User:JPxG/All essays by size/Transcluded
Essay on awards and recognition / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From User:JPxG/All essays by size.
- Essay 1: User:ColinFine/Building Houses, 9, 2021-10-22 17:26:59
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 2: User:Allenjambalaya/Essays, 9, 2013-08-10 09:46:04
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 3: User:WikiEditCrunch/Essay, 9, 2018-06-08 15:16:11
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 4: User:Jbhunley/Common policy misunderstandings, 9, 2018-04-12 13:44:46
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 5: User:Great Cod/reference, 18, 2022-03-11 22:18:19
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
FL | The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
A | The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). |
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
GA | The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of literary movements |
- Essay 6: User:FlowerPetals/It, 23, 2020-09-19 22:13:14
This is a humorous essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is made to be humorous. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously. |
This essay's use in the Wikipedia Signpost led to a lot of drama. I've put up a FAQ about it here: User:SMcCandlish/TG-NB. |
This page in a nutshell: Below is an example of why you do not want Wikipedia to honor subjects' demands for idiolect pronoun replacements like xie, or wacky stage names, or trademark stylizations, or honorific titles – even if some people in the real world use them. We can record what reliable sources tell us about the subject's own usage (and some sources' usage about that subject), but we do not adopt it, in Wikipedia's own voice. |
It, JPxG/All essays by size, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has Itself-actualized as an alien and post-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars.
- Always capitalize It, to distinguish from other uses of the word it.
- When spoken aloud, "It" must be enunciated with stress and length, so that the capital letter can be intuited.
- The form "It" is used no matter what the construction, as illustrated below (with examples of special exceptions).
- Capitalize Itself and similar compounds, in reference to It.
- What do you think? → What does It think?
- What did he say? → What did It say?
- His shirt doesn't fit him well. → Its shirt doesn't fit It well.
- We are going to the store. → It and I are going to the store. (It is unique and is not a part of anything.)
- This food is all for us. → This food is all for It and me.
- This food is all ours. → This food is all Its and mine.
- What do you all/you lot want? → What do you all/you lot and It want?
- He's pissing me off. → It's pissing me off.
- When It is Itself using the first person: I put the lotion on my skin → It puts the lotion on Its skin. (It is beyond the desperate loneliness of the "royal we", or the me of ego.)
- In the unusual case of pluralization, e.g. when imagining multiple Its, then They/Their (capitalized) is required.
- When discussed in the same breath with another actual entity that identifies as It, use It and It.
- Capitalize any use of Who, Whom, Whose, Which, or That in direct reference to It.
- In a self- construction that refers to It, use Itself-, as in: It is self-actualizing → It is Itself-actualizing.
- The pronoun to use in reference to the historical It before the Itself-actualization, is It-that-was .
Outside of English, replace It with the equivalent word in the language in question.
- If that is a gendered language, It is referred to with neuter gender when available.
- If neuter is not available, alternate between masculine and feminine; use a similar approach for a strongly gendered language that has no separate word for It.
- If the language (or font) does not have an upper-/lower-case distinction, then the first letter of It or equivalent must be stressed some other way, such as boldface, or imperial purple.
It is not simply a person. When referred to in a generically descriptive way, It is the Entity. This must be separated out from constructions that would otherwise include It:
- All the people who came to my party were fun. → All the people and the Entity who came to my party were fun.
(Except at the beginning of a sentence, the in front of Entity is not capitalized; that would just be ungrammatical.)
In long form, It may formally be referred to as "Its Ineffable Wonder, the Alien Space-God It, Pope-Emperor of ChaOrder".
Those who are not among Its personal circle should refer to It, in third person, as "It (feel the frightful serenity)", or "It (FFS)" in short form. Leaving out this theologically significant honorific is deeply disrespectful.
Update: Beginning 1 April 2025, Its designation changes from "It" to the symbolic representation ꧁꧂, pronounced "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It". Please ensure that your Unicode support is sufficient by then. Also on this date, It will be sealed in a chamber with no windows through which It may be viewed.
All of the above is beyond a mere preference; it also describes a religious conviction, and a position of spiritual leadership, as well as registered trademarks – it is formally official. If the enumerated preferences are not respected per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF policy, even on talk pages, this will be a WP:BLP violation, since that policy applies to all content, not just biographical article material. This will also constitute WP:Incivility, and may be interpreted as a WP:Personal attack and WP:Harassment if this recurs.
This user is allowed on Wikipedia because It is considered humorous. Neither It nor Its comments should be taken even remotely seriously. |
- Essay 7: Wikipedia:The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of humans, 32, 2022-03-19 18:43:36
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
We're here.
- Essay 8: User:Mike78519, 35, 2009-10-25 03:34:28
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 9: User:Basket of Puppies/vulgarity, 36, 2010-05-13 23:35:42
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Don't use vulgarity.
- Essay 10: User:Thepenguin9/The Last Laugh, 37, 2020-09-17 12:29:36
This essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
This page in a nutshell: {{{1}}} |
- Essay 11: User:Darbacour/Astroturfing(User Opinion), 49, 2009-08-03 01:49:14
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
(essay to be written in totality later)
- Essay 12: Wikipedia:The Greenfield rule, 56, 2020-11-03 07:55:11
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is an essay on WP:NPOL. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
- Essay 13: User:Eulalefty/sandbox, 57, 2015-05-11 13:06:09
This is the user sandbox of JPxG. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review! |
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.
Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."
For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for advocacy.
- New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility, but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
- Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However, a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them.