Wikipedia talk:The deadline is now

why is this confined to "important" articles?

If the reasoning differs between "important" and "unimportant" articles, it should be explained in this essay. I don't see such difference, so the "deadline is now" for any article, not just for the arbitrarily selected ones. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting!

I suppose my thinking was that most people would say some of Wikipedia's are about unimportant subjects. Therefore they are not receptive to the idea that false content constitutes an emergency in those articles. I deliberately left it open for the reader to decide what is important.

Speaking personally, I don't think it is a big deal if the plot summary for season 4 of House inaccurately describes the plot. But I do think it is a big deal if a corporation uses an article to puff up their brand. Risingrain (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic Another thing. The distinction between more and less important articles is something which already has currency on Wikpedia as described in that link. Risingrain (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this essay is written not as a thought experiment, but to actually be referred to. I guess that in the light of WP:ignore all rules you don't aim to write a step-by-step procedure for everyone to follow to the last letter, but just an essay. That is, the use case typical for 90% of uses is that someone says on a talk page or in an edit summary: "Here, I've fixed this-and-that per WP:NOW". Here, confinement only to the important article's becomes pretty much unwanted and confusing, because that person already implicitly asserted that the article is important (for that person): it is important because they care to work on it, and they care to point out that they want misinformation to be fixed "now". They are the Wikipedia, and they are the decisive importance indicator. Yes, maybe they are die-hard fans of Season 4 of House, and they prefer Wikipedia to spread less information, but verifiable, than to spread a large amount of misinformation on the subject - why on Earth should this essay question the very proper behavior?

PS. If you saw Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria you also need to see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that it would overcomplicate things if someone could say "WP:NOW only applies to important articles". I have changed it to eliminate that possibility. Risingrain (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The deadline is now (for a different reason)

The deadline may also be now because Wikipedia may potentially it may be people's only source of unbiased information (through projects like Wikipedia Zero), it's seems to me to be important to give them as much useful information as possible. Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Both good reasons. Midgley (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing articles

Every day we retard the creation of a Missing Article, is a day lost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

template:uncited

Template:uncited can serve as a placeholder in the meantime, which avoids people being misled. --Handroid7 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed a 'see also' link

I have removed "Wikipedia:There is no deadline, which expresses the opposite view" from the See also heading.

This is due to the onslaught against me at Talk:Dune (2021 film)#See also, where there are two films, both named Dune; Wikipedia applies the disambiguation, eg., Dune (1984 film) to it's article titles. The most recent (2021) version might also be known as Dune: part one.

I wanted it in Headings (at Dune (2021 film)) but the depth/reasons for disagreement would also seem applicable here - the main criterion being it is already linked in the prose.

MOS:SEEALSO states: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Is there any exception for this essay, not being an actual article?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I see after trawling through the history that the link(s) was/were added as a hat (later moved under Heading) 1 August 2013. The same 'hats' appear at Wikipedia:There is no deadline and Wikipedia:There is a deadline - I'm not inclined to trawl these.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer, I'll be honest, this seems WP:POINTy to me. I take it you disagree with the removal of "See also" links here and in Dune (2021 film), and were upset that someone reverted your addition. With that said, I think that due to the intimate similarity between the films that the current placement of a link to Dune (1984 film) in a hatnote is warranted.

I also disagree with the strict "no repeat links" rule at MOS:SEEALSO, as I believe that a "See also" section can usefully contain links that have particularly strong connections to the subject, serving a purpose like a navbox in organizing related pages. And for what it's worth, I think here again a hatnote is warranted. Embedding links in the body text doesn't show as clearly the existence of this family of related pages about deadlines. – Anon423 (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ThanQ for your comment Anon423 - I'm unsure whom/what you are alluding to by POINTy, but I surmise you mean I am being disruptive? By following the 'now' proven mini-consensus at Dune 2021, reliant upon a 2017 RfC? This is disruption? Quite the reverse, knowing that WP deprecated use of the term 'page' in favour of article, I am querying if essays are treated differently.

I am unsure how I landed at Dune 2021 - I knew-not of it, and don't care, having removed from my Watchlist. I knew of the 1984 film and discussed the book with my former neighbour (an avid reader) pre-internet. The [[See also}} heading at Dune 2021 was reverted after 35 minutes, and the hat I added as a replacement was removed 19 minutes later. The Dune 1984 hat I added tentatively (ie., not including the words ...for the film of the same name) is extant. Those OWNing the Dune 2021 content were obviously not swayed by my assertion that either the heading or hat were warranted. That was disruption, IMO, for two films both ostensibly named the same to have reasonable content removed. At Dune 2021, there is a presumption that readers trawl religiously and comprehensively through the article in sequence - a leap of imagination, IMO. I look at lede, infobox, TOC/headings, images and see also/ external links before deciding if I need to wade through a text wall; accordingly, inline wikilinks could be missed. Rarely, if ever, do I look at navboxes and cats. The Dune 2021 lede Ocean of blue staggered me - 14 articles for the actors alone.

I was attacked by a new user (guessing August) and in the considerable explanations of WP precepts offered (individually-composed, avoiding templated warnings), I used WP:NOW (four new user attacks of varying ferocity in a year). Knowing that I hadn't read NOW for some time, I accessed it again; obviously I noticed the links, being fresh in my mind.

I apologise this has turned into a polemic.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about implying disruptiveness. In response to your question about essays, I'd say that article-space rules aren't really applicable to project space, though many of the same principles hold. Maybe people won't mind having a few repeated "See also" links; if there are already so many "See also" links in some essays I don't see why anybody would really mind.

I can see how the reversions ("See also" after 35 minutes, hatnote after 19) must have been upsetting. That another user's addition of the same {{For}} hatnote remains on the article I can also see as hurtful – after all, it's the same content; why is it allowed when somebody else adds it? – but in the end it seems everybody does agree that it makes the article better. Are you unhappy with this?

My inclination is that though I disagree with the "no repeat links" rule of SEEALSO, I wouldn't contravene it, especially with such opposition. I like the hatnote more anyway. And to take a further step back, even without the hatnote I think it's not really worth getting too upset about. Some things might be important enough to make a stand on, but I think "See also" and hatnote links fall within "It's not the end of the world". Sometimes people just don't agree with you. I try ultimately to do the best for Wikipedia and my mental health. – Anon423 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)