Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify relation with GNG[edit]

There is an RFC on updating NOTDIR to clarify its relationship with WP:GNG with respect to lists of transporation service destinations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talkcontribs)

Concision proposal[edit]

This page's layout has bugged me for years. I propose to shorten the "Wikipedia is not a foo" headings to "... a foo" versions (retaining the lengthy originals as anchors of course).

While, yes, we do have [a lot of] shortcuts, these are for experienced editors' convenience on talk pages, and should not be thrown as alien alphabet soup at new users. In particular, all our policy, guideline, and process pages shouldn't be using them at noobs, since those pages are primarily intended as introductory materials for the recruits.

But it's severely tedious to have to format something like {{section link|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought}} again and again. This would be so much easier as {{section link|Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|... a publisher of original thought}}.

And there'd be a reader-facing benefit as well: the actual URLs (in the URL bar and in the mouseover tooltip provided by many browsers to tell you where that link will take you) would show a much shorter and less pointlessly redundant path.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to object so long as no existing links are broken. I deal with the issue of long/repetitious linking by using a browser based keyboard macro package called ProKeys. For example typing notpromo [crtl]-[space] yields [[WP:NOTPROMO|Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising.. There are a couple of downsides: It only works with the desktop versions of Chrome and Opera so I still must type everything out on my mobile devices; and, very infrequently, an experienced user may get a bit offended because AGF or similar will come out wikilinked or something gets linked repeatedly because it is easier to use the macro with linking than to type out the unlinked phrase. Regardless, it makes my interactions with new users more understandable and convenient for them and significantly less repetitive and frustrating for me. Jbh Talk 13:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Using the {{anchor}} template you can create anchors of any title that work to provide section links. If the main headings are changed then these will be required anyway to preserve the incoming links, so the discussion is really just about what titles are displayed on the page. I have a very slight preference for the long headings as I think it will be very slightly less confusing to arrive at a section titled "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" from a link "...a publisher of original thought" than vice versa. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018[edit] (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done There is no request here. Please make requests in the form of Please change some text to some other text. or Please add/remove some text. Jbh Talk 13:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and List of suicide crisis lines etc.[edit]

This AFD back in 2012 raised the question of whether entries consisting of only phone numbers of non-notable organisations should be kept. Consensus was to keep due to the notability of most of the entries; however, it now seems that the vast majority are just numbers along with URLs to various sites. It seems these should be removed due to WP:NOTDIR. Another problematic example is the "Current storm information" list of three websites in the "Current storm information" for tropical storms such as at 2018 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Bud which likewise serves no encyclopedic purpose. Is there some sort of exception that I'm missing or is this rule just going to be ignored? 93 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) 93 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of policies, style guides, etc. that are ignored in various articles, until someone takes on the task of trying to enforce them. Cleaning up just one article can at times turn into a time-consuming and aggravating task, and I may hesitate before even mentioning a minor problem in an article. It is an issue of rationing my time and energy to concentrate on things that I think are most likely to improve the encyclopedia. I am not saying we should ignore all rules (although there is WP:IAR), but I have accepted that I can't fix everything in Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 21:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I've made the changes mentioned to the list. 93 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)