This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
I've looked at the template, and I noticed it gives conflicting advice - it gives us advice to call a spade a spade, but also gives advice to not call a spade a spade. I'm confused as to which advice to take on this subject. I urge a bit of cleanup in that regard, and I'm siding with the "not spade" option to avoid incivility. Aerospeed (Talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Aerospeed: I think you've got a point. But very often both essays are valuable because they are both are right in their own ways, and show the two sides of an argument.
But I think a better solution might be to merge these pages. You could have a page, e.g. When to call a spade a spade, which gives both sides of the argument. In this case the two pages don't really contradict each other, they basically say don't call a spade a spade unless you have strong evidence of vandalism or disruptive editing, and even then to be civil about it, and perhaps avoid those particular words, e.g. I need to go to an admin about your questionable behaviour.
I disagree. Essays are not policy and do not necessary represent consensus on Wikipedia. Opposition essays can be valuable and Wikipedians deserve to know that there may be disagreement on any given topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
propose to re-add essay on sham consensus
I propose to restore the link to the essay on sham consensus, which was deleted from this template as part of "cull[ing] tangents". No other essay listed in the template appears to overlap the essay's scope. While three other essays are related (on false consensus, wrongful consensus, and procedurally flawed consensus), they're not listed in this template but are linked to from within the sham consensus essay, which is the more comprehensive essay. The Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid essay (linked to in the template) is quite different. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (After earlier title correction, corrected punctuation: 02:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
It's worthless. Just a collection of 8 emails that were sent with unblock requests of the most ignorant or confused kind. 1. Has no value for anyone. Nobody will look there to see what arguments to avoid. 2. These emails are more sad than humorous. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well I don't think it's a particularly bad essay, it's more that it doesn't really make any particular points. Most humourous editors make points about how you should or shouldn't edit Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. I can't see one in this essay; I also can't see it having much impact The main problem is that there is 74 essays in the humor category, and to include them all might clutter the template, and hide the more accepted essays. So I'll !vote weak oppose for now, at least until it becomes more accepted. By the way perhaps 1Wiki8 should read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert and try to see the irony. --Jules(Mrjulesd)10:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's too much to ask that editors adding an essay to this main template also add it to the sub-template to keep them synced. Instead, one should transclude or be excerpted into the other. Sdkb (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This should be automated as much as possible. Use of sectional transclusion, and <includeonly> and <noinclude>, can make that work pretty well. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time to trim the fat
It's been a fee years but I think it's time we go over this again and remove the junk. Getting bloated with useless essays again. WI'll take a look this weekend.--Moxy🍁20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Top 150 by what metric? I'm not sure the impact rating is sufficiently precise to warrant cutting all the essays that fall outside of it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Impact rating" is a joke, since it is not done systematically, and WikiProject Essays is virtually a dead stick. However, "top 150 by views" is also poor, because very old essays will have more views, even if relatively disused, than recent essays which are actually referred to frequently. I would suggest top 150 (or whatever) by views (or by links to them, or a mixture of these criteria) within a particular period, like the last 3 years or 1 year, or whatever. And we could also be more flexible, e.g. by setting numeric limits per section (some sections are way more bloated than others). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged templates
@TheTVExpert and Primefac: Following the merge discussion, do you think it's better to have e.g. Template:Civility redirect here or wrap {{Wikipedia essays}} so that the civility section will be expanded? I don't have a strong preference either way — the redirects are a cleaner consolidation but the wrappers would better keep what the essays that used the more specialized templates had. Thank you Primefac for carrying out the merge. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really bother me either way. Might be worth getting some other opinions first to determine the general consensus. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sectional breadth (civility → behavior)
I propose renaming the segment presently called "Essays on civility" to "Essays on civility and behavior" or just "Essays on behavior". That would help us include essays that are mostly behavioral but not about civility in particular, without trying to shoehorn them into other sections that are only quasi-relevant (e.g. mostly about content or about editing philosophy). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When to add essays to the this template
Hi, I came across Wikipedia:Presentism, and I found it interesting. I don't see it listed in the Essays template and I think it could be a good addition. However, before I try to add it, I wanted to ask here: is there a selection criteria for when to add or not add an essay to the template (beyond fulfilling the basic requirements of being an acceptable essay in the first place)? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind response. I have added it. If more people would like to deliberate further here, I'm happy to engage and listen. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprotected edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
