Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please undelete my articles

Dear Sir these are real information about Dayanidhi Paramahansa dev and Candradhoja Paramahansa Dev I'll give my 100% to adding more information about them. Please undelete them sir . Rexfaster (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am pinging @RHaworth: and @Primefac:, who deleted these articles. Reyk _YO! 15:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted the Dayanidhi page and moved it to Draft:Dayanidhi Paramahansa dev. Please continue working on it there. I have added the draft tags to allow you to submit it when it is ready. Pinging Rexfaster. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose adding section "Published"

I would like to add a 4th substantive section to the page, with the section title "Published". This will explain that cited sources must be published sources. While I could simply be WP:BOLD and do this, given that this essay is cited so often, particularly to new editors, i want to offer the chance for others to object to this change before I make it, to avoid instability of the essay page. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, I mean the utmost brevity and simplicity are the soul of this page. I would prefer not to break the symmetry between the three highlighted items in the box, and the three sections of text below it. It there is a need to emphasize that the significant coverage has to have been, you know, published in the reliable independent sources, could this not be done by tweaking a word or two in the existing text?: Noyster (talk), 08:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Many other policies/guidelines/essays are available to spell out the nuances. The key point about this essay is its focus, and that should not be disturbed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. The "Reliable sources" section already mentions "publisher" and "published". So why would a reader think that unpublished sources are acceptable? It certainly doesn't warrant an additional section. I'm struggling to understand what mistake you are trying to guard against. What kind of source do you think might get used with the current wording? SpinningSpark 10:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThe_answer_to_life%2C_the_universe%2C_and_everything&type=revision&diff=827030019&oldid=817517631

To summarize:

• Transcluding the page would result in only the box at the top being transcluded. This was done because {{42}} is being used at WP:AfC (relevant discussion) for easy reference when declining submissions. It is necessary that {{42}} be up-to-date with this page. The only way to ensure that is to have {{42}} directly transclude from Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. This should not be an issue, as WP:42 has only been transcluded from twice in it's history up until {{42}} was made- both of which are in talk archives. You can see them here.
• Highlighted terms are linked for easy reference. They link to WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:IS respectively. Seems like a common sense change.

Let me know if you have any concerns about these modifications. Thanks, AdA&D ★ 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Did you consider that AFC is not the only place this might get transcluded? When someone transcludes this on to a user's talk page they will really want the entire message to be visible. It is no use just telling people who are completely new to Wikipedia to use reliable sources. Their conception of what constitutes RS is likely to be radically different from what it says at WP:RS. A brief heads up on what we at Wikipedia mean by it is what is needed. Same goes for the other highlighted words.

I don't see that keeping {{42}} and this page identical is such a big issue. The fourteen words in that message are a true reflection of policy. WP:42 is not itself policy, as has often been pointed out, so any change here does not create a compunction to make changes elsewhere. SpinningSpark 23:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it has only been transcluded twice in it's history before {{42}} was created. AdA&D ★ 01:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking highlighted terms

Should the highlighted terms "significant coverage", "reliable source", an "independent" link to WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:IS respectively? AdA&D ★ 02:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The second and third links are already there in the text, and the page is short enough not to merit repeated links. I would link the words "significant coverage" in the sentence We need significant coverage. That link, SIGCOV, should be inserted somewhere, as it links to the GNG section of N, of which this page is a simplified version: Noyster (talk), 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be against adding any new links. This suggestion wouldn't be much more than a repeat of WP:N. We should be removing links from this page rather than adding more. The essence of this page is to present the information in the minimalist possible way. Not overwhelm the reader with policies and guidelines to read. Keep it to the absolute essential information they need to write a compliant article. Exactly how many links do you think the average SPA is going to follow? The terms spin, press release, and tabloid could go just to start off with. Everyone knows what those words mean and the Wikipedia usage is not out of the ordinary. Even add footnotes is not so important. Yes, it's helpful if editors put footnotes in the correct format, but if they don't that's just a matter for cleanup. The essential thing we need to encourage them to do is to cite their sources in some format in the first place. SpinningSpark 14:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove the "some editors disagree"

TonyBallioni recently added weasel wording about how "some editors" think this should not be used at AfD. I dislike this line, and I personally cite this page at AfD. I really don't like being told not to do so by Tony's fiat. It seems we need to discuss this, because Tony is going to edit war to keep this wording here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an entire essay at the bottom about how not to use this at AfD: it's just an essay that oversimplifies our actual standards here, and I'm frankly shocked as to the aggression this has warranted: I'm fine with any tweaks, but I don't think wholesale reversion is needed here: we normally include Template:Essay on all other essays which makes this point clear. My concern is that new users, for whom this essay is intended might think that simply meeting this essay guarantees a place in Wikipedia (it doesn't), and hedging our bets to let them know that it might not always work like that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, would you be fine including the essay template? That would make the same exact point I was trying to make here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a whole essay at the bottom of the page that says this page is fine to cite at AfD. Why is your opinion enshrined on this page, yet mine is not? "Some editors" may object to this page being cited at AfD, but that doesn't mean that people should be discouraged from doing so. "Some editors" don't add their own opinions to pages when others object. As far as adding the "essay" tag, this has been discussed to death already. You're barging into an old debate, telling one side that their opinion means nothing, and edit warring to keep in one side's views. The status quo version was just fine. It doesn't need weasel wording from people who dislike this page, and we already have a note that this page isn't a policy/guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything is abused, occasionally. Adding essay templates won't stop that. The whole point of this page is its simplicity with a minimum of doubt for new users who genuinely do not understand why an article on what their grandfather did in a war may not be suitable. If there is evidence of systemic abuse of this page at AfD, it may be reasonable to mention that this page is not gospel. However, anyone who thinks that this is a definitive statement of everything they need to know is clearly not going to understand the subtleties of either an essay tag or a note about dissenting views. Everything is disputed, except the fact that WP:N is often badly misunderstood and a clear alternative is sometimes helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: This page is often a target for editors who aren't fond of the GNG or some aspect of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, resulting in heated-yet-tedious debates. It's currently tagged as an information page (or at least categorized that way), which seems fairly accurate (though the title of the page has the potential to confuse, I suppose). It's basically saying what WP:N says, and therefore do think that it's more of an information page than an essay. Some editors disagree with this page like some editors disagree with the GNG. I don't think I've ever linked to it from anywhere, but don't think it's a problematic page to link to, either. FWIW, despite the response you're receiving, it's not a crazy suggestion you have. :) There's definitely going to be some "no, not this again," having seen several attempts to subtlely undermine WP:N by proxy here in the past. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I've self-reverted. I didn't realize how contentious it was, and I was confused by the edit summary of NinjaRobotPirate's revert, which didn't really make sense to me as I was just stating what seemed to be a factual statement.

My concern is/was that it is so often used with new users who might not understand our sourcing guidelines or this page, that it might give a false hope of inclusion or something of the sort, so they should know that it's typically better to cite other policies and guidelines, which I don't think the current note does well. Oddly enough, my concern was that this essay oversimplifies the policies and that new users might try to use it to get around NCORP or our guidelines on promotion (as I most often see it used with promo editors). This all makes sense now, and I've self-reverted. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not making it worse intentionally was perhaps the most constructive action since 9 April 2010 on this page. –84.46.52.217 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of 42

Quick question. How is the number 42 connected to this topic? Might be good to explain this in the essay somewhere. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. I am clearly behind on my memes :-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I'm glad that you figured this out, and now it's time to help out a fellow editor. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Well... I daresay that particular meme has been around since before most Wikipedians were born. If you haven't read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it's a fun read. A trilogy in five parts (which makes sense if you remember how the publication sequence went). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That trilogy is amazing, a must read. "And another thing" is, well... bleh. The movie is good too. But like with most of the novel-to-movie adaptions, many jokes, few characters, and a few anecdotes have not made it to the movie. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

... in your own words?

This page is so great. The one additional thing I have to tell people is "don't cut and paste; use your own words; use quotation marks around any direct quotes longer than a few words." Does that feel like a common enough issue to be part of LUE? – SJ + 17:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Essay box?

Is there any specific reason this page doesn't have the "This is an explanatory essay, not a guideline or policy" template at the top of the page like most other essay summaries of policy/guidelines; and instead has it as inline text buried at the bottom of the page? The editnotice for this talk page even specifically references that it's "typically identified at the top of the information page", which might be confusing to users when they look and see that it's not that way here.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-emptively, before someone yells about how "this is not an essay" -- fine, whatever, the "this is a summary of policy" template, either way. There should be *something* distinctive indicating the page's policy status at the top, instead of buried at the bottom as in-line text. I don't actually care about whether the status is essay or not, I care about the fact that it's unclear until you've read all the way through the page. And the most recent archive discussion on this point appears to have been over eight years ago and doesn't appear to have a consensus, so forgive me if "this has been discussed to death before," isn't a particularly compelling reasoning.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The drama from several years ago was annoying enough that most people gave up on editing this page. For example: Special:Diff/670423310. Some of the people involved in that drama are now indefinitely blocked or have left, so it might be safer to edit the page now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please regard Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything as a test: should every one of the millions of pages here follow the same format with the same boxes and same style? Or might life be sufficiently complex that some exceptions arise? If exceptions do arise, should the closest-fitting box be used any way because that would scratch an itch? Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. And fortunately, they don't. Now that we've satisfied that, should exceptions to a general best practice have a good reason for being exceptions? Would the universe not be a kinder and better place if it were to prefer to err on the side of being helpful over unique? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)