now, at least until it becomes more accepted. By the way perhaps 1Wiki8 should read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert and try to see the irony. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I softly giggled and smiled as I read WP:BRRR, thanks for the pointer. WP:SFT is intended as a humorous metaphor that encourages concentrating on notability at AFD, not on WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues. Perhaps other editors will find interest in editing the essay. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose listing in template and directory .....essay has no meaning or point. Cant list all the crap.--Moxy (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Another discussion[edit]

A discussion about WP:BEANS and this template: please see Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose#What type of essay is this?. Thank you. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 05:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)