Wikipedia talk:The deadline is now

project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This essay has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. He cites a page that counsels gradualism in editing, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. "Articles have long histories, and there is no WP:DEADLINE," he says. Coffman cites a different doctrine in response. "I'm of the view that there's indeed a deadline: Wikipedia:The deadline is now," she writes.

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Risingrain (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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: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)[reply]

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

ThanQ for your comment

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]