Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename article

[edit]

The title of this page. It's really condescending and undignified. If I were young I would feel insulted by the implicit presumption that I'm an idiot. We need to decide. If this is addressed to youngsters we should say so and not try to talk down to them, some derivative of "Guideline for young editors". If this is for everyone it should be something like "Do not make things up."

Two earlier proposed moves failed, but that was last year when Wikipedia didn't have such an issue with credibility. Also, this was an essay then and the arguments against were based on that. Wikidemo 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good discussion at Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis about restructuring and condensing the content guidelines. I've never cared for this title but it pretty well protected by its proponents. --Kevin Murray 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really around for the last discussion on the name, but from what I can see it got sidetracked and then fizzled out. However, some good points were raised, and I tend to agree that the name could be improved. I'd suggest "Wikipedia is not for things which you and your friends made up one day" along the lines of Jaysweet's suggestion. I think it has two advantages over the current title: first it's less likely to be read as patronising towards younger editors; and secondly it makes clear that it applies to things which were made up outside of school as well. I've seen it applied (hell, I've done it myself once or twice) at AfDs to articles along the lines of "This is a game invented by Joe Bloggs and me in the car park after work last summer" and while such articles certainly fit the spirit of the guideline, it's on the whole rather incongruous, and possibly insulting, to direct their creators to it. If the name is changed, the exact wording of the guideline would need a bit of changing as well, but that's easily done. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there'd be anything wrong with renaming the page, so long as the NFT abbrevacronym still parsed. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day would probably suffice just fine. I can attest from personal direct experience that many noob editors do in fact mistake this guideline as only applying to material made up by school kids; I can't tell you how many times I have seen responses like "What?!? I'm not a school kid! I'm a [insert professional title relevant to the context of the article in question here]!" The guideline's effectiveness could probably be extended by genericizing its title a little. And making it less condescending would be more in tune with WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE and WP:NPA, thus reducing (slightly) the strife level at AfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the parameters of time when "makin something". Wikipedia could have been made up in one day. Why should it have an entry on Wikipedia. Isn't it's inclusion on the project Wikipedia:NPOV according to it's own rules? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every article should be written from a neutral point of view. I'm not sure what you were trying to say here.
Yes, everything is "made up". Some of those things, however, are notable.
Wikipedia has an article because it is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (A sampling, in no particular order: The Atlantic, BBC, CBS News, The Daily Telegraph, Encyclopædia Britannica, First Monday, The Guardian, Harvard Business Review, The Independent, Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Kuro5hin, Los Angeles Times, MIT Technology Review, Nature, The New York Times, Occidental Petroleum, PC World, Quarterly Journal of Xenophobic Editors, The Register, Salt Lake City Weekly, Time, University of Hawaii Press, Visual Communication Lab: IBM Research, The Washington Post, XBIZ.com, Yale University Press, Zerogeography.net). When the story of your school's cafeteria workers fighting to avoid being replaced by robots from another planet has that kind of coverage, it will be notable too. Until then, it's just some crazy nonsense you dreamed up in school one day. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:INVENTED" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:INVENTED. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Wikipedia:INVENTED until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INVENTED seemed to be really bad because it’s existence required a hatnote.
The LINKBOX has too many advertised shortcuts. See WP:LINKBOX
90 day pageviews were 151, 24, 17, 314, 44.
WP:MADEUP 151
WP:NOTMADEUP 24
WP:ONEDAY 17
WP:NFT 314
WP:1DAY 44
By pageviews, NFT wins by a long way, but NFT is quite unintuitive.
How about MADEUP. Alone, or both MADEUP and NFT?
User:Tavix?
—SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see a problem that needs to be solved. Editors should continue to use whichever shortcuts they prefer. -- Tavix (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Tavix, read WP:LINKBOX. Five listed shortcuts is too many. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the page view stats you have provided, they all look to be used. LINKBOX does not cap the number of shortcuts, rather gives guidance that they should be common and easily remembered, which they all do that. NFT is the only one that I don't think qualifies as "easily remembered", but conversely it is the most "common" from a page view perspective... -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • “list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.” Usually, that means one. Often one or two. More than two? I think all three need a good justification. The purpose of the LINKBOX is not to make shortcuts work, all shortcuts work regardless of a linkbox, and for technical support if required, use the template {{anchor}}. The purpose is not to be a WhatLinksHere of all used shortcuts, you might want WP:CUTS for that. The purpose of the LINKBOX is to inform new readers of the page of the preferred shortcut(s). Giving five only confuses that purpose. If new readers of the page choose all five, that hurts recognizability of the page-shortcut. I want to insist that for this essay, five recommended shortcuts is too many.
          Do you support removing NFT? I agree that it is unintuitive. Also, TLAs are expected to be either intuitive, or important (eg BLP for a short unintuitive cut). MADEUP and NOTMADEUP are mutually redundant to list. 90 day pageviews are interesting to look at, but a good rationale beats raw data. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Should NFT be swapped out for WP:NFTMU or WP:NFTMUOD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to go back here to note that yes, WP:NFT looks to be unintuitive and would appear, to someone who doesn't know already where it goes, to be a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cryptocurrency or the like due to the NFT initialism being associated with non-fungible tokens. Theoretically, WP:NMU could work better, standing for "not made up" and thus being more intuitive. But I'm just a series of four numbers separated by periods, take my suggestion with a grain of salt. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One day"?

[edit]

What's with the "one day"? Confusion. Couldn't this helpful page just be called Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing, this has always struck me as awkward as well. I support removing the words "one day", "Wikipedia is not for things made up" is sufficient. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rename this but only managed to move the talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear anything has currently been moved. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page move, understandably, was reverted. The help needed here is to move the page to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not for things made up (with the talk page following) as it does not seem possible for a regular user to even start a move request. Please do not remove the help request unless that problem is addressed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Favonian already told you we need consensus. This isn't what the help template is for. Stop using it. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Favonian on this page. I don't see where I didn't want consensus ("start a move request"). I don't see why you removed the help tag - twice! - without addressing the issue. I do see two admin's who like "one day". That flabbergasts me to no end, and i give up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like "one day". Better ring, better rhythm, and it almost sets a scene. "Things made up", full stop, sounds abrupt and awkward to me. Originally, I believe this page was called "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day". In a way, I liked that even more, as it had a very nice spoken-word ring, but I suppose it was too limiting. So "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" is my favorite. I'm baffled that it could be confusing. How? Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hint: other days. Oh, well, I give up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but "one day" is much better. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also enjoy the whimsy of "one day" it really captures that feeling of making stuff up. Andre🚐 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of “postmodern debate”

[edit]

Could someone maybe explain to me what is meant here by postmodern debate: “Verifiability isn't up for postmodern debate; it's a standard criterion.”? Thanks in advance!   Gzhegozh talk 08:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's a boogieman use of the word postmodern to mean relativism or sophistry or whatever -- "what is verifiability really anyway?" and such. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!discuss real emo here... 08:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day&oldid=1250088753"