Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. WP:SNOWstorm (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki"

This essay is uncivil and unwelcoming. It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'. If it stays it should be in user space, not wiki space. JeffUK 16:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree that it's uncivil. Unwelcoming is a more feasible accusation, but I don't think it's too problematic for publication as an essay. I wouldn't advocate for including it in a welcome template, but it's fine in WP space as an editor's perspective on diction related to Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"New editors who say stuff like "Wiki should do this" and "I'm trying to improve Wiki" always seem to know nothing about Wikipedia" is explicitly biting newcomers, I thought that essays that went against wiki policy should live in user space, not in the WP space? JeffUK 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'd say there's at least one newcomer who needs to look up explicitly in a dictionary. And don't call it "wiki". E Eng 15:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Adding that I think the merge/userfy suggestion below is fine.~~ _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'll stick to keep given that there's no Highlander rule for essays. Obviously if there's disputed changes made by other editors EEng can choose to userfy, but we don't need to decide that in this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear why the nominator thinks it's either uncivil or unwelcoming; it's advising editors on a possibly non-obvious community social norm, using an anecdote by way of simile, and at no point says "not everyone can edit". --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, " no one who actually edits calls it that," i.e., you're not welcome here if you call it 'wiki'. and "When someone tells you they're "here to improve Wiki", watch out!" i.e. that if someone says they're here to improve the encyclopedia, we should care more about the terminology they use than the fact they're here to improve the place. I suppose my main issue with this is that I discovered it when it was thrown at a new user with 'Don't call it wiki', which probably coloured my opinion of the essay itself, but I still think it seems cliquey, elitist, and doesn't have any place here. JeffUK 17:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going out on a limb to guess that it was thrown at a new user refers to this diff at the ANI about MrsSnoozyTurtle? If so, I think it's very much appropriate to advise a new editor jumping on an ANI bandwagon and improperly tossing around phrases like "NOTHERE" that they're in over their head. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the point Jeff is making. Hopefully the hostility can be reduced. Better? As GabberFlasted writes below, it is true that pointing out any kind of jargon cements a kind of divisiveness between new and experienced editors, and if we didn't have any jargon whatsoever, that would be better. However, we do. There are 159 users with {{user notwiki}} on their user page, proudly declaring they feel physical pain when someone uses Wiki to refer to Wikipedia. There isn't an industry, or group, or profession, or organization of more than a few years of existence that doesn't develop jargon, it seems to be the nature of humans. So as long as we do, we should explain that jargon, and help new users not offend at least those 159 people, not to mention the many who feel that way and just don't mark it with a userbox. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Userfy or Merge Addendum: The essay's wording has been tweaked/softened since original writing GabberFlasted (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)TL;DR: It's otherizing, unwelcoming, and if true: entirely unnecessary. I don't understand what good is meant to come out of this essay, and think it's more likely readers will walk away with a new way to categorically disregard their fellow editors.[reply]
Like Rosguill above me, I don't think it's necessarily not everyone can edit-level but I do think it's unwelcoming and bears hallmarks of that nebulous bundle of lite elitism or exclusivity that hangs around any community (particularly online ones) like a bad smell. I believe the essay does not actually convey any constructive or helpful meaning, and that it's rather trying to push some kind of (although very minor in magnitude) badge-of-shame, or generally give editors an excuse to categorically disregard another editor. I strongly disagree with the categorization made above by @GRuban: This essay is not alerting new editors to a non-obvious social norm, it is (intentionally or not) encouraging existing editors/readers to look unfavorably on editors just because they use the term Wiki to refer to the project. I myself am not terribly veteran but I'm not new either and I don't think I've ever come across this No-True-Editor sentiment before, and I would never have thought twice about someone who referred to the project as the Wiki. And ultimately, if this IS something every veteran editor knows about, do we need an essay telling them that?
We obviously don't want an essay telling users to Look out for editors that call it the Wiki, they're probably clueless/CIR boogeymen but that's how this essay currently reads. It's divisive, it's frankly currently mean-spirited, and it's not biting newcomers, but it is somewhat otherizing them. I think if it were worded to be more along the lines of "Hey I know you're new, but don't call Wikipedia the Wiki because some veteran users get prickly about that" it would be somewhat better, but I think ultimately this essay in any form just further cements a certain kind of divisiveness that isn't constructive or productive. Sorry for the long read -GabberFlasted (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy as highly duplicative to the older Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. Merge if someone is interested in actually perfroming the merger (such as EEng possibly).~~ Keep. I never thought that the essay is uncivil; even though I really prefer essays not being redundant, it is not a reason to do anything here —Alalch E. 18:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge polish, shorten, and add to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! as possibly useful advice - not only in wiki but in life in general. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! per WP:REDUNDANTESSAY, or userfy if EEng prefers.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has no purpose. Sahaib (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or userfy). Whadya know, I went from the ANI thread to EEng's talk page and immediately saw why this was nominated. Anyway, we keep all kinds of essays that some editors disagree with. That's why they are essays, not guidelines or policies. No one has demonstrated that this particular essay actually violates any policies, just that it can be interpreted as having a negative tone and it can be pointed to in a way that isn't particularly sweet. Not sufficient to delete as a matter of anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And there is no policy basis for saying that we cannot have two essays on the same thing. (Oh, the horror! We must tidy that up!) Here's an idea: edit the essay page to change the tone of it. And if EEng objects to such edits, then move it to user space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. As Tfish points out, it's OK to have multiple essays on the same topic. "Otherizing" -- you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here. And anyway, GRuban's taken the trouble of putting the iron fist into a more velvet glove [1] so the !votes above are ! !voting on the essay as it currently stands. E Eng 01:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think "you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here" is appropriate and civil? If that's an indication of what you think is acceptable behaviour, it's no wonder that you can't see why people might find your essay undesirable. JeffUK 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, I think it's perfectly appropriate. And I assure you that I'm not the one who's failing to see something. Go nanny something else, O Protector of Fragile Egos. E Eng 16:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not constructive, but I couldn't resist
In the same post, he's also mentioned fisting and banging. I, for one, am shocked, shocked, and recommend the bastinadoes. Who would ever have expected such a response from EEng? Well, OK, anyone who has ever read anything he has written outside article space. But other than those people? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more serious: Jeff, dude (or whatever the UK equivalent is - guv'nor?), you're nominating his essay for deletion, and calling it, let me see, "uncivil", "unwelcoming", "cliquey", and "elitist", and you're not expecting him to react unfavorably to this? This is basically his child here. (Yes, he has lots of children - which goes back to the !ing...) Give the man a bit of rope. Now, these things you're saying have, or had, a point, which is what I wrote above, and I tried to adjust the essay to make it less of each of those things. Still, you've now moved from attacking the essay, which there is no way around, really, when you're nominating it for deletion, to attacking him personally. Do you,by chance, know what they say about glass houses and stones, or pots, kettles, and blackness? --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, frankly, I'd be pissed off too, especially if there's any thought in my mind that the essay was not only interpreted incorrectly, but that it was a gross misinterpretation at that. I can't begrudge EEng whatsoever for being frustrated. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are better things to argue about. Ye old “it’s political correctness gone mad, oy vey” Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perfectly good example of a Wikipedia essay. If you find it too incivil, Wikipedia might not be a good place for you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There you go otherizing again. Oh, the otherizing! ~~<<
Keep - Ho-hum. Maybe mark it as humorous if it's particularly incisive for people's tastes. At the same time, it makes valid points, which I think people are missing. Nowhere is it indicated that new users are unwelcome to Wikipedia if they call it "Wiki"; on the other hand, it might in fact indicate a user who could benefit from help learning the ropes if it appears that they're in over their head in certain subject areas. It's no worse than how some admins bring up the fact that new users whose names include "Truth", "Patriot", or "Fact-Finder" are usually BATTLEGROUND trolls. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sahaib. This clearly fails WP:PURPOSE. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite the clause in WP:PURPOSE that explicitly pertains to removing essays of this sort? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the clause that says that everything has to have a purpose on Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there goes Wikipedia:Please do not murder the newcomers. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag with {{Humor}} and move on. Also, I would encourage the nominator to explore the wonderful world of counter-essays. Here are some possibilities: Wikipedia:Did you know we don't need more ways to make newbies feel like newbies?, or perhaps Wikipedia:Don't be the Comic Book Guy of Wikipedia, or Wikipedia:Call it wiki if you freaking feel like it, because nobody actually cares, and then link to them from the see also of this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's fine in the Wikipedia space. It's a funny little story, it's a good way of letting people know that Wikipedia isn't abbreviated "Wiki", it's a nice compliment to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! Nothing wrong with it, it reflects existing practice, no reason to delete or userfy in my mind. --Jayron 32 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this essay. Those who dislike it can simply refrain from linking to it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, must we? — Trey Maturin™ 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UT))
Well, that's optional. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites and Jayron. I find it hard to believe this has been causing problems, and a good example for illustrating the concept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "It goes against long standing policy that 'anyone can edit'." Seriously? Advising people that they shouldn't use a particular turn of phrase tells people they can't edit? Quite aside from this startling bit of nonsense, there are dozens upon dozens of policies and guidelines telling editors what they are and are not allowed to edit, and with a great deal more force than a mere essay. I doubt the OP is going to seek to MfD them any time soon. Ravenswing 21:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna bet? E Eng 23:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that it tells anyone they can't edit is hardly a serious one. This doesn't violate any policies or guidelines I'm aware of, and is harmless. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an essay, not policy, it's fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good essay, useful and friendly to newbies, well-written, funny. Someone needs to write an essay about not manufacturing offense. Thparkth (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:MALVOLIO, and I'm pretty sure there are others. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page contains good advice and the opinions of multiple good contributors. That means it's fine as an essay. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No reason to delete this essay. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based deletion rationale has been advanced. Wikipedia is not policed to remove all instances of language that someone, somewhere might find abrasive. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sound reasons above. Disclaimer-- came here from ANI where I was reading about a more serious matter.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. We already have an essay on that topic (that one) which is already clearly marked as humor, and this essay is redundant to that one. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a lot of reasons, but mainly because the reasons for userfying by the OP are unsupportable and frankly absurd. It’s a funny essay, and I just don’t get where the OP is coming from. Then again, some people like the smell of durian, so it takes all kinds. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well within the norms for wiki essays here on Wiki. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll pay for that. E Eng 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.