Wikipedia talk:UPPERCASE

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Maybe add WP:NOTBROKEN?

I was surprised to not see among the examples WP:NOTBROKEN, which people take to be an essay on not making changes that don't make actual improvements (i.e., "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"), when it is merely and specifically on not replacing wikilinks to redirects with piped wikilinks. However, other folks may not have seen as much abuse of that one as I have, I will just leave this comment here so if someone else comes with the same thought, then that's probably enough of a sample to call for it to be added. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this but there's a lot of Wikipedia I don't get involved in. I had a look at links to the shortcut here and instead of talk pages it listed hundreds of article pages. I can't see how those pages are linking to that shortcut. WhatamIdoing have you any idea? I agree though that if this is a common mistake, it merits a mention, and is in keeping with the spirit of the essay. -- Colin°^Talk 10:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I conjecture that all of those mainspace pages are redirects whose categorization templates link to WP:NOTBROKEN. For example: Abbreviations, which redirects to Abbreviation, has the template {{R from plural}}, which links to WP:NOTBROKEN. You could try Special:Search/all:"wp:notbroken". Shells-shells (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. I didn't notice that I'd got redirected. I can also alter the links page to focus on article or wikipedia talk pages. I haven't seen any violations at a quick glance. I note there is an essay Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it with WP:AINT and WP:BROKE shortcuts. -- Colin°^Talk 17:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the shortcuts beginning with WP:NOT... are the ones most often mistaken for a policy page.

When people give the wrong link, editors can always ask them to check the link and correct it. The fact that this rarely happens is just more evidence that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You all mind if I go hogwild

Two people have written most of this essay, so I figure I will post here before I add something onto it.

I think it would be nice to have a section on the various WP:NOT content sections (e.g. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:NOTMANUAL). I see people link these all the time on talk pages/edit summaries/AfDs, often in such a way that the link is the entire comment -- and in a way that often makes no sense.

For example, WP:NOTDIRECTORY gives a list of criteria for what specific types of lists aren't acceptable -- it doesn't just say "lists of things are bad". WP:NOTPRICE gives criteria for when pricing should be included in an article -- it doesn't just say "we should never mention the price of anything". But all the time I will see people removing, more or less, any random thing they think is dumb, and then waving vaguely to some "NOT" shortcut (sometimes even one that is explicitly written to not indiscriminately remove stuff, like WP:CHANGELOG). jp×g 🗯️ 06:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]