![]() | Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drama page. |
|
To avoid drama, please do not delete this article. If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you may propose that it be userfied - I won't object much to that. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The previous version was truly just an essay, but the topic is worthy of standing as a guideline if not policy, so I've rewritten it to align with current practices and policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my earlier version could be the intro, and FeloniousMonk's longer version could be the body. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This page used to be a redirect to WP:ANI, was nominated fairly recently for deletion, and survived. Now the deletion discussion has completely disappeared, from both my list of contribs and the MfD logs, and this essay is here instead? What gives?? TotientDragooned (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, suggest guideline status. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, hats off for a well-written policy article. I don't see why it hasn't been approved yet. There's one thing I don't get though. The text says
"[...]openly challenge the behavior of dramamongers, not the content of their comments. Take away their cover by surfacing that this appears to be drama. Ask them directly if they have noticed any problem with their method. Say you noticed attempts to spread the dispute and would like to know what sparked such an action. If they make fun of your facts, ask them to explain what was wrong with the facts. Often they have no basis for their actions, so the more you press them for details, the more their drama will fall apart."
This seems contradictionary to me; how can anyone "not challenge the content of their comments" and at the same time "press them for details" (about the facts they made fun of)? Perhaps an example could be given to illustrate this more fully? Cyborg (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the idea to promote to policy or guideline has pretty much died. I think it's a wonderful essay, but I'd worry that it would actually have the effect of promoting more drama than reducing it. My personal opinion would be to essay the article, then create the WP:DRAMA as a dab. Possible items to include being: WT:RFA, AN, AN/I, WQA, any of the MOS talk pages, Fiction (notability), Date linking proposal, the majority of XfD discussions, and dozens of RFC pages, and .. well, I could go on - but I won't — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 10:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Join us for the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout! For 5 days, starting July 18, 2009, Wikipedians are being asked to voluntarily refrain from editing all non-article areas of Wikipedia, and instead dedicate themselves to creating, cleaning up, and building articles. -- Ϫ 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this proposed guideline should have a section on the Principle of least drama: If there is more than one mechanism for accomplishing what you want on Wikipedia, choose the one that creates less drama. For example, proposing a merge or redirect rather than an AfD, questioning a revert on the talk page rather than testing the 3RR limit, or asking for page protection rather than a block. I've heard this useful principal mentioned, but I haven't found it in the Project space.--agr (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes drama can go from "complete waste of time" to "this is entertaining to watch" or even elevate to "drama about drama" in a meta-ish sort of way.
This should be added to the essay. I'm not up to writing that part right now, so dibs goes to whoever does it first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It implies Drama is only on purpose; no, a lot of destructive drama is unintentional. e.g. "don't make pages at all about the shooting:( it's too soon:(". <-Drama, genuine but doesn't help. --Leladax (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that WP:DRAMA and WP:Wikidrama redirect to this page but WP:WIKIDRAMA redirects to Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. This seems dumb, because the two shortcuts should clearly go to the same page. But the central point of this essay seems to be that Drama is bad for Wikipedia, and the central point of the other essay seems to be that Drama may not be bad. I created a new shortcut for the other essay, WP:ISDRAMABAD, but it seems wrong to me that this page be the default link whenever someone discusses drama.
I think the best solution is to have a single page, here, that discusses what Wikidrama is, why it can be a problem, and why assuming it is bad can be a problem. If people would rather have two position essays I could get behind that too, but calling this one "Wikipedia:Drama" implies that it is not taking a position and I think we ought to consider renaming it in that case. I don't mind performing the merge (and this page is kinda verbose and could use some editing anyway) but I figure this could be controversial, hence the discussion. Mangojuicetalk 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an offensive and abusive term. It reminds of those right wing extremists that whenever someone refers to WW2 they invoke "Godwin's Law" to inflict censorship, even if the situation perfectly warrants it. --94.69.49.203 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
"the community's inherent unity". srsly? The most drama-ladden board seems to be WP:AE, where the Israel-Palestine proxy-ewar is being conducted. Since when did those guys have inherent unity? FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This is seemingly original Wikipedia thought (I could be wrong). Which would be against guidelines. The idea seems correct but it is veiled scientifically studied idea. Of which I could not find anything of. Ned (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
"You can't fight fire with fire" is not correct words.·Carn·!? 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)