User:SoledadKabocha/essays


 * /Adjectives in your recommendations (concurring opinion) - summary: "Weak" is okay; "strong" is not. Needs better name
 * /BRD is not BDRD (and that's too bad) (observing that most editors don't voluntarily obey 0RR)
 * /On fixing hatnotes (how hatnotes that appear to violate WP:TRHAT etc. can sometimes be rewritten instead of needing to be removed; see for example my edit on Nonunion)
 * /Potential vs. actual confusion (should be moved to /What is reasonable ambiguity? or similar? &mdash; regarding verifiability as it applies to disambiguations and hatnotes)
 * Related idea: "Redirects are costly" is costly (needs better name; not sure quite how much it overlaps with the above item anyway)
 * /Protection of redirects considered harmful (...because it impedes categorization. TODO: This really only means indefinite full/EC/template-editor[?] protection, as opposed to short-term or semi; rename?)
 * /Random blocking (humor; compare WP:Random deletion)
 * /Redirects with possibilities considered harmful (Short version: The idea behind is broken because not every reader is willing to become an editor. Specifically,  redirects with possibilities create unnecessary astonishment for readers, as mentioned in WP:RFD item 10, until an editor fulfills the possibility by writing an article. Some cases could also fall under RFD#DELETE #2.)
 * /There is no such thing as a redundant essay (opposing viewpoint to WP:Avoid writing redundant essays)
 * /The talk page paradox restated
 * /Three observations (content from User:SoledadKabocha)
 * /Watchlist zero (mostly on how to know whether you are a Wikipediholic; compare "inbox zero")
 * /Wikipedia is failing. What will you do about it? (NB: I don't really believe Wikipedia is failing that badly. This will be essentially a response to WP:WIF)

Ideas to consider further
Furthermore, no one is perfect, and occasional disputes are unavoidable despite good faith. Specifically, not everyone may understand what it means that the section WP:NOTNOTHERE mentions "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner."
 * Neither R with possibilities nor R to related topic is R to article without mention - just because an article is still being drafted is not an excuse to redirect to a confusing place (on an unrelated note: why isn't R with possibilities restricted to article namespace? We need a project to harmonize namespace restrictions for redirect templates, but I'm not sure where to start the discussion)
 * I am of the opinion that we are not enforcing our notability guideline and underlying policies stringently enough (cf. WP:Amnesia test) but that in increasing such enforcement we are obliged also to do a better job directing both readers and editors to alternative outlets, preferably those that support HTTPS and other basics of information security (such as not storing passwords in plaintext).
 * The information-security digression is a distraction, although not to be omitted entirely; the main point is "both readers and editors." Also, this essay would be about the general concept of alternative outlets; suggesting any one in particular for any specific topic is out of scope.
 * "WP:HERE is a sliding scale" or "What WP:NOTNOTHERE means" - The term "here to build an encyclopedia" is potentially misleading to new editors. For one thing, the "wide range of interests" ideal described in WP:HERE is ill-defined and unenforceable. Since everyone is busy with real life to some extent, each person cannot do everything; specialization on one's interests is unavoidable. We should not neglect tedious maintenance tasks just because they are unpopular, as that creates a vicious cycle. Editor time is cheap(er than you think) – potential alternative essay title? (Is there still a perception that WikiFairies are "more HERE" than the other good-faith WikiFauna classes? TODO.)
 * Related to discussion of redirects above: Yes, redirect maintenance consumes editor time, but so does everything else on Wikipedia.
 * Actually, my original motivation for having a bullet point on WP:(NOT)HERE is that I consider it unhelpful for admins to cite WP:NOTHERE in block reasons without (also) mentioning a more specific policy, except perhaps in extreme WP:DENY cases. This should probably be a separate essay.