Wikipedia talk:Don't panic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chairboy, I added a section. I hope you won't mind since this is under your user page. I'm unsure of the etiquette in this situation. --TreyHarris 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is already good enough for the Wikipedia namespace. --cesarb 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I second cesarb's opinion. Thryduulf 13:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I third it. Babajobu 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll move this to Wikipedia:Don't panic in a few hours, barring disagreement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Great guideline, well stated. The only change I made was to remove explicit mention of pedophiles, to avoid the notion that this policy was created solely as backlash to the "pedophile template" discussion. Deco 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good guideline, with a good edit by Deco. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. We needed a page like this. Now I'm just wondering if there's any way to sneak in a nonintrusive reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree this is a good guideline, although describing it as humor or essay might also be useful. In any case, I think we are probably fine with removing the proposed tag at this point... (And I see that the subtle reference to HHG has been added...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Where's my towel?
You can't tell me, "Don't panic" if I don't have a towel! User:Zoe|(talk) 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I already have a sonic towel, so this guideline applies to me too. Kim Bruning 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) What's wrong with crossovers then, eh?
[edit] "Dog Molestation"
I think we should delete this section of the guideline, as, though I completely agree that people should just calm down about their morals and see if it violates any actual policies, the current pedophilia debate shows that not all Wikipedians care about the policies in this circumstance, and a guideline is supposed to be a consensus of editors. While it does make sense, there's just too much controversy surrounding this topic at the moment, and it's hopelessly POV in these debates, as of right now. If the ArbCom decides that the pedo userboxes aren't allowed, then this page will look like we're idiots, too. Anyway, just my $.02. --Rory096 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Howdy! Since the example used in the article is dog molestation and not pedophilia, it should be insulated from the current storm in progress. While I started this text as a result of seeing the moral panic over the pedobox situation, my intent for this is that it could be a dispute resolution/avoidance guideline that can apply globally. This pedobox situation will be resolved shortly one way or another, but whatever the result, I still think we should avoid panic in the future. Thanks for your comment, btw! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- The ArbCom seems like they might disallow things like the pedophilia userbox for bringing the "project into disrepute", but yes, people still shouldn't go into the kind of panicky wheel war like what just happened, even if it becomes not allowed.
- I'm not sure what'll happen if Arbcom and Jimbo go one way, and editors' consensus the other way. --AySz88^-^ 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Already existed
I really thought this page, or something very like it, already existed prior to the pedo-debacle. I'd been searching all morning for that project-space page (you'd be amazed how useless the search keys "dire", "emergency", and "action" are), and finally came across this sheerly by chance. Well done! -- nae'blis (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:DON'T?
Is the shortcut WP:DON'T really necessary? I wouldn't say that it accurately tells you about the page (it is easy to guess that it is 'what not to do'), and WP:PANIC describes it much better. But it doesn't do any harm. Daniel (☎) 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is this page?
Is it a policy, guideline, essay, etc? --24.20.69.240 09:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seems like an essay to me. I've added the tag for clarity. >Radiant< 13:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I remember now there was some debate on this. Ashibaka claims it's a guideline as a corollary of WP:COOL (which, incidentally, is also an essay). Kim Bruning claims it's a "descriptive" page. I suppose one could make a case for {{guideline}} but it doesn't seem to be such a big deal either way. >Radiant< 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
