the Wikipedia Help Project | (Rated Project-class) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Redirect | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
||
---|---|---|
|
||
RfC: To deprecate WP: shortcuts to user essays
Should the use of WP: shortcuts to point to user essays in userspace be deprecated?
Discussion
Despite the declaration on WP:SHORTCUT that The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline. that disclaimer is not visible to anybody clicking on a shortcut. They arrive at the user essay with the mistaken impression that the user essay is actually a guideline carrying much more weight than it actually does. Even if the essay actually represented a community approved guideline having it in userspace would imply some ownership of the guideline. In either case the shortcut is unintentionally and unnecessarily misleading.
I propose deprecating the use of WP: shortcuts to point at user essays in userspace.
Existing shortcuts should be replaced with a short page containing the disclaimer above with a link to the essay. If the essay passes an RfC and is accepted by the community then the shortcut should be replaced by the essay or a redirect to its approved version in WP: namespace. Bazj (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was there something that precipitated this discussion? Some evidence of user confusion? –xenotalk 18:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the outcome of this won't prejudice that issue and I'd rather this discussion didn't get bogged down in one specific case. Bazj (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance#Fresh example and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Consensus for adding A7 to Uw-hasty both seem related. I'm wondering if we might have a WP:MULTI issue here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The issues being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance (3 or more sections, not just Fresh example) rest on several disputed/misunderstood areas of policy/guidelines. I had hoped that examining each issue on its own merits would allow them to be discussed with a little more light and a little less heat. An examination of this issue on its own merits (and the other component topics), yielding firm results, would allow a more concrete discussion to take place there. It's not WP:MULTI, they are separate issues. Forcing the discussions together will just result in them being as inconclusive and unproductive as they have been for the last couple of weeks. Bazj (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance#Fresh example and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Consensus for adding A7 to Uw-hasty both seem related. I'm wondering if we might have a WP:MULTI issue here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the outcome of this won't prejudice that issue and I'd rather this discussion didn't get bogged down in one specific case. Bazj (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deprecate
Oppose
- Such shortcuts ar very useful. This is a case of WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Anyone who fails to follow a link and assumes that the presence of a shortcut means that the page linked is a policy or a guideline doesn't know how Wikipedia works well enough to be having much influence on a policy debate anyway. Anyone who goes to an essay page and fails to notice the large 'This is an essay, not a policy or guideline' notice is, well ... not very observant. DES (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I understand that this is (at least) an occasional source of confusion, and while it's impossible for anyone to recognize all of the shortcuts (I believe that there are on the order of 20,000 shortcuts these days – maybe more), I don't think that deleting cross-namespace shortcuts is a good approach. In particular, if a page started in the Wikipedia: space and was later moved, then deleting the old shortcut means making old discussions unintelligible; soft-redirecting them (Bazj's proposal) merely adds to annoyance, without preventing the bad assumption in the first place.
As a partial solution, anyone who finds shortcuts confusing should strongly consider turning on WP:NAVPOPS in the first section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Then you can see some information without needing to click through to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC) - While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think this would particularly solve any problems. There are always going to be some essays in the Wikipedia namespace that represent somewhat controversial material: making the suggested change distinction will, in my eyes, give them a larger impression of consensus than they deserve. I think that the majority of users reading essays (especially those using WP: shortcuts) are going to be at least somewhat experienced, and will recognise an essay as an essay rather than as policy, not least because of the heading banner. Deciding the degree to which an essay represents consensus is sometimes tricky for anyone coming across a new essay, but I think this is too clumsy a way to solve that problem. — crh 23 (Talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)