Wikipedia talk:There is no deadline

I've reverted the recent edit to remove text, since if you check a large number of the links to this page, that's why it is being linked too. If people are linking to it for that particular reason, the essay should make that particular point, since people want it to. Hiding T 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering, once a page has achieved good length and verificability, can't be updated, has no vandalism, errors, or anything else a good article doesn't have, can an admin make it so it can no longer be edited to avoid vandalism? I put this on this talk page so because it seems to contradict this, although I have heard of locking. Meisfunny Oh yeah! 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles can always be improved, even if it's just the prose. Therefore, locking pages is in almost all cases not desired. There are however talks to introduce Flagged revisions on en-wiki some day (maybe already this year), which is close to your described concept to stop vandalism. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:DEADLINE redirects here, not to Wikipedia:There is a deadline, although each essay lists the shortcut. I think that the other is the more obvious target when applying common sense, but convention is such that most references intend to link to this essay. Thoughts?--~TPW 15:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should link there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

DYK has a deadline

DYK has a deadline of seven days of article creation, so DYK actually has a deadline. Thingofme (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Trainwreck

IMNSHO this much-mutated page is now a complete trainwreck. The P.T. Barnum "something for everybody" approach was a bad idea. Perhaps ironically, the original essay doesn't actually say or mean what I thought There is no deadline meant, but that's not the problem. The problem is that everybody and their grandmother has elbowed their way in with opposing views. These opposing views frankly should neither be on the same page nor disambiguated from the same link but stand on their own, with their own links, but I'm pretty sure the perceived need to hijack the audience of people who said WP:TIND in the expectation they were linking the original essay was the entire point of all the other POV-pushers who've elbowed in on the same page. This has now created a situation of total confusion as to what anybody who says (or once said) WP:TIND in a discussion actually meant. Several of the views on the current page are mutually exclusive. Whoever said or still says WP:TIND now – well, they can't mean all the things, but what DO they mean? Nobody knows. So basically, this means nothing anymore. If everybody's views are the meaning of TIND, nobody's views are. What's worse, I bet a bunch of people are saying WP:TIND or WP:DEADLINE in discussions without realising that the page they're linking is a complete trainwreck of a "multi-essay", and thereby devoid of any discernable and distinguishable meaning. Yes, hypothetically, people could be aware of all of this and could link directly to the section espousing the view they share, but who does that really? Again, all these alternative views should have been posted as separate essays on separate pages with their own separate shortcuts, and they should have succeeded or failed on their own merit and not by riding on someone else's coattails. That's my opinion. I'm Paul Schindler. Not really. But see you next week on The Computer Chronicles. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: This is where this nonsense started, all the way back in 2008. And then of course—predictably—everybody else "had one" too, and demanded equal time; as of 2021, this tumour is still growing. I would have added my own, except you don't vandalise Wikipedia to make a point, and I think everybody who muscles in with a substantially different view is essentially vandalising the original essay and going full Dracula on its oxygen supply of well-known shorthand redirects. Note how as of that 2021 edit, it was theoretically arguable that the Elmer's glue that holds this anthology together is the common agreement that there is no deadline, but there are several problems with that excuse for the state of this page: For one, at least three sections, arguably more, contradict that supposedly shared minimum consensus. And then, as of this writing, someone—I guess inevitably—has once again inserted their own opposing view right into the lede precisely because they meant to contradict people citing this page. Finally and most fatally, you don't actually need an essay if all you want to say is that there isn't a deadline. As it stands, it makes more sense to literally write "There is no deadline" than to write "There is no WP:DEADLINE", given how the latter leads to this trainwreck of everything and nothing, for views, views, views. Boy, I can't wait until these go up to eleven.

I randomly came here to say more or less the same thing. I linked to the essay in a discussion to mean "there's no need to rush into closing it" and after publishing my comment, I started reading the essay to see which of the many POVs in it was more closely related to my meaning. Not only I found any any POVs to make any mention of that role but I was surprised to find 2-3 POVs that actually talked about the exact opposite of whatever the title is saying, even though there exists a specific essay just for that, to work as an antithesis of this, also linked. If somehow the general sentiment of the community has changed in regard to this topic then it makes more sense completely deleting this essay than just keeping it in the current state. - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)