Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia essays/Archives/2008/September
Featured essays edit
I think it's a bit too far to argue that essays should be rated and have "featured essays." That might be a good idea in the future, but there's so much work that needs to be done, as it is, that we should just focus on categorizing them right now, into sub-categories, because they're a pain to dig through and there appears to be a fair amount of duplicates. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. We will have plenty of time to do that "fun stuff" later. However, if someone feels like doing it now, more power to them; it just won't be me at that time. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, speaking of "fun stuff," somebody around here doesn't like it. Looking at the category mentioned on the project page, Category:Wikipedia fauna, I saw the essay, Wikipedia:WikiDragon. And then, a link to this CfD: [1]. Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons was deleted, though there was clearly no consensus for that; the closing administrator didn't say why. I find the discussion disturbing in the light of other recent history I've been noticing. A loss of community. These quirky categories and essays and self-deprecating or ironic humor are part of what made this community function. It's breaking down. Common argument in the discussion, "I don't see the point." Precisely. Whatever we don't understand, kill. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. I see only one way to counter this creeping death: a communications structure that exposes all this, rapidly and efficiently.--Abd (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can't people just chill out? Laissez-faire, everybody! If it feels good, do it. If it harms the encyclopedia, and that harm outweighs the benefits of keeping it, delete it. But don't do this knee-jerk crap of just deleting stuff that doesn't fit your vision of what this project should be, and what it is not. That's just my opinion. No one else is bound by it. But let's just say this – we've been trying it "your way" (i.e. the current policies and practices) for awhile, and look at where it's gotten us. Growth is beginning to stagnate. How about trying something different? Is it a possibility? Or is it too dangerous to risk? Well, OK. Have it your way, then. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, speaking of "fun stuff," somebody around here doesn't like it. Looking at the category mentioned on the project page, Category:Wikipedia fauna, I saw the essay, Wikipedia:WikiDragon. And then, a link to this CfD: [1]. Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons was deleted, though there was clearly no consensus for that; the closing administrator didn't say why. I find the discussion disturbing in the light of other recent history I've been noticing. A loss of community. These quirky categories and essays and self-deprecating or ironic humor are part of what made this community function. It's breaking down. Common argument in the discussion, "I don't see the point." Precisely. Whatever we don't understand, kill. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. I see only one way to counter this creeping death: a communications structure that exposes all this, rapidly and efficiently.--Abd (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In any case, does anyone have any suggestions for categorization schemes, or should we just make them up as we go along?
It seemed to me that there's:
- Essays on specific policies
- Essays on proposals
- Essays on controversies
- Essays giving advice
- Essays on Wikipedia, in general
- Humorous essays
There are some grey areas, though, where it seems like some essays fall into more than one category.
Also, I think that WP:LF is great to apply to essays, talkpages, and userspace, but NOT to the mainspace. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you on that. WP:LF needs some refinement before it will make sense for mainspace. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is a good start. I currently have an Essay in alpha, concerning problems encountered in assessing factual accuracy (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Essay:When the Sources' Accuracy Is Disputed), probably to go into Category:Essays on controversies when the above types of essays are given Categories. Do inform me which Categories are goes when the relevant discussion concludes. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Essay categorization schemes edit
About the essay categorization schemes? Let's focus discussion on it. How should it be done? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning the classes of Essays listed at the Top of this Talk page as of 05:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC), I recommend creation of the following Categories:
- This would be a good start. I am uncertain how a category on humorous essays will fit here; but Talk pages for the Essays in all of the above Categories would be in a common Category:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification articles, plus subcategories for quality assessment, hotlist for articles needing immediate attention, articles under peer review, &c. What further additions, if any in the short term? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for Essay Talk Template edit
I completed a prototype Template for this Project from Template:WPBannerMeta, for your consideration (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Templates/WPEssay (alpha)): {{Essaysort|category=no}} As of this post, the Class, Importance and Attention functions are activated; what other functions, if any, will be needed? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Amendment by B. C. Schmerker (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)