Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This essay has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
If the reasoning differs between "important" and "unimportant" articles, it should be explained in this essay. I don't see such difference, so the "deadline is now" for any article, not just for the arbitrarily selected ones. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point that it would overcomplicate things if someone could say "WP:NOW only applies to important articles". I have changed it to eliminate that possibility. Risingrain ( talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The deadline may also be now because Wikipedia may potentially it may be people's only source of unbiased information (through projects like Wikipedia Zero), it's seems to me to be important to give them as much useful information as possible. Mrjohncummings ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Both good reasons. Midgley ( talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Every day we retard the creation of a
Missing Article, is a day lost. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
Template:uncited can serve as a placeholder in the meantime, which avoids people being misled. -- Handroid7 ( talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have removed " Wikipedia:There is no deadline, which expresses the opposite view" from the See also heading.
This is due to the onslaught against me at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#See also, where there are two films, both named Dune; Wikipedia applies the disambiguation, eg., Dune (1984 film) to it's article titles. The most recent (2021) version might also be known as Dune: part one.
I wanted it in Headings (at Dune (2021 film)) but the depth/reasons for disagreement would also seem applicable here - the main criterion being it is already linked in the prose.
MOS:SEEALSO states: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Is there any exception for this essay, not being an actual article?-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 08:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure how I landed at Dune 2021 - I knew-not of it, and don't care, having removed from my Watchlist. I knew of the 1984 film and discussed the book with my former neighbour (an avid reader) pre-internet. The [[See also}} heading at Dune 2021 was reverted after 35 minutes, and the hat I added as a replacement was removed 19 minutes later. The Dune 1984 hat I added tentatively (ie., not including the words ...for the film of the same name) is extant. Those OWNing the Dune 2021 content were obviously not swayed by my assertion that either the heading or hat were warranted. That was disruption, IMO, for two films both ostensibly named the same to have reasonable content removed. At Dune 2021, there is a presumption that readers trawl religiously and comprehensively through the article in sequence - a leap of imagination, IMO. I look at lede, infobox, TOC/headings, images and see also/ external links before deciding if I need to wade through a text wall; accordingly, inline wikilinks could be missed. Rarely, if ever, do I look at navboxes and cats. The Dune 2021 lede Ocean of blue staggered me - 14 articles for the actors alone.
I was attacked by a new user (guessing August) and in the considerable explanations of WP precepts offered (individually-composed, avoiding templated warnings), I used WP:NOW (four new user attacks of varying ferocity in a year). Knowing that I hadn't read NOW for some time, I accessed it again; obviously I noticed the links, being fresh in my mind.
I apologise this has turned into a polemic.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This essay has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
If the reasoning differs between "important" and "unimportant" articles, it should be explained in this essay. I don't see such difference, so the "deadline is now" for any article, not just for the arbitrarily selected ones. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point that it would overcomplicate things if someone could say "WP:NOW only applies to important articles". I have changed it to eliminate that possibility. Risingrain ( talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The deadline may also be now because Wikipedia may potentially it may be people's only source of unbiased information (through projects like Wikipedia Zero), it's seems to me to be important to give them as much useful information as possible. Mrjohncummings ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Both good reasons. Midgley ( talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Every day we retard the creation of a
Missing Article, is a day lost. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
Template:uncited can serve as a placeholder in the meantime, which avoids people being misled. -- Handroid7 ( talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I have removed " Wikipedia:There is no deadline, which expresses the opposite view" from the See also heading.
This is due to the onslaught against me at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#See also, where there are two films, both named Dune; Wikipedia applies the disambiguation, eg., Dune (1984 film) to it's article titles. The most recent (2021) version might also be known as Dune: part one.
I wanted it in Headings (at Dune (2021 film)) but the depth/reasons for disagreement would also seem applicable here - the main criterion being it is already linked in the prose.
MOS:SEEALSO states: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Is there any exception for this essay, not being an actual article?-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 08:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure how I landed at Dune 2021 - I knew-not of it, and don't care, having removed from my Watchlist. I knew of the 1984 film and discussed the book with my former neighbour (an avid reader) pre-internet. The [[See also}} heading at Dune 2021 was reverted after 35 minutes, and the hat I added as a replacement was removed 19 minutes later. The Dune 1984 hat I added tentatively (ie., not including the words ...for the film of the same name) is extant. Those OWNing the Dune 2021 content were obviously not swayed by my assertion that either the heading or hat were warranted. That was disruption, IMO, for two films both ostensibly named the same to have reasonable content removed. At Dune 2021, there is a presumption that readers trawl religiously and comprehensively through the article in sequence - a leap of imagination, IMO. I look at lede, infobox, TOC/headings, images and see also/ external links before deciding if I need to wade through a text wall; accordingly, inline wikilinks could be missed. Rarely, if ever, do I look at navboxes and cats. The Dune 2021 lede Ocean of blue staggered me - 14 articles for the actors alone.
I was attacked by a new user (guessing August) and in the considerable explanations of WP precepts offered (individually-composed, avoiding templated warnings), I used WP:NOW (four new user attacks of varying ferocity in a year). Knowing that I hadn't read NOW for some time, I accessed it again; obviously I noticed the links, being fresh in my mind.
I apologise this has turned into a polemic.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)