Wikipedia talk:Don't lie
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
See also[edit]
Next up on the Wikipedia essay docket[edit]
Wikipedia:Eat your peas. harej 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Go play outside. Listmeister (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Shifted from the main page (since it probably does not belong)[edit]
I don't know why this page exist. I think it should just be deleted--96.245.40.108 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
(move by 175.156.117.94 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC))
Proposal for development of this essay[edit]
One of the useful roles of Wikipedia essays is that if they gain enough consensus, they may even someday become guidelines or policies. The current two word essay does not have potential for becoming a guideline. Moreover, the current two word essay does not even meet one of the barest requirements of an essay (as the term is commonly used outside of Wikipedia): stating arguments supporting the proposed position. The current essay has two words ("Just don't") which contribute nothing beyond the title. The current essay merely affirms the title. If you wanted to be really concise, you could remove the "Just", and then have a one word "essay", reading "don't." As such, I propose to develop this essay, following the examples set out in other Wikipedia essays. I propose that this essay set out several arguments why Wikipedians should not lie, and then provide supporting examples and evidence.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I know this article survived its 2011 AfD. Interestingly, though, there is an essay about one sentence articles and essays. Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make states that "One sentence "articles" and "essays" should be deleted as not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal is to wait for comments/input for a reasonable period, and once input and suggestions have been received and discussed, commence on the project of expanding this essay. It is a standard process in Wikipedia that a stub-class entry can be developed by other editors.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I like it how it stands. Its brevity is central to its truth. Killiondude (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I will repeat a point I made above. The essay does not go beyond the title. It merely restates the title. As well, I would see the point about brevity being the key to the message if the essay was on being concise, and the essay text was "Keep it short." However, I don't see the natural link between brevity and not lying. Regarding the issue of the essay merely restating the title, the key to advancing a point is developing arguments in favour of the point. These arguments do not have to be lengthy. They can be point form, in bullets. They can be concise. At a much more general level, any text on Wikipedia is subject to editing. When a page is at a stub stage, such as this one, it is normal for the page to be developed by editing.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Essays states that "You do not have to be the one who originally created an essay in order to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Added to and modified the essay, as per WP:Essays. Does anyone know how to do the shortcut code? My attempt caused major error flags to show up, both on this page and on the category page. Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed it!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Added to and modified the essay, as per WP:Essays. Does anyone know how to do the shortcut code? My attempt caused major error flags to show up, both on this page and on the category page. Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Essays states that "You do not have to be the one who originally created an essay in order to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I will repeat a point I made above. The essay does not go beyond the title. It merely restates the title. As well, I would see the point about brevity being the key to the message if the essay was on being concise, and the essay text was "Keep it short." However, I don't see the natural link between brevity and not lying. Regarding the issue of the essay merely restating the title, the key to advancing a point is developing arguments in favour of the point. These arguments do not have to be lengthy. They can be point form, in bullets. They can be concise. At a much more general level, any text on Wikipedia is subject to editing. When a page is at a stub stage, such as this one, it is normal for the page to be developed by editing.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Just don't[edit]
Without disrespect to other editors' opinions and/or contributions here, this page was better as a simple "just don't". Its punchiness (in contrast to WP's other essays) was what made it so arresting. Re arguments above, WP:ESSAYS isn't an inflexible rule; we can surely "IAR" at least as much in WP space as in namespace. (The additional prose itself is fine but better used elsewhere if it hasn't already been said.)
This isn't that big of a deal, of course, but..... was there a broad consensus to change it? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 11:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Middle 8: As you can see from the MfD, editors only support keeping this "essay" if it has content. Your "punchiness" would result in deletion. As for me, I recommend against ever citing IAR. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)